Planning Board - Regular Meeting

What day is it? Wednesday. It's supposed to be Friday, right?

Oh, yeah. The sixth and 10. Tuesday. Yes. Tuesday soon. Yeah. March. March. No. Question was I'll have that on my iPad. off some copies.

Yeah, I watch this. I just want to do a quick test.

How's the sound? Check it out. It's coming through. Test, test, test. Test, test, test.

It works, George. It works. All systems are go. We're ready for launch. The whole meeting today. All right. Welcome to the April 1st meeting of the Durham Planning Board. Um, everybody's here. Uh, so we have a porum and uh we can stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Um, any amendments to tonight's agenda? Seeing none. Um, all right, let's roll into uh George's based on our last meeting and what we were anticipating tonight. Um, George has drafted up a uh continuation policy. Um, George, you want to take us through that?

Yeah. um Falmouth and other communities that have very long agendas like averaging 10 items um in order to bring predictability to the process for applicants as well as board members and members of the public. Uh pretty much what they do in many towns is they have a point at in the during the meeting at which they review where they are on the agenda and then uh determine whether they're not whether or not they're going to take any new items after a certain time. Uh so that if they have pretty good sense that they can finish up the agenda in a reasonable time then they will continue beyond say 8:30 9:00 whatever the cut off time is. And if uh they determine that they're halfway through a very long application and it's clear that they're not going to get to the last three items on the agenda, they basically announce at that point that they will not be taking up any new items after uh that time period. And then what happens is so that people who are paying their consultants for example to sit and watch and wait they can be aware and just we indicate that they're asking to be tabled to the next meeting and then uh then they don't have to continue to sit there and wait to see if they're going to get heard. So uh as I said it helps lend some predictability. Up until this point in the last seven years that I've been here we've not hit that point yet. But as you can see from tonight's agenda, it's uh it's getting to that point. Um so pretty much that would be a policy that you could adopt like we just did the meeting uh cancellation storm inclement letter. This would be another policy that we would actually put so everybody knows what's going to happen and uh and we put that right on the agenda in terms of letting people know that that's the way it's going to be handled. So, um, that's pretty much the

policy and I've laid out the whole thing for you to consider. So, if we run into a situation where we have a deadline for, um, making a decision, the 30-day, 60-day, we'd have to have the applicant approve or um, agree to extending that if they're the last person in line. So,

yeah, two options in terms of just um, what you do at that point. You can obviously carry over an item to the next meeting. Uh but you could also schedule a special meeting so that for example if there was one more item and you did have that deadline and you wanted to meet the following week. Um I think you know in terms of if it's ever an issue uh if you're making every possible effort to meet the deadline and you go over it um I don't think that that's a problem. Uh obviously if there's going to be a lengthy delay not caused by that meeting continuation then uh you should be checking with applicants to make sure that they're okay moving beyond it. But hopefully it it won't be an issue especially if you consider uh doing an extra meeting when needed uh to continue to get through the workload. I think you'll be fine.

Any comments from the board on this? I think it's a great idea. I mean, applicants are probably paying their experts and consultants by the hour. So, they're sitting there doing nothing. If we can see if that cost, it's beneficial to them. Y and obviously for our personal time, too. Um, so I would move that uh we adopt the Durham Planning Board uh meeting continuation policy. I'll second.

All in favor? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, George. Yep. Minutes from last month's meeting. Any comments from the board?

No.

That month was short. Motion to approve. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor. Thank you, George. Yes. Um I did include, as I always do, the monthly report and that summarizes the actions that the board took last month, which is communicated to the select board as well as the town through the town manager. And then I updated them on the draft land use ordinance amendments. and then on the economic development program. So, I'd happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Um, we talked earlier of the um, uh, LUO amendments, land use ordinance amendments, uh, will go to the select board on the 25th, 28th, 28th, 28th. So, George and I will present to the select board then. Um after that there is a meeting in May for public comment last and final presentation before it goes to uh the town meeting in June June June. Um any resident or non-resident comment on that?

I'm Heather Roy. I live at well now I live at 52 Shiloh Road. Um I'm in the process of selling my house on Hollowal Road and I have an accessory dwelling on my property and I'm asking this question because of what I'm going through right now with that. Um in the land use ordinance amendments and I apologize that I didn't look at it but if you haven't looked at that, maybe you have. I'm sure you have. Are there adjustments that are being made to so that that's more in line with um for ADUs with state law? Are you guys working on that stuff? Yes, exactly. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Never mind.

Thank you. Any non-resident comments? Great. All right, let's move on to continuing business. um substantive uh review of um Durham Heights.

Thank you. My name is Joe Martin. I'm a civil engineer with Sightelines and I'm here on behalf of the the applicant. Um, so I wanted to run through quickly what uh changes we've made since the last time we were before you. Um, so the not the last meeting, one before that, there was uh questions brought about about the land that was retained by the owner and whether they had legal frontage on the rightway and if when the property was conveyed if it was a uh non-conforming lot. So since that time uh the applicant has come to terms with the um previous owner to acquire that last section that was going to be retained by the owner and with that um that section of um property has been incorporated into the subdivision. So with that what changed is we are previously proposing uh 18 lots. We're now proposing 19 lots. So, we kind of already had 19 cuz the 19th was the land retained, but now it's a numbered lot in the subdivision. And uh the open space went from 44.9 acres to 67.2 acres. So, the majority of the land retained by owner has been now uh put into that that um remaining open space. Um there were also some comments made about the configuration of the lots and whether they kind of met the intent of the cluster subdivision u ordinance. I think most of that was related to the presence of uh steep slopes kind of bicting some of the lots and wetlands um bisecting them and and creating kind of very tight areas um on the lots for those for those buildings. Um so we have kind of redesigned the the subdivision just try to create more open lots. Um there we've tried to locate the steep slopes kind of on the sides of the property so they're not kind of bicting the property anymore. Um, and we can I'll show that more as we go on the plans. Uh, we've also gone out there and mapped the the stone walls on the property. Um, and I also reviewed um aerials dating back to the as far as I

could go, which was the mid1 1920s to see if they were 100 years or older. It's really difficult to see if there's any uh stone walls on an on an aerial from 1920. But um I would say based on the use of the property back then, the ones that are around the kind of perimeter of the lot were most likely still in place cuz most of this

lot was just uh farmland. It was just uh you know uh I think that house was or similar house. I don't the house that house was but there was a house in the approximate location of where the house is now and the remaining of the property was mostly farmland. Um, and there is a stone wall that wraps around the the private cemetery and that private cemetery was um created in 1974. So I don't think those stone walls are probably older than 100 years old. So I know that was question that was brought up the last meeting.

Um, and then there was questions about um soil classifications and in the ordinance um one of the things that says that uh I think it's building envelopes can't be on um soils that are mapped as very poorly drained. Uh I did look at that and I provided a map in your packet. Uh there's only one soil type um on the property that's classified as very poorly drained and uh it's in all contained within the open space. So none of the building lots are on that type of soil. Um limits proposed tree clearing have been shown on the on the um plans. Um, one of the things that I broke out in the in the revised plan set was I have three sheets that are just intended to show the building envelopes and kind of they turn off a lot of the other um layers to try and clear that out cuz I know there's some there's a lot of lines crossing others. So, I was trying to create a plan that was as um basic as possible. But I did show the limits of clearing on those plans so you could see um how much of each lot was proposed to be cleared. And then lastly about the um uh capacity for Cassella to drive up the new private roadway and uh serve those lots. I did send a letter and a plan out to them maybe two weeks ago. I did follow up with them recently and I have not heard anything back yet. So they I did speak with someone on the phone and they said that shouldn't be an issue, but it could take some time just for their internal uh process. So your is your intention to have Cassella come in to each individual also

just like the like the um the road frontage. They wouldn't come into the actual driveways but they would drive along the street and pick up the trash at the street. The private road. The private road. So you're saying it would all be accumulated at the end of the No, no, no. It' be at each individual log. Yeah. Curbside pickup. Curbside pickup. So good. Um that's that's the intent and they when I spoke to the woman, she didn't think it was a a major issue, but we obviously still have to wait for the the formal letter. Okay. Thank you.

