Planning Board Meeting ~ July 1, 2026

2026-07-01 · Planning Board · 1:47:24 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board met on July 1, 2026 with the town planner George absent and Calvin, the road commissioner and code enforcement officer, sitting in his place. The board approved two private road maintenance agreements subject to the conditions the planner had listed, one for an extension of a road given as Clia Road and one for a proposed private road off Meadow Road. It then took up the completeness review of the Pinkham Brook GLC Solar conditional use application, a 600 kW AC ground-mounted array on about 11.1 acres of a 94-acre parcel at 360 Pinkham Brook Road, which is the first application to come before the board under the town's new solar ordinance. The board found the application substantially complete subject to a list of supplemental information, heard the applicant's presentation and questioned it at length on wetlands, the brook crossing, floodplain elevations, buffering and fencing. It scheduled a site walk for July 20 and a public hearing at the August 5 meeting, and tabled further review until then.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:57
   Call to order and agenda amendment

   Roll call showed everyone present. The board agreed to move the Meadow Road maintenance agreement ahead of the Pinkham Brook solar application because the solar item was expected to take longer.

2. 0:57
   Planner's report

   George could not attend and Calvin (?) presented in his place. Members had reviewed the written report and had no comments on it.

3. 6:02
   June meeting minutes

   One correction was made: the minutes recorded that Brian Stikney (?) offered to serve as alternate to the economic development committee, when in fact another member had offered. Nothing else was raised.

4. 6:02
   Road maintenance agreement, Clia Road extension

   The board took up a request to approve a road maintenance agreement for an extension of a road given as Clia Road, map 12 lot 26B, with public comment not taken. Calvin (?) said he had approved the construction and physical layout, and that the planner had recommended approval subject to nine conditions on the form of the agreement, which had been reviewed against the town attorney's template.

5. 6:02
   Applicant's response on the Clia Road agreement

   Heather Roy identified herself as the applicant, said she held written authorisation from the landowners on both sides of the transaction, and explained that the agreement's format is new and now follows the new ordinance. She said she had already dealt with most of the nine conditions and that some information does not exist yet because approval of the agreement is a contingency of the sale.

6. 11:35
   Abutter declining to join the road agreement

   One parcel is served by the road but its owner declined to be a party to the maintenance agreement. He has been moved to exhibit C as a declining party and removed from exhibit A, so he has no voting rights and will not be charged for maintaining the road. Members noted the new ordinance allows an owner to opt out and that the other owner and the LLC accept it.

7. 16:52
   Road maintenance agreement, private road off Meadow Road

   Marcus Cook of 257 Meadow Road (?) said he, his wife, his in-laws and his brother-in-law are building off the driveway being turned into a private road. He said most of the listed conditions had already been dealt with in a resubmitted version, and Calvin (?) said the version in the packet was dated June 26, after the agenda went out, so he would still need to go through it item by item.

8. 16:52
   Fraudulent town invoices

   Marcus Cook (?) reported fake invoices using Town of Durham billing and letterhead, seeking about $4,000 wired to a named account and later adding a $2,000 refundable deposit. His mother-in-law noticed the changed details and called the town office; the material has been passed on for reporting. Members noted the sender appeared to have taken details from publicly posted agendas.

9. 22:01
   Pinkham Brook solar, completeness review opens

   The board began the completeness review of the Pinkham Brook GLC Solar conditional use application, map 4 lot 85, with public comment not taken. Brian Stikney (?) disclosed that he knows Fly Catcher and Dave Brennan well and used to work with him, said he has no financial interest, and said he could review the application without bias; the other members were content for him to take part.

10. 27:11
    Applicant team

    Jesse (?) of Fly Catcher, a Yarmouth land use consulting firm, is agent for Pinkham Brook GLC Solar LLC, a company under Norwich Technologies. Jeff Martin of Norwich Technologies (?) said the company is based in White River Junction, Vermont, has been in business since 2011 and has developed around 14 projects in Maine. Rachel Shein of Norwich joined by phone.

11. 27:11
    Fire and emergency access review

    The fire chief said he had spoken with Rachel Shein at least three times and met Fly Catcher in person, covering entrance and internal access, turnarounds, gate access, a knox box, emergency shut-offs, signage, water supply, brush fire risk, snow removal, pre-incident planning and training. He said he had no remaining concerns on the emergency action plan.

12. 32:21
    Ownership, permits and floodplain

    Norwich took ownership of the project from Green Lantern, which had the original relationship with the landowner. An Army Corps nationwide permit is planned for wetland impacts at the Pinkham Brook crossing, the DOT entrance permit is not yet obtained, and the applicant said the crossing is designed to span the brook and avoid in-stream work. Board members asked how the crossing meets the floodplain standards and were told the engineering team has certified it.

13. 37:32
    Proof of taxes paid and financial capacity

    Under the new ordinance the applicant must show taxes on the property are paid; the board agreed confirmation by email from the clerk would satisfy this. On financial and technical capacity, a bank letter describing a revolving credit facility had been submitted, and the board asked for a project cost estimate and evidence that the facility covers the cost, noting a figure of about 6 million.

14. 43:19
    Site walk and public hearing scheduled

    After working around members' availability the board set the site walk for Monday July 20 at 6:30, with the public hearing at the August 5 meeting. Parking will be in the field at the site.

15. 43:19
    Completeness finding

    Brian Stikney (?) read the motion drafted in the planner's notes, finding the application substantially complete for the purpose of commencing substantive review, subject to the applicant providing permit status documentation, fire and emergency response materials, floodplain and bridge crossing documentation, a wetland and stream impact summary, a financial capacity cost estimate, decommissioning information, clarification of project capacity and final plan revisions. It was amended to add proof of taxes paid and equipment specifications.