Uh so this is the plan showing the um very very poorly drained uh soils. See here, this is um the subdivision lots and that soil is down here, which makes sense because it's down by the um closer to the where the major wetlands are and where that stream uh corridor is. So um slide so this is the um revised subdivision plan. Um the the road configuration of the road did not change much. It did lengthen a little bit to get some more frontage on those lots at the end. Uh we did have to shift a little bit the road here where that cemetery is just to get a little bit of separation from the the 25 ft step back from the private cemetery. Um we couple major changes we did was uh this area beside lot one was previously part of lot one and I know that was a concern because it was kind of one of a larger lot which is not the intent of the cluster subdivision standard. So, we just carved that off and that would just be part of the the open space. Uh, as well, we also I know there were some comments from um um Abutters about um you know having lots that would butt up directly to these um abuing subdivision. So, we tried to pull those back as much as possible, created some separation um from the lot the lots on this existing subdivision to these new lots and that has been put into open space as well. Um we also there was um some discussion this is where the existing house is on lot five but the the existing house isn't shown here but um and there was um some tight areas where you could fit uh a new house on there just based on the configuration. So we five and seven used to be three lots. So that was divvied up. Um and the lots were reconfigured a

little bit on either side of them, but and that was to create more space here to uh be able to fit in, you know, uh driveway, uh building, septic, things like that. Um so the new lot is actually lot 17. So, I numbered it. So, the the north side of the road um I guess north on the screen here is um odd numbers and and the bottom is even numbers except for this last lot 19, but the new lot is lot 17 and the previous lot here got reumbered to lot 19. So, um, and then we shifted there's there was a storm water, uh, pond here at the end, and we shifted that over a little bit, uh, to allow for lot 19. And, uh, that also I'll show the next slide, but that drainage system was previously designed as a, uh, grass under drain soil filter. It ended up getting pretty significant in size, and it those systems don't tend to work when they get really really big. Um so we converted that to a wet pond that is more functional and better for large uh wersheds. So this is the gradient drainage plan. Obviously at this scale it's tough to see but um the storm water ponds have stayed in the same location for the most part these three. And then again we have this wet pond here at the end. Um and you know you can see this in better detail on the plans but this uh just shows you the um kind of locations of the stormwater management systems. So these are the plans I was talking about where I kind of stripped away um the the information um and unfortunately just basic you can't really see the setback lines on this one. Um you can on the actual print plans but it's not showing up on the the uh the slides here. Um but you can see here you know we have

lot one. So this is the first uh 1 2 3 4 seven lots um here. And as we go further uh this is the next section of lots. I know there was discussion in the packet that um the the planner shared uh that there was concerns about this cemetery being located on lot um I don't know which lot that is lot 10

um you know we can definitely discuss that as we move further the the thought was that um you know the cemetery itself is protected with with easements and with a 25t no disturbance uh setback and I don't think from a future future development perspective or future impact. I don't think there's any concerns to future impacts. That cemetery is properly protected with a stone wall and a and a recorded uh deed easement. Um, one thing you'll note on um, a lot of these lots, especially on the um, downhill side of the road, which is just down here, is um, on the bottom of the lots, we have a forced buffer shown, and that is intended to provide uh, treatment um, for the storm water runoff from those individual lots. Uh the DP provides um best management practice standards for um wooded buffers that treat um single family residential lots and it's based on the soil classification and the slopes. So for this um project in these slopes it would be a 54 foot wide uh wooded buffer that we maintained and that would be uh deed restricted um and usually um those are well usually those will be also um marked in the field as well. So there'll be signs there for no clearing. So you know 50 years from now people know that those are meant to uh maintain as wooded. And this is the end of the road here. Um again, we're we're showing like we're showing the approximate um building location, test pits for the septic. Um these are the proposed clearing limits here. And then these hash areas are the wetlands as well. And then again, these are the wooded buffers here as well. Up on the north side, we do have some wooded buffers in between the lots.

one those provide the storm water treatment requirements but they also provide some uh buffering and screen screening between the individual lots and then again at the end we have this easement which will be used for uh the storm water treatment of the projects as well. So I noticed in some cases they have uh two test bits. Yes.

What's the reasoning behind that? Um the reason is the um this project requires a a DP permit and as part of the the DP permit if a um test pit falls within a certain classification the DP requires multiple test bits of so so much distance apart. So in the lots where they were running issues, not issues, they're all passing test bits, but because they're a lower classification of soil, they need to get multiple tests. Make sure that you can fit a, you know, a 20x 40 septic system and it's not just, you're not just hitting one spot that just meets it. And then, you know, when you try to dig out for the larger septic, you don't you don't get it. So, there's a couple I think there's Yeah,

was the reason they were um questionable or whatever is because they were poorly drained or what was the um I think I don't know the individual ones. I know it can be the depth to the the wa the the where you start hitting the seasonal high ground water and the modeling of soil. Oops. And that can um uh that can change the classification of the soil. And when you get and I can I mean as part of the uh final package I can I can get a summary from the the uh septic designer. Yeah, Alex, he right, Alex, he went out again, I think relative,

but it's but it's if if this wasn't going to um a D site law permit, then this wouldn't wouldn't be requirement. So, when you get to those larger pering thresholds, they start to good to understand like why he had to go back out there, you know, what the reason was. I think the original one he did test, he did 10 and then he did another based on the letters that was submitted. Then he had another one of four test pits. I think he had actually had submitted three letters. Yes. Yep. So the when when we had first looked at this project, we were going to do I think it was 14 lots.

Um and that's when he did the initial test bits and then when we were looking to do the larger project, we got the additional four test bits or five whatever it was, four or five to get the 18 lots. And then once this was submitted to the person who's working on the um the hydro geologic study, which is what's required by DP, he said, "Hey, for these x amount of loss, I need a secondary test pit on here because it meets this certain threshold of of soil." But all of this will be reviewed as part of the DP permit. It's, you know, it's extensive process um as part of their state review. So where when the test kits are located, I imagine they're still marked, correct? Yes.

And that is where the septic will be. Yes. And there there is um potential to relocate it, but you have to then you'd have to do another analysis. Y. So you you are or you did have the hydrogeeologic survey done. It's being done. It's being done. Okay. So that was one of my questions if we were going to have that. Um you could have the probably at final you could have the copy. Yeah. Yeah. because a lot of times we'll submit to DP and they'll come back with comments on it and they'll want to revise it. Um not really for me it would be more for um Palmer their review if we wanted to just discuss but okay

and I would say too it is I mean it is reviewed as part of the state process the the more reviewers you get into it the the sometimes you have one reviewer saying this and one reviewer saying that and it's it's kind of you know I'd prefer it just stick with one reviewer if possible. Well, we're having the peer reviewers going to be reviewing Yes. many of these things. So, yeah. But I I hear what you're saying. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Good point. Um I think that's pretty much I have on this. Yeah, that was the last. So, I guess from there I'll go back to the subdivision plan and then we can talk about any questions or

I actually have comments. Um, if you can can you show me where the tree clearing is proposed, what what the line type is and what's already cleared, I guess. Oops. So, let's do so this solid clouded line. Yep. Is the proposed okay here. Okay. Um the existing would be this lighter color. Okay. Um and there's any other

So the existing is the lighter color and proposed is darker. Yes. You see that's lighter there. Y and then on the existing conditions plan which I don't have here. Uh there is a um you kind of see the limits of the existing Yeah. Baron. So, what's been done to date out there? Tree clearing. Uh, they cleared for um kind of the entrance into the property and then they did do some clearing on the um individual lots as well, but they were very What for? What did we do clearing for on the lots? What do you mean for the for the clearing?

Like what what reason was the clearing done for? Uh the reason clearing was done is it was brought up at the um sitewalk that there was concern about clearing within the clearing window for the bat habitat. So it was trying to do that to allow for um you know some work within that if the project were to be approved within that clearing window timeline. Okay. So is clearing continuing or is it stopped? I believe it's stopped. Yeah, it wouldn't be continuing until

Who are you? I'm Maxi owner of StoneX. And uh clearing would be continue until development happened on the individual lot. So we we just cleared pockets like a little pocket like not the whole envelopes just pockets so we could get into with the excavator to do all those test pits for the uh hydro geological. So that has to go down like I think they were like 5t or 6 feet in the ground or something like that each of those test pits. Mhm. So, believe me,

yeah, I think it's one thing to to clear trees to get your um you know, your equipment in there for test pits and such. It's another thing to clear trees for the project before you get a permit. So, I don't know. You said it stopped. No more tree clearing. No, I mean it was done months ago. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But so I don't

that was just to act yeah we just to be able to access those test pits because there was when we had done the sight walking and there's portions up in the field obviously there was no trees but when you get into these lower laws on the bottom trees are like right up to your face. So um all right one more question regarding the trees. So I think I'm looking at the existing conditions plan. So the current tree line is the only um tree line type on that sheet, right? That was the the the line the line where tree line work is the the tree line prior to any of the clearing that was that was recently done. Because when we want to do the for the purpose of like the storm water analysis, we want to take a pre-development snapshot before anything is done on the project.

But what about all the trees that were cut? So that that would be part of what the proposed is showing as well. Would that be included in the storm water analysis for the post-development? Yes. Okay. So, we wanted to show with the pre-development storm analysis, we wanted to show it kind of in its natural condition, you know, that's been previous to any uh any any clearing, you know, recent clearing. Okay. Is this existing or proposed? This is the existing conditions plan. Yes. And that shows

Can you point out? So this well this is better here. So up here this is on a budding property but I'll show you. So that's existing uh tree line and then this solid more solid clouded area that's proposed I think it's more like existing. It's ex I'm saying it's it's existing prior to any any that you've done recent. Yes. Right. That's kind of what I was getting at too is like yes it was prior to any cutting but currently now that that is not what it looks like. Yes.

But when we do the the storm analysis we want to look at it as before any recent clearing was done because that gives Yeah. Um lower uh peak flow rates that we want to try to match into. Yeah. Okay. And is there going to be a a lot more tree clearing needed uh for the individual lots? I would say I mean a lot is is relative, but yes, there's going to be more tree clearing required on the individual lots. Um but the road is pretty much in like I would say generally yes. That was a lot of tree clearing. Long road. It's a long road. Yeah.

Beyond the road there's a lot of tree clearing. Yeah. Yeah. without having an approved planetary clearing. Can you clarify down at the end those depictions on there are not what's cleared now cuz that's an existing conditions point. It looks like those are clear this over here. Yeah. Yeah. This is an existing conditions and demolition plan. So it's intended to show the existing conditions and what needs to be done prior to the say the main main project. areas have not been cleared trees yet.

There has been limited clearing in there for access for um test pits and pockets on the individual lots. I question limited but yeah so it sounds like the road has been cleared in the entire road all of the the sub this is the existing do you want to go down to the next plan but the road the subroads the lots themselves have been cleared already. The lots have not been cleared to the extent the not the whole thing but like a a pocket. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask a question about this conversation right here? Who are you?

I'm Heather Roy. I'm part of the administrative team for the project. So I feel confused about the line of questioning because I feel like in previous meetings what the conversation was is that that window of time that the clearing took place was going to create as minimal impacts of in you know like damaging type impacts clearing during that time of year because the ground was frozen and so now it feels like the conversation is leaning towards that wasn't the right thing to do and that I can

clarify. So the time of year that we that is recommended to clear trees is the winter for the frozen conditions and for bats and other species. However, you are supposed to have your permit before you do that. So the idea was you get your permit and then you do it, not do it in the winter and then get your permit. So yes, we were talking about how the conservation commission highly recommends the you know the tree clearing window and clearing trees during frozen conditions is the best for the ground.

I think that's the message that we and so that that's why that occurred at that time frame because that was the message that we heard out of those meetings. Um, and so I'm just playing the devil's advocate at this point to to make sure that that's understood. Is that that was the message that Right. I mean, is that accurate? Yeah. And it also worked out with a time frame of we had to access the test pits.

So So your your during the February meeting, you had mentioned that due to the schedule for your state permits, um, you weren't expecting to start construction until a year from now. I would say depending on when we submit, we could realistically get permits this year and start construction in the fall, right? They have like that six-mon thing, but then they can right go they can extend for a six month. But there there's

I mean I'm not gonna speak for Max here. I think I don't think any houses probably start until next year, but that's I mean, I don't know how quickly Max can get in there.

I have one more thing to say about the the clearing, especially for the road. Until we came before the planning board and there was the conversation around the land that was retained by owner, the the first house that was intended to be built was a house for her on that back lot. In order for that to happen, that road that that was a driveway, whether like if he never got if he doesn't get subdivision approval before that conversation came up, that driveway was going in regardless in that location to But didn't it need a permit? Didn't it need approval?

We have a driveway permit. We had a drive for that for that back. We had an entrance permit for that one house. And so he did have the ability and the right to be able to cut that in that. Now, I'm not going to argue with you guys about the laws. But that that was the situation until the issue was brought up about the land retained by owner and whether or not that all worked. And so now we've heard that feedback and adjusted. Now he's gotten that land to be incorporated into this subdivision. And now that house isn't being built as land retained by owner house with a driveway going to it. Now here we are with a road that's cut in and

but the road was always going to be used for the subdivision. Well, it worked out that it was going to work that way, but that house had the right to have a driveway out to it and it and it worked out that that's where the driveway was going to be. Well, that's a whole another conversation. That would have been a back lot. that would have been a whole different situation and I don't even know that it would have met the backlot requirements. So, let's just put that behind us. You're not doing that now. Let's just move forward with what we have right now. Okay. All right. Um, yeah, there's a lot of clearing there that probably shouldn't have happened because you don't have an approved plan right now, but let's just move forward. I know there was also I saw on the agenda there's a agenda item being brought about about the clearing stuff

and about how the ordinance it does not state that clearing cannot take place before a project is it does it does state it it's just we are clarifying it and like confirming that everybody understands what the ordinance says so it does say it I think it's section 6.13 there yeah 6.13 it is in there it could be a violation just to clarify the town attorney looked at it and basically her interpretation was that if that clearing was done for the purposes of the development that would could be considered a violation.

Yeah. So section 6.13 um if I could just sorry another thing about the tree sort of um we had talked before about consulting with um MDI FNW and like pro uh providing them with your full plan to show your tree clearing. Was that done? So that will be as part of the DP review. Main Department of England fishes wildlife is consulted as part of that review. Okay. So we'll you'll you'll get a letter from them. You know they would have reviewed your I don't think they sent an individual letter but when we submit to DP they submit um sections of that application to IFNW to review.

Yeah I understand the D permit. So in our ordinance though we do require the main department and fisheries and wildlife consultation. We had talked last time that you did that but they didn't see the full plan. Um that they only saw I think certain clearing limits like not everything was shown to them and the issue is bats potentially. Yes. And you had mentioned that you were going to update them which will be done as part of the DP. I guess me sending them to before I get the DP they're going to look and say what's this? Well, you already did you. We send them just a USGS map um of the thing saying we are doing a development in this area. Do you have any comments about protected habitat or species in this area? That's it.

And we do that for every project we do in the entire state. Um so it's a kind of a general form letter and they send us back and say yes there's protected um wildlife here. Could be a turtle, could be a um bats, whatever. And they ask for more specific plans. Not always. So um but they did hear. Yes. which we will provide those plans as part of the DP permit. So I guess I'm just saying if we could see that when Yes. whatever they provide back to Absolutely. Great. Yeah. And they they won't brought it back to us. They'll brought it back to DP and then DP will Yeah, that's fine. And then I think another point of that was uh vernal pools. They had asked for more data on your surveys. Like a potential Maybe you already did that

there. Yes, there was no potential significant vernal pools found out there, right? But did you do another review or something? Because they had come back in that letter and said that's kind of they say they pretty much say in those letters if there are any potential or significant vertal pools they need to see those sheets to determine if they're significant or not. When the wetland biologist went out there and looked there was no areas on the property that were uh vernal pools or even potential vernal pools. So there's no there's no sheets that need to be sent to the DP. Okay. So I as I understood it is that there weren't any found but that they needed you needed to follow up with them and let them know that and again that will be submitted them as part of the DP. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

The current state permit that you have out there right now. What do you mean? There's a permit listed on your or tagged to a tree at the end of the road. that that's for the the loggers to clear that section up through the roadway. It's a forestry permit to to do what what what was the permit like you have a copy of the permit that we could see. What were you asking to do?

So loggers are required u by cutting I don't know what the amount is x amount of trees they cut over x amount of trees. Uh it's more like a proper practice by them. A lot of welding companies fill it out every time, even if they don't, cuz they're not going to cut count all the trees before they cut them. So, if they cut over x amount of trees, they have to file a permit for that.

It's like I had selective cut around a property at my own house and it was the same idea. It's so the foresters can check in if they want and see what's been cut. And have is it is it done? Do like do you have a sign off from this? You you just need you need a permit to to do so. Okay. Yeah. So there's like main you go on like lines of mainforestry.com. You register. So we have an account number. You apply for it. You get the you get the proof. But I don't believe you don't I don't believe you file a notice of termination with them. Right. Just just when your when your forestry clear Yeah. ends than you

it gives a forester a location that it's a common it's more of a common practice up north where you have waters but down here it's less common that way. Okay. Um there is a stone wall that's still missing on this existing conditions plan that kind of cuts through cut somewhere around 510 712 area. Um could you change? We tripped over it when we went out there for the site plan sidewalk. So the stone walls

pretty much cuts right through those lots and the road. Thank you. That's not shown here. It goes right through the lot north to south. Where does it start? What law are you saying? Um you show me where it starts and ends, but it's out there. Um it's it runs through like in the field area is what you're saying. No, it goes through where's the existing house? Is that five corner of five and seven? Yeah. So, it goes through like the where three the let's call it the um north. Whoops. Who's doing that?

Where the So, the stone wall show on this plan. That one that rests right there. Uh let me zoom in. Yes, they are shown.