16. 49:34
    Applicant's presentation of the project

    The proposal is a 600 kW AC ground-mounted array on about 11.1 acres of a 94-acre parcel, with a gravel access drive off Pinkham Brook Road crossing the brook on a span bridge, a security fence, an equipment pad with transformers and inverters, and overhead and underground lines to the interconnection point. The site would be operated remotely with occasional maintenance visits and mowing about twice a year, with construction limited to daytime hours.

17. 54:52
    Buffering, noise and setbacks

    The applicant said existing forest will be left as a visual buffer with no new plantings, and that the equipment pad is sited over 400 feet from abutting residences and the road. The board asked that the transformer specification include its noise level.

18. 1:00:15
    Site plan detail and the construction entrance

    The site plan runs to 241 pages, with the layout on page 85 and the construction entrance detail on page 86 showing 4-inch minus crushed stone. Calvin (?) said construction entrances often fill with mud and stop working, and asked for a maintenance condition; the applicant said the state construction general permit already requires periodic maintenance and prohibits tracking onto the road. Construction is expected to take four to six months.

19. 1:05:21
    Lease area, easements and CMP

    The lease covers 14 acres while only 11.1 acres will be cleared, and the board asked that the lease area, the access easement and the vegetative easement all be shown on the next plan revision. The applicant does not yet have an easement with CMP for poles on the landowner's property and will obtain one once pole locations are fixed.

20. 1:10:36
    Signage and stream setbacks

    A member suggested identifying signage at the entrance as public information, with the applicant concerned it could invite people onto the site; no requirement was imposed. Calvin (?) questioned a 75-foot stream setback shown on the plan, noting Durham's ordinance requires 100 feet in the stream protection district; the applicant confirmed the 75-foot note applies to a separate tributary and that nothing is proposed within 100 feet of Pinkham Brook except the crossing.

21. 1:15:38
    Siting in woods, and the bridge elevation

    Asked why a wooded site rather than a field, the applicant said it avoids taking hayfield out of use and reduces visual impact, and that the landowner Helen was firm about not putting it in the field. Calvin (?) raised the base flood elevation of 146.7 against a bridge underside of 147.7, one foot of clearance, and noted Pinkham Brook flooded over the road nearby this spring; the board confirmed the crossing will be peer reviewed.

22. 1:20:49
    Maintenance, fencing, decommissioning and ownership

    Topsoil will be kept within the limit of disturbance, the fence is an 8-foot wildlife fence with 6-inch openings, and a member questioned whether 6 inches risks trapping deer, with the applicant saying 6 inches is the state minimum. Norwich typically retains about a third of the projects it develops and sells the rest, with a requirement to notify the code enforcement officer within 90 days of a change of ownership.

23. 1:31:38
    Extent of the wetland delineation

    Brian Stikney (?) questioned why part of the parcel was left out of the wetland delineation, and whether vernal pools could exist in the unsurveyed area. Fly Catcher (?) said the study area was set at the outset around where development was thought possible and where the landowner allowed access, and measured the unsurveyed area at roughly 450 feet from the access road, beyond the 250-foot buffer that applies to significant vernal pools.

24. 1:42:03
    Site walk preparation and tabling

    The applicant agreed to flag the road line, the bridge area and points along the fence before the July 20 site walk. The board then moved to table further review pending the site walk, a site walk summary by the chair, the public hearing at the next meeting, the applicant's responses and preparation of findings.

What was decided

• 0:57
  Amend the agenda to take the Meadow Road road maintenance agreement ahead of the Pinkham Brook solar applicationpassed
• 6:02
  Approve the June meeting minutes with a correction to who offered to serve as alternate on the economic development committeeoutcome unclear
• 11:35
  Approve the road maintenance agreement for the Clia Road extension, map 12 lot 26B, subject to the nine conditions identified by the town planner, to be verified by Calvin before sign-offpassed
• 22:01
  Approve the road maintenance agreement for the proposed private road off Meadow Road, map 3 lots 34, 34A and 34B, subject to the 15 listed conditionspassed
• 37:32
  Accept email confirmation from the town clerk as proof that taxes on the solar parcel have been paid, as required by the new ordinanceoutcome unclear
• 43:19
  Set the site walk for Monday July 20 at 6:30 and the public hearing for the August 5 meetingoutcome unclear
• 43:19
  Find the Pinkham Brook GLC Solar conditional use application substantially complete for the purpose of commencing substantive review, subject to the supplemental information identified by staff, as amended to add proof of taxes paid and equipment specificationspassed
• 1:42:03
  Table further review of the Pinkham Brook GLC Solar conditional use application pending the site walk, a site walk summary by the chair, the public hearing at the next meeting, the applicant's responses and preparation of findings and conclusionspassed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 16:52
  Someone sent fake invoices on Town of Durham billing and letterhead seeking about $4,000 wired to a named account, later adding a $2,000 refundable deposit. Marcus Cook's mother-in-law spotted the changed details and called the town office. Members said the sender appears to be taking details from publicly posted agendas.
• 27:11
  The fire chief said the applicant has offered up to about $10,000 to the town and fire department for equipment, including a UTV and specialised gear, to reach and protect the solar site. He said he has no remaining concerns on emergency access.
• 43:19
  The site walk is Monday July 20 at 6:30, with parking in the field at 360 Pinkham Brook Road, and the public hearing is at the August 5 meeting.
• 1:15:38
  The base flood elevation at the crossing is 146.7 and the underside of the bridge is 147.7, one foot of clearance. Calvin (?) said Pinkham Brook flooded over the road just down from the site this spring. The crossing will be peer reviewed.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 4 passages of motion language, against 8 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2026-06-03 Planning Board2026-08-05 Planning Board →All meetings