There's a house. Yeah. No, there's a cuz there's a stone wall. If you look at the driveway by the house, there's a stone wall that extends Yeah. There's a there's a stone wall right on the other side of that driveway that if I may. You said that you've been out there or you looked at aerial views. For the stone walls, we we had a right right through the right there and it crosses your road

the road the proposed. So that's on lot like threeish. You go back to the other map. The one that comes down through 10 right there is a separation wall right there. Yeah. The existing house is on seven or nine. Five. The existing house is on five. Yeah. So then No, it's further. It's further say west.

I think it's the one right there where his clicker is. It shows the wall. It there's a there's a break in the wall around five and then it starts back up there. Nope. There's another one. It goes right through the property. I just looked at some photos that I took during our sitew walk a while ago. So, we had our surveyor go out there and criss-cross the whole property and shoot the wall. So, I would be surprised if he didn't pick that up. But yeah, me too. I mean, your your excavators tripped over it every time they went up and down the road. Sometimes you pick them up on the LAR. You can see a stone wall right there. Anyway, that's definitely missing from the existing conditions plan. It' be great to see that.

Can I ask another question? Of course. Okay. Easements. Um, storm water. Uh, storm water. What are we calling them? Sediment. No, storm water easements. Yes. Storm drain ements. Yeah, drainage. Thank you. Um, those are going to be easements between who and who the between the HOA and the future lot owner. Okay. So, I don't know. Some towns want the town to be made a third party to it. So, if the HOA doesn't maintain it, then the town can come in and I don't think it's not going to happen. We know. No. Okay. All right. And so, there's, you said, I think three ponds plus or two. There's three ponds and then there is a wet pond at the end. Wet ponds. Yeah.

What's the what's difference between wet pond and a storm water pond? So there's there's the two types of ponds we have here is one's called a grass under drain soil filter that for 90% of the time it's dry. There's no water in it. When you get a large storm event fills up, filters through supposed to filter through between 24 to 48 hours after a storm supposed to be dry again. Um a wet pond has a section of it that's a what's called permanent pool which is usually I mean depends but could be 6 to 12 ft deep. that that is supposed to maintain water all the time.

Uh that's usually lined with either a uh PVC liner or a if there's clay in the soil, then they can use clay as the the retaining material as well. Uh and then has room above that permanent pond, which is called the channel protection volume, which is pretty much that's the treatment volume. So when you get storms, it goes in there, fills up, filters through a gravel filter. Um but that permanent pond stays the entire time. So part of the construction of those wet ponds because there were concerns about all right you have the standing water there is a safety issue. So they have this what's called a safety bench around the whole perimeter of the wet pond. So at that elevation of the permanent pond that stays

um full the whole time you have a very flat slope that allows people if they were to fall in climb out of it and get to the dry areas. So where's the fire pond? So that was the the fire pond the the wet pond was oversized. The permanent pond area was oversized to account for additional storage for fire pond purposes. Um I that was one of the questions I was going to have for the fire department if that was an acceptable solution or not um to provide for fire protection. And if it's not, what was your solution? Uh the solution was just be slide the wet pond and then just provide that fire pond in front of that um wet pond. at the end of the

at the end of the road. Yeah. What's the status on your um consultation with the fire department? Um I have I I didn't know if as part of this process this the plans were sent to them for review or not. Oh. So no, that's up to you to meet with the fire chief to discuss. All right. Yeah. Discuss that. Um, have you looked at alternatives to the um, storm water wooded buffers?

Um, they seem pretty constrictive to the homeowner. I would I would say otherwise. They are a great way to maintain buffers along the perimeter lines. um especially you know in these I mean in these rural areas people tend to like to have trees between um house lots as much as possible.

Sometimes you you can't avoid having that especially when you get these smaller lots. So, I think it's a great way to effectively require these wooded areas between these uh building lots and it's generally recommended u by T DP to try to implement as many of these wooded buffers in the project as possible because they are a low maintenance. They require no maintenance. Actually, the only maintenance is don't clear them. Um and um they provide very effective removal of uh pollutants within storm water. Um the alternative to that would be to clear trench and install some type of structural um system that is honestly not as effective as wooded buffers at removing

pollutants. Yeah. I mean, we'd like to see some nice home lots here, not smaller lots that are restrictive. I mean, they're they're tight, right? And um this isn't an affordable housing development. Um I'm sure these houses will be market priced.

Yep. And I think people might want to expand outside of the boundaries and it just risks there's more risk to expanding into these wooden buffers um if you the alternative being putting these um storm water systems into open space. I mean I I would respectfully disagree. I I've done a lot of these projects and a lot of the lots that are tree covered and buffered are the ones that are most desirable to people. I mean people I I see now a lot of times when you you see uh you know suensions that happen on these kind of farmlands that don't have a single tree on them

you know people aren't as as excited about those as they are with um you know locked in wooded lots especially I mean you know all you guys live in Durham I'm sure you live in Durham for a reason you know you don't want to live right on top of your neighbor um and you know I think everyone likes a little bit of buffer ering between their properties and I think you know these house lots these sorry these houses we have shown on the um the conceptual footprint of those it's a large house we we show that specifically to be like all right you can fit a very large house on this I mean I think that was I think just the footprint of the house is 2,000 square feet without the garage so I mean most people go two stories so they don't have a 2,000 foot footprint house you know So, um, lots I mean, if you're looking at lot four, which is probably the narrowest one, I mean, that's very easily, um, to fit a a suitable house there with a driveway and lawn areas and septic.

I' I'd like to chime in on this, please, if possible. I think I consider myself an expert actually about this, considering I'm the one who sells this type of home. Um, take for example Deer Creek Crossing. Those are one acre, a little bit more than one acre on a few of those lots. All have a wooded buffer. Um, between every single house and all along the backside. Um, very proud to say that I sold that entire subdivision except for the speck houses in nine weeks. And every single person that came up into that subdivision said that the reason why they love that subdivision so much is because of the natural wooded buffer. He didn't clearcut the entire thing. There's another subdivision in Brunswick I can show you where they're marketing it. And if you take an aerial view of it, the entire thing has just been clearcut and they're plopping the site plan map on top of it and there's literally no buffer between the houses. That's not how people in Durham want to live. And I think it's the reason why Deer Creek Crossing has been so successful. There's a couple other points that I'd really like to make about the design. Number one, can you can you expand I mean like shrink it so I can see the whole thing? Is that possible please? Thank you, George.

Um I you guys know me right in a different capacity. I have relentlessly advocated for buffering in all projects that have anything to do with Durham. I think that buffering is without question the way that we preserve our rural character. The existing driveway is right on the property line of these other neighbors. Right. We heard over and over again at Deer Creek Crossing that that road going in is right up against all of those back neighbors road going in to where it then opens up. This being moved down intentionally moved that road away from those abuing neighbors and that was in order to create that buffer so that that wasn't that same complaint that we heard over and over again about the road going into Deer Creek. Another thing I'd like to point out is that especially with the um acquiring the the land retained by owner back into the subdivision, this subdivision alone in a cluster format is preserving forever with no development 67.2 acres of land. We all talk about over and over and over again how the rural character in Durham is so important to everyone. Max can get 19 lots on this parcel. he can get 19 lots whether it's well I mean you guys have to approve it but all the way pushed up here and preserving 60 plus acres of undisturbed natural tons of resources out there right or he could develop this entire parcel you're talking about bigger lots we're trying to preserve the rural character we're trying to shrink all of the development over to one side to preserve nearly 70 acres of land here for to never be developed. I think that's amazing and I think that's the goal of this project.

When we were here last time, we heard maybe this doesn't meet the requirements of cluster. Maybe it doesn't in your opinion. I think this is exactly the point of why we do cluster subdivisions. I look at the other subdivisions and I don't want to compare anybody, right? We're preserving more land than both of those other subdivisions are in total in one project. I think that's amazing. Also, look at all of this land that is not wetland, right? Part of it is that I don't want to say junk, right? But they don't you don't want what's left in a subdivision to just be the undevelopable land. Everything that's white there can be developed on. And we're not doing that. This isn't just wetlands that's being left over as open space, right? So if this comes out of a cluster situation, he can do roads out into all of those fingers and develop that whole parcel. Is that really what we want? Is that really the goal? Because what I hear over and over again in town is the goal to preserve rural character. And I think the way that happens is by buffering. And I think the way that happens is by pushing all of this over and preserving nearly 70 acres. So, I just hope you guys will take that into consideration when you're thinking about whether or not this plan makes sense.

I don't want to talk about Deer Creek and whatever those buffers are, but these are restrictive buffers. Um, I don't know if there are restrictive buffers around the houses in Deer Creek, but this is restrictive and my fear or my my concern might be that somebody would expand into those buffers. regardless, that's that's up to the developer to make sure that you put up certain signage or and deed restrictions that say that.

And I'll say too, just on that point, um because this is a D qualified project, those buffers are I'll say protected by D, we ran into a project that um uh uh somebody bought a property, let's say like lot 4, and they said, "We don't want to maintain these buffers." So, they just cleared it. DP found out about it, came in, um, gave them a, well, they gave them a choice. You can either pay a fine of I think it was like $85,000 or you could replant almost 80 trees. So, they replanted 80 trees to replant those buffers. So, you know, you do this the the maintenance of these buffers is not going to be coming down to the town. Um, the D will go in and they will enforce those buffers.

Sure. So I don't want to make sure that just you know that the town's not going to be uh on the hook for these. Sure. And um Miss Roy, as you know, our land use ordinance updates will include hopefully if it gets passed road buffers. I'm very happy to hear it. You brought it up. We're implementing that. I'm very happy to hear it. So don't think that your words go unnoticed. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Um I'll continue. Where do your transformers propose to go? Um they are shown on the site development plan. I think what sheet uh

it'll be the one probably. Uh sorry. Yeah, right there. There's one here. Um, where? Right there. Oh, yeah. There's one here and there is one down there and there's one other there's there's I believe I had four of them um designed along the roadway. I will say too that um part of what Max will have to do as a builder is um you know if this project were approved, he submits to CMP a plan. um they go in there and they take our design and I don't want to say they ignore it but um they make their own

they make their own um and they they they in my experience they will not look at it until there's an improved plan. So we design the location of the transformers as best as we can based on we know their standards um but um you know typically one transformer can serve four four lots so we'll need four to five transformers out there. Will the poles will the line be underground or above ground? Below ground. Yeah, it will be one ground one one pole onto the property and it'll go underground from there. Okay.

Um so I think we all can agree that there's been some clearing that more clearing than we would hope would have taken place at this point in the in the application process. But there are no soil erosion. So, your plans, I don't know if you're your construction documents, we'll say, um, lay out what the soil erosion measurements are to be taken, and there's none out there right now with more clearing than we would have expected. Is something going to be done about that before sometime soon? um or I don't know when you're going to get your state permits and when you're actually going to be able to start construction, but um it's loose soil out there that is not stabilized.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I've been out there. I think so. They didn't do any digging in the roadway, but you're talking where like a scooter had ran through is what you're saying. Well, there soil erosion or soil um control measurements. Yeah, I I don't hay bales, whatever. Right. Um um so I think the thing is we we could put in u there's nothing out there right now and we're getting into the erosion control season and things are going to start running up,

right? So there is there is erosion control in the wet areas from erosion control is a mixture of dirt and wood chips basically. Um that's what erosion control mix is. Um if there's areas that are of concern that are truly eroding, um we would put up silk fence. That'd be the easiest thing to do. Less damage than going in with machinery and installing uh hay bales or or something like that.

Uh right now I just don't see where where you are with the state permitting process and how long it's going to take for you to get that. And like I said in February, you mentioned that you wouldn't start until spring of a year from now. So, this is going to sit like it is without any soil erosion control until you get those state permits. Um, I just think something needs to be done. Maybe that's something that we should talk about like because that's a really good point. If nothing else is going to be done for up to a year and just

I'm happy to put out some sil fence where I think that, you know, areas that could potentially maybe they don't need it today, but if you had a big rain or something like that would flip the bill there. So, a mulch bm. Yeah. Yeah. So, um we can put our erosion control mix mulch. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I I think I agree completely. Something should be done soon. I don't think we can wait for condition either of the permit because I don't know when that's going to happen this. No, we we would be I think as as the owner of the property, I would be responsible for maintaining uh site. Yeah. Even now,

even in your house, you know, if you had major erosion, the code officer would say something to you, right? Um, so I think as the property owner, I'd be responsible for maintaining erosion control even now. Yeah. Just as anybody would, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We can we can make that as condition with a time frame that has to be met. Mhm. Right. But I guess what I'm saying is the conditions come with some like I don't know when we're going to be able to make conditions. I think Max is willing and if you're willing to do it what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I think I don't want my property washing out just as much as you guys don't want to. So we'll note that for the record. Thank you very much. I think sorry I spoke for you but

conditions based on the preliminary approval. Okay. If we get if we do get to that point there if if you want to um you know Max I can meet you on site. We can walk into that see where it makes sense to put in some orig. Yeah. Brian, anything else on that piece? or is that okay for you? Uh, regarding soil erosion control, that's a potential approval condition to address that when you get there. Okay. Um, in your project description, it still says that there's a portion of the land that'll be retained by the owner. If it doesn't, that's erroneous. I apologize for that. Okay. Um,

and did you say the owner was going to be on lot five? No. Lot five is where the existing house currently sits. Once it's developed, it'll be lot 19. No. No. the the the the existing owner or the previous owner, I should say, will no longer have any if if they want to to live on one of these these units, they will have to to purchase it just like anyone else. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. She's already under contract somewhere else.

All right. So, I think that kind of that addresses a few of my other questions where um your current um purchase and sales was for 76 acres. So, that makes up the difference of the 17 acres. It's 94 total. Yes. Sales for 76 and then there was 17 that you had purchased previous to that. Is that as purchased? No, I believe that the 17 would be the remaining land that is under contract right now. The new one, right? The new Yes, the old law 19. Yes.

As you can see, a lot has changed since the original application was presented. That's why we're we have these questions. Yeah. Um, so the original application was the plan excluding what was lot 19, the land retained by owner and now that is being purchased and incorporated into it. So now it's the total 94 acres. That's where that extra additional land all came from. Yep. I need clarification because Yeah, it's there's a lot that has changed in a month here.

Absolutely. Um, I think that wraps up my comments. Anybody else on the board have any comments? Yeah. Part of all of that? I don't have any additional ones based on what's already been discussed. Okay.

Oh, um, okay. I'm sorry. There is there is one other comment. This this is actually very significant. Um there's been a um we've had some opinions about what um um a um the building envelope is and the building site is and we received

thankfully from our town attorney um a clear definition if you will for lack of a term what that means. Um, so, um, we talked about steep slopes and, um, um, wetlands and soils that are poorly drained, uh, in a building envelope. Um, this only just came out this morning. Um, so I'm trying to still make sure that I get this right, but um, what each site needs to contain 40,000 contiguous square feet. Um,

that's not wetland, steep slopes are very poorly drained soils, right? Yeah. Yes. So, um, let's look at lot three for example. Can we can we zoom in on that? Uh, I'll go to the That's a worst case, right? I'll go to these lots, right? Yeah. Right there. All right. So, this is lot three right here.

Right. So, based on our last meeting, you've done a great job to show the buffers, the setbacks, setbacks from lot lines, buffers from um wetlands. Um um but we need to be sure that you have 40,000 square ft of contiguous buildable area. So if you look at the the table on each um sheet here, Johny, this is I guess I can tell you but lot three has an acreage of Let me roll my plans here. buildable.99 42,000 minimal buildings.

So the column on the left the total lot size and the column on the right is the minimal buildable area contiguous buildable area. Um and lot three itself has 43,000 uh and change of uh minimal contiguous buildable area. So um it's got the smallest eight the smallest Yeah, eight has uh 40,500 and change and that takes into consideration the setbacks and buffers. No, that is just the minimalist contiguous buildable area that does not include wetlands, steep slopes or very poorly drained soils. Um

so the setbacks and I say this I'll refer to to George in the letter from the attorney. The the setbacks are what applies to the building site. Um, but to get a driveway to lot three, you need to have a setbacks for the driveway. And it looks really tight there. I think Georgia, I think the the the driveways not would not be subject to the 50-foot um setback because those are the for the building sites.

Um, I think I I I disagree. We haven't had to do that in any other building permits in town before though. I will say based off like the last 20 houses I built in the town cluster subdivisions. Yeah, there there was no setbacks off the driveways. Generally, setbacks do not apply to driveways. However, uh buffers it may be a different situation and DP may look at that as well. Yeah, because you get is it 25 or 50 feet from for D set back for buffer for forest floor lens. Is there any? There's not. No. Okay.

But like it's 50 ft off the roadway, 20 ft off the sides in the back for positioning house oversized shed buildable structure. But we we've never been convicted to where we where we can put a driveway and where we can't because it kind of depends on what type of house you're building. Those are kind of answers that nobody knows at this point.

Um George, I thought that our attorney said that those buffers need to be included. No, actually my interpretation of and I did circulate the legal opinion to the board members is that the only exclusions you can apply are those specifically stated in the ordinance which are the steep slopes, wetlands, poorly drained soils and areas in resource protection. Sorry, I just want to clarify. I think it's very poorly drained soils. So you have poorly drained soils but you only have a little I mean there's like 10 different classifications. It's somewhat poorly drained

very poorly and poorly big difference like so we have to make sure in any case only those that are specifically stated in 4.1.1A for building envelope can be deducted by the board and the poorly drained soil was only within the building site not right in the envelope. The site doesn't appear to have like any minimum size according to opinion, but none of the sites, none of the lots, none of the area whatsoever has any very poorly drained. That's all in the bottom corner. We're not Yeah, we're not questioning that here. It's the um what we learned today from our attorney regarding um uh contiguous area.

That's what we're talking about. So the one thing that the the future uh either home builder or the future owner if they build themselves um they are still restricted to they cannot impact any of these wetlands and if they do they have to come back um one they'd have to adjust their DP wetland permit and then probably because we'll show the wetland impacts on the subdivision plan they'd have to come back to the to you uh as a town to get uh an amendment to impact additional wetlands. And I did draft a condition of approval that would say for any of these lots that you're concerned about, you could require an engineering site plan for each lot showing exactly what's going to be built.

We might want that grading and otherwise possibly that. I saw that too and there were some lots on there that I was I was unsure of why they were included on there, but um it's up to the board. Yeah, it's up to the town attorney has indicated that you if you're concerned about the suitability of these lots, you can require more detailed site plans to show at the final they're not going to be impacting those constraints that are contained within those laws. Would those be required at um final planning board or would those be required as part of the code enforcement packages?

Again, that's been a discussion. Uh my recommendation would be that the board review those at final plan and approval that way because you have so many concerns and questions about this. No, I understand that. I guess my concern is, you know, back to the concerns about restricting the future owner. If you're restricting it to their house has to be in this exact location. Um, that's pretty, you know, ownorous on the on the future homeowner as well. Um, if the board wants to be sure, that's the way to do it. M and then you get into, you know, if they want to add an addition 20 years from now, they need to come back to the board for an amendment

to make sure they're not in impinging on buffers. Do we want to talk about this right now? Yeah. Or do we want to get is there anything else before we get into the uh conditions of approval like the run through the prelim approval or we can talk about this now. I was just sorry those are I mean that's part of the condition so that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I didn't know if there's anything we got into that. Do you all have any other comments or anything? No. I think we're ready to get into that. Yeah,

I I could see on like uh if you guys had like certain laws that you were more concerned about than others, like requiring like a grading plan or something on those lots to show proposed house. But, uh, in my opinion, uh, doing that on every single lot, saying exactly where a house has to go, that doesn't feel like a Durham thing. That's not like the again preserving natural character. That's a very uh Portland, South Portland. You know, you feel like you're building a city. And that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make it a little bit more natural. You know, maybe maybe this house I want to face this way and maybe this house I want to face this way. And that's, you know, I try to take all that into consideration when I develop these projects. So there's to speak to that point, you know, like at some of the other builds, people have very specific locations or directions or Max is really good about to be if they want to have solar, right? Positioning the house in a way that it makes sense for them to be able to utilize solar the best way. And so maybe it's a compromise of like within this window the h this is where the house needs to be but like the actual like staked out positioning of the house maybe that's a little bit too micromanaging. I I'm just saying maybe those are things to consider for for those reasons like there are people that want to be able to utilize solar and the way the house is positioned matters for those types of things. I mean, I think like ones for lot three, if you want us to show you a driveway that could wrap up from the new private road up to a buildable area,

I think that's more than reasonable. Um, yeah, proposed driveway entrances and and showing the first whatever 100 150 ft of the or be 100t of the driveway. Yeah. Yeah. I think it could be more fine-tuning. My thought is fine-tuning it especially on three and others in the area that have these restrictions. Um I don't know if we need to get into like the detail detail site design, but no, we want to make sure these are superior lights, not not inferior and and meet our definitions.

Absolutely. But I think you you can do that with more like a fine-tuned building area than what you have in here at final stage. But like the details of what the house is going to look like, where it's facing, like you know, I don't think we need that. No. And maybe you know part of I mean this would be more of a final condition but if there are any changes in the future you know or if let's say we show you that and and they want to shift uh you know let's say we show an approximate location for a building they want to shift it you know maybe allow that flexibility to be reviewed at the staff level rather than come back to to planning board especially if it's staff level would be

we don't care the house goes we just want to see where the where the limits are. Yeah. I think it's just fine-tuning the limits. I think that's what we're talking about. Where's the building site? Yeah, exactly. Versus a little bit more than what we've got here. Yeah. Orient it however you want. Make it as big or small as you want. We just are concerned about the limits. Does that work? I think so. I think I think we'll just what I want to be careful is, you know, we don't show like a building footprint that we're tied to. We just show a building area that they can build within. Exactly. Exactly. Yes.

Yeah. We want to know where your test bits are. We want to know where your wells are proposed to go. Um subject. Yep.

Okay. Where are we at, George? I did circulate conditions of schoolable. We should review those and decide whether modifications. Sounds like it might be. Do we need to go through all of the do we want to go through all of the sections in the ordinance? No. In the ordinance, he's got it all. He has a draft condition. Let me point out that the draft conditions of approval are intended to line up with the standards.

Oh, okay. with the intent that you're not giving a final approval here. You're giving a preliminary approval that indicates that with the level of review that you've done, which has been extensive, uh you are confident that this project will be able to meet the standards of the article six and these tie into those to say that for final plan approval, they will need to address every one of these items which follow those standards and provision. Okay. Can I ask a general question? So, we talked about timeline. Um, I think in our ordinance we we say six months from prelim approval to final. Yes. I don't think we give you prelim approval today. I don't

it could happen. That's not 6 months isn't going to you're not going to be ready, right? Um, never say never. Um, D has been dragging their feet. I have a project that was supposed to be approved in uh September. I still haven't got permanent yet on. So, um, but I guess we'll just keep you'll keep extending. And I guess the question I have is is there like a are we only allowed a one time extension or is it just says you have to extend it? Okay. Prior to Is that just a letter we sent to you to request extension? You would submit a request for extension. Okay. Depending more on us to make sure we're doing our part, not so much.

Yeah. What that prevents is somebody coming back three years later with the same plan and say we had our preliminary rule and the ordinance has changed. Yeah. Okay. So I think one of the areas Brian on this uh draft conditions of approval. I'm quite sure we're going to be adopting all of these that are being presented, but we also would want to include uh a better presentation of the possibility of a missing rock wall that you had a concern about. So,

it needs to be investigated. Yeah. Um, do you see Alan where uh I'm looking at your section and see whether it pertains. You can just add it as an extra. Okay. What are you looking for? Field verification by the surveyor that there is not a stone wall in the vicinity of lots whatever the lock. There is a stone wall there. Not that there's not a stone wall, there is a stone wall there. Uh, so verification. Yeah. But was your picture surveyed?

No, there's no probably geoloccated. I mean, that was one concern. Uh, stabilization. Yeah. Yeah. The erosion. And I what I would suggest you do is require the engineer to submit a report with a final plan saying what has been done for site stabilization. Yeah, it's clearly laid out in your construction documents. The um developer just needs to follow your standards.

Yeah, I think what we're talking about the what the what's currently in place out there. So I can meet with uh with Max and we can walk the property. He can put the measures in place. I can submit a report. um that those measures been been in place. I don't know if be I mean I'd actually like to see before final plan stage. Absolutely. Definitely. Well, they go out and do it now. Submit a report with pictures for the final plan. Well, no. I mean, I want to I want it in hand. We'll just we'll submit it to Georgia as soon as you as soon as we have it. He'll do it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying like final plans could be a year from now more. So, you want the site stabilized now? Yes. Yes. I hear that message.

It will be done within two weeks. We know that Max does too. That's we're all on the same page for that. Can we talk about Gor Palmer and what they are going to be looking at? That is uh the first one. Yeah. Draft condition of pool one which currently is was review of the engineering designs for road construction utilities, fire pond, storm water management and EMS and their con construction cost estimates. Just in preparation, I did include uh their peer reviewing of the calculations of the individual lots, building envelopes. Mhm.

And also uh as we did on Deer Creek on a couple of the lots that were similar concerns to this, we did you did require individual lot site plans for compliance with standards. Sounds like you do not want to go that far on this one. You mean have them look at No, an actual grading plan for those laws. That's what you did on Neo Creek. Wait, are you saying we'll require that of the applicant or Yes. Yeah. And then peer reviewed by that would be condition three in the updated one. And again, you can modify these any way you you decide.

Well, the steep slopes are identified, right? Um and you have are they twoft intervals? No, that's another application. You have your five foot interval straight. No, we have two foot two foot two foot. We have actually one foot um out by the road. We we uh got additional toos along the road, but as you get into the lot, it turns to two foot um contours. So, George, I think under number five, which talks about the erosion and sedimentation plan, I think that's where we could include the erosion uh control to be implemented. Is that in the original or the updated ones? Uh, the one that's on the agenda or the one? Yeah.

No, I think we I sent out by email an updated one. Got today's date on it. That could be today. One drive. Yeah. Yes. Um, just I didn't It's via email. I didn't get it. I can I can bring it. I didn't need that. I can share that if you want to. Oh, thank you. that can share. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, oh yeah, based on the town attorney's input, I and assuming that you were really concerned about some of these lots as you've been expressing, u if you really want to be sure number one that the calculations are correct, going to have peer review over the CAD,

check all their calculations. I would like that. Yes. Yes. That's uh one C and the updated one. Okay. Yes. And then uh if you're concerned about the suitability of some of these lots like lot 10 being squeezed between the cemetery and steep slopes and what that's going to do uh what will it produce as a building site then you could require an actual site plan for that for that one or any of the others that you're concerned about. or you've talked tonight about having something in between with it now and that extreme which is a more refined building envelope plan.

Can I comment on conditions or Sure. So the the only um discussion I have and it's obviously up to the the board the review from Gorl Palmer part of that review right now is the stormwater management systems which I think would make sense in almost all cases but this is being reviewed by the state and is being peer-reviewed by a um an engineer. Um I don't know if your ordinance allows that to be delegated to DP for their review. um the stormwater management systems. I mean maybe but I I I would strongly

or it could bypass that if you're confident that DPS is going we have the same standards as D. All goral is going to do is look to see if they met the D. Yes. And I I feel I feel good about that. I don't want to change that. Don't keep it in. Yes. I would like to keep it in, but I'm one person. So, no, I want to be consistent with all of our affirmations. I hear what you're saying. And hopefully they come back with the same, you know. No, it's it's they they they won't they won't. But

so, the more cooks you get in the kitchen, the they're going to have different comments, but we will we'll deal with that. Especially with DP's delayed review, it's it's just hard because we'll make changes based on Palmer and then we have to send that to DP while they're in the middle of their review. So, it's kind of it's a rolling ball, but we'll we'll we'll work our way through it. Okay. So sorry we are back on we said yes to C. Um D individual site. Yeah you should jump down to number three first to see see what you want to do with that. This would be basically the same thing as CND but it's specifically saying which lots we want them to look at. Okay.

And so you pulled out the ones that have issues with steep slopes wetlands. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you can pair that down if you want or eliminate them all. What do you all think? Definitely 10 at a minimum. Yeah. So So it sounds like at least some of them. Yes. Yeah. I mean I'm okay with what's listed here. Okay. Does it address the uh stone wall that you had a concern with? Um no. We're talking about something different, but that would be added to this. Okay. Added. Yeah. So, yeah, I'm in agreement with that with three.

Yeah. So, then then goes back up to D. Well, sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. So, so that means a detailed engineering site plan. Does that mean we want does that require footprint as well? That's how we want it to avoid. Yes. As drafted it would Yeah. What could be could be cuz that's where that's where you start with the grade. If you don't have the grade, if you don't have the footprint, you don't have to gra. So, do we need that level of detail?

I mean, my question is if we provide a area on the property that's I don't know 50 by 80 or something that the building could be fit within that area. Mhm. That way you're not saying, "All right, you know, your building is shaped like this." We're saying it's within this area, and then we grade up to that area, and that area is just a flat area that the building would go, you know, rather than saying, you know, hey, we're going to have a two foot bump out here for the building and a one foot bump out there. I don't think No, we don't. Yeah, you could put you could show a building pad. Yeah. Which is 10,000 square feet and show grading to that and then they could put their house any orientation they want within that. That would work.

Mhm. Yeah. And then maybe once you see those um maybe at final we could see, you know, if during construction if they want to shift things out of that a little bit if you think that needs to come back before planning board or if we could shift that to staff level at that point. Just cuz sometimes you try to stagger houses, you know, you don't want them all right in the line. Oh yeah. It's like I like to set one back, set one forward. Maybe this one allows to daylight, you know. So, do we want to pair back number three then a bit so that we don't see

maybe instead of detail engineering on these eight sites, we just get the pad on every site. And is that a reasonable pad driveway? Right. Yeah. Development pad on all sites are the ones that you're concerned about. the ones we're concerned about which is pretty close to all. Yeah. Submit. So pad. Do we have to list out everything here? Tai I mean driveway

it's half of it. So, what I've got is uh per section 6.7E, the applicant shall submit detailed development pads for uh lots 1 3 4 6 10 15 and 18. Okay. Okay. And so, yes, D, right? I mean that's really reviewing the the slopes and the wetlands and the right very poorly drained soils. So yes to that one.

Um so yeah I guess the very poorly drained soils I I wanted to make sure soil was looked at by Gorl. So it sounds like that will be added in there. George uh under one yes I think it's included in D. That's where we're referencing. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Um actually, I mean, it goes beyond the lot. No. Okay, never mind. Um hydrogeeologic survey. So, that's being done now. If you could provide that to Goral Palmer, think they'd like that. Do you want them to peer review that? Yes.

I guess we did talk about that the first meeting and and I know obviously the board can change them any time. Did we say that? But we you just said because it was a hydra hydra hydro geological study and there's one other one in there in the ordinance that they can request um high intensity soil survey yeah soils I say no but for the I was thinking more about and maybe I said no before but this is a 19 sight subdivision I'm just thinking of like water yield and you know yeah we deal this question a lot with with uh subdivisions when you have uh projects that have Well, and septic. Yeah. For the most part, what you use is what you put back in the ground, for lack of better terms. Mhm.

So, there's really no export out of the property, out of the the area because you're putting it back in through the uh septic system. So, um and that's I actually haven't read the hydro geological study yet, but that's typically what they say. And and one of the other things they do, they map the nitrate plumes just to make sure they're not um impacting any properties off site. or the wells. Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking if you already have it. Yeah. I mean, we can submit as part of final additional cost to you, it would one review. I don't know if Coral Palmer reviews that type of thing. Um maybe they have so scientists on board now, but um interesting.

That will be reviewed part as a state, you know, thing as well. And they have their state scientists that review that pretty extensively. We can definitely provide it as part of our final um application. I just don't need know if it's something that needs to be peer-reviewed by Well, is this is it going to be done soon? Um depending on what happened here, they have to update their plan to reflect the changes we've made and then they'll reissue it probably within I don't know a week or two. Um that's soon.

Yeah, but soon. And then I mean one one thing that when we submit our permit to the state um we will also be sending a copy to uh the town and usually it's a physical copy but we can submit a digital copy as well that um George can share with all of you so you can see the 600 pages of materials that we'll submit to them. Yeah because I'm sure you're going to want to get this to Gorl Palmer soon, right, for their review. Yes. I mean we honestly there are Yes. But we also want to submit to DP because they're going to be the longest. Yes. the top. So, I mean, my thought is is if you're going to have it, let's get it to Gorl Palmer. But if you all don't think it's needed, then that's fine, too.

And maybe they don't even look at it. That's a good point. If you had questions about it, they would. Okay. Generally, they wouldn't. Okay. My question is yield. Yeah. In terms of the uh the wells being able to produce an adequate water supply. Yes. If there are reports of groundwater problems or well problems then they could look at that. But unless you have some indication that there is well the hydro geologic survey would indicate I think it does look at they should be looking at those surrounding area wells and indicating.

So that's if they could do that review that'd be great but again it's okay. Anybody else? So, yay or nay on the hydro geologic survey? Yeah, it's

Yeah. Okay, that's included. All right, great. Um, you want to add a number 16, which is to the applicant shall implement erosion and sedimentation control measures for areas that have been cleared of trees. and with a report by the uh consulting engineer to submit it to the town planner with a date associated with that within 30 days. Okay.

You said a week. I said two. I said two. I think you said tomorrow. Just let me wait. There's a difference between doing the deal and having their engineer and Peter report to us. Yes. Oh, you said the engineers report, correct? It's also on Posted Road. So we have to get material there. Not saying we can't do with a smaller truck, but like efficiency wise. Yeah. What was your suggestion, George? 30 days. Within 30 days, Joe. Okay. Yep.

Okay. Great. What about adding wetlands review Palmer? We've done that in the past. if there are concerns and questions. So, a lot of the site is wet, right? A lot of the place is wetlands. Again, what you're looking are you looking for them to go out and verify the wetlands? No. So, what would they be doing? Just what they've done before, right? They review desktop materials. Typically, if if there's been a dispute as to where a wetland boundary is, they will look at that. Okay. But they don't normally check the wetland scientist support report if they're certified. Really? So we haven't had Coral Palmer do that again. The only time is when there has been like on Day Road

where there was a dispute over where that boundary was. You did have a peer review done. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Yes, there was. And they're also looking at the most recent subdivision where there was a dispute on the road. So if there is an issue, they will help you with that. All right. But they don't do general reviews. Okay. noted. Is there something that pops out to you? What needs? No, no, no, no. I don't have any specific concern. Just like the fact that this site is so wet, I thought it would be a good idea. Okay. You want me to just quickly run down through with the with the changes? Yes, please.

Okay. So, uh So, is this is this going to be uh for vote? You running through this right now? Yep. All right, let's hit it. Okay. So, number one is the peer reviews which includes uh A through uh C and then U D and you're adding E which is a review of the hydraological report. Yeah. Okay. And uh two is the estimated cost of the infrastructure.

Three are detailed site plans which has been amended to require detailed development paths for those noted lots. uh six months final uh submit for final in six months is number four which can be extended. Uh five is the DP's uh permits being submitted. Six is the erosion the standard erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting the D uh guide uh best management practices. Seven is uh placing on the final plan the limits of clearing. Eight is getting the addressing officer, the code officer to assign the road, approve the road name and street addressing.

Uh nine is the engineering of the road design which they kind of already submitted. Uh but that will be reviewed by Val comma. 10 is again the clearing limits and again what this does is it hits every one of the standards and sometimes there are multiple places. One is the clearing limits being established and the second one is putting it on the plan. Uh 11 is the cost estimates for all the engineering u engineering cost estimates for all of the proposed construction of the road and other infrastructure. 12 is a D storm water plan and easements on all of those proposed treatment facilities. 13 is the proposed homeowner association documents will uh meeting the templates of the town attorney or submitting ones that will be reviewed by the town attorney. 14 is approval of their cluster concept and 15 is the performance guarantee which is either an irrevocable letter of credit or they could propose a conditional agreement where they do not uh get any building permits or sell any loss until all the improvements are done. And then 16 is that erosion and sedimentation control measure being implemented with the report by the the consulting engineer within 30 days of it being done.

Two things. Yep. The stone wall added. So that would be number 17. Survey confirmation of and missing stone wall. And um you'll need to meet with the um fire chief. Although that's on the fire pond and and then third one I would like to see the updated um consultation with MDINW and that can be through uh the D application is fine. That'd be good to see per what we talked about. Yep. Okay.

Do we want to add anything about Cassella and ensuring that we get the letter from them? That's already they've already submitted. They're very No, they don't have it yet. We're waiting on Yes, I say yes. I think that's a great ad.

We vote on this. Is there anything else you all would like to add? I have a question about the conditions, I guess, because it does somewhat relate to conditions. So we made all those conditions that come before final but also as part of the final before you can approve a final plan all the permits have to be in place with DP everything you don't approve contingent upon DP permits is that correct or okay

any motions on George's commentary for um Preliminary pool. I will move that uh we accept the conditions presented by the planner as read to us and as amended. As amended. I'll second. Sorry. All in favor. Thank you. Thank you. No more changes. What's that? No more anymore.

We were just problem solving. That's all we were doing. Sorry. No. Any figure?

Okay. Next on our agenda is grab gravel Brooker. Okay. Anybody from Kford here? We are. All right. Bob's not here tonight. No, Tom tonight. No, he's actually in Florida.

Well, I'm Cam Cox. I'm a project manager with Kirker. Brett Flossy, VP operations. This is the Jackson. Yes. Would you like to present what you have in front of us tonight? Yep. So, this is um conditional use application for continuation of gravel and sand operations within the property limits. The yellow area that's highlighted I don't know why it's has that that white block on it, but

photos.com want some of that. Yeah, the yellow outlined area on that map is previously grandfathered through the D previous to the 70s. Um map has all the property limits, the buffer limits. Uh Cushing Road outlined on the the north side, hollow on the left side.

That's the survey. doesn't like it. We got a couple hard copies if anyone wants to look at it. Thank you so much. Sorry, it's so small. No, it's okay.

I think. So, if you if you kind of zoom in towards the towards that yellow area, um we have an existing entrance there. Um across from 80 Cushing Road. Oh, right there. Thank you. Y fancy. Mhm.

Um right here is our entrance into the pit. There's an existing building right here. The lower level of the pit is down here. And then there's kind of an upper level. It's been um we have not operated the pit since I don't have a date, but it's been more than 20 years. Um it's way before bread or I have been with the company. Um right now, um like this back area is not grandfathered to the D. So we um our limits are just within that yellow area that's grandfather. Um you have anything to add, Brett?

No. So this was really a weird process for us. Typically everything's always D approval. We operate within D limits where this one was grandfathered and has been so long and we're trying to get back into it. I want to make sure that we go through the correct process with you folks. Um so it was recommended we come through planning board go through this process. The intent is to only mine within that yellow boundary. Mhm.

Obviously within the setbacks um get in there start and then eventually we may put in a uh notice of intent to comply with D so we can get into that back corner. Um yeah. Okay. I have a couple questions. Yep. Um do does Kirker own or No. Did any of any other of this activity? This piece over here is orange is all property we own. Okay. So we own this piece up here. This is owned by um Triple K. This is uh Dugas. Okay. They're all pits.

Yes. Yep. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, you own that. And then across the road there's a firewood Yeah. Um processing facility. Actually, we own this piece up here, too. Yeah. And you own own that little like triangle. Yeah. Okay. Y um it'll come with me. So your only activities are within the grandfathered area right now. Correct. If we were to

if we were to want to work outside of that grandfathered piece, we would need to go to D for um their approval to work outside of that. They said everything inside of that right now. If we wanted to work that is not under their jurisdiction. So, we need to come and talk with you folks. We do intend eventually to get back into this piece. Um, but for right now, before we get too far, we'd like to get in here where it's been so long since we've worked the pit, make sure that the material is advantageous,

worth it. Yeah. Um, there's already an existing pit footprint, but you would be expanding it a bit to the southeast a little bit. Is that trying to look at an aerial like your southeast corner there? Yes. Eventually that eventually that is the intent. No, no, no. Within the yellow. Within the yellow. Right. Well, to the right. Yeah. Right there. That's new. That would be new. It'd be new area that we would open up that hasn't been open before. It is part of the existing Jackson Pit. It was just never cleared. No. It was never cleared before. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

The intent would be to come into here cuz that's the idea of this this new pit is to go into the areas that haven't been mined yet. Not further down. Yeah. The lower piece is actually as low as it can go. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, we would be looking to expand. Yeah. And mine that sand. Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want to try to go for the whole thing right now? It takes time.

It does take time. If we get in there, honestly, what we're looking for is we need hot top sand. It's very specific for what we put in it. It's kind of a coarser material. If we get in there and we find that everything is too fine, we may hold off through D just because it doesn't make sense to not worth spending time or money. Uh I know this is might be a weird question, but um has a wetland delineation been done for the areas that haven't been mined before? Um I'm not sure. Not that's beyond the survey.

What? Nothing. No. Yeah. Um there's a pond there. I see. Yeah. Right there. It's right there. Yeah. Um it's a heavily impacted area. Heavily impacted. I understand that. But I don't know. That area hasn't been disturbed before. Right. That eastern piece. It doesn't look it um and there are wetlands, you know, just to the norththeast of that area. So I the intent would be to use DP setback limits. I can't remember what is off that if it's 50 or 100 from a wetland. Yeah,

understood. But how would you get that data? We would. So you're going to do a delineation. Would you do a delineation like a wetland delineation? Yeah, I guess we would have to. Okay. And so you have to be set back from from those per D. Yep. Okay.

How do you plan on establishing the water tape? To document the water table, right? Yep. Yeah. Make sure that you don't get too far down. Yep. um something that we haven't considered yet. Yeah. The intent is not to go down any more than it is right now. Yeah. We know that it's close from looking at the other pits that are right there.

So in past pits or other pits, you haven't determined where the water levels are? No, we in in other pits we have wells in the vicinity that can get that we can measure that water level on. Yeah, I think it'd be good to know where that water line is just to make sure that you all aren't getting too deep. Right. I don't I'm not a I'm not an excavator operator, but I don't know how I would tell whether or not I've hit a water line or a gas line without knowing where those are. Yeah. And just to clarify, the standard is 5T above the groundwater table. Correct.

Right. Yeah, that would be great to know. But just for purposes of of talking, the like Brett said, we're not mining down on that bottom level. It'd be that upper shelf, which I don't know the elevation off the top of my head, but it's significantly above that that bottom level of the pit. Okay. Um, regardless, I think we want to know what that what that level is. Yes.

And where should we indicate where we want to know that cuz this is a big polygon. Um, but I would say definitely the east, right? But I don't know about the west. It would be wherever they're going to be to understand where the groundwater is. So you do test pits throughout. Is that what we're saying? No. No. Just where they're going to be excavating. Determine where the ground water level is. Right. Where are you excavating? Could be anywhere within that yellow perimeter. Okay. So could minus the wetland minus the wetland. Inside the set above the groundwater level.

Okay. So you would do tests wherever you're going to Yeah. And typically that's other pits. If Triple K is in there and he gets too deep, finds it. Okay. Got to come back up. Yeah. You're above an aquifer here, Sean. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We were really hoping that this wasn't in a aquafer zone so we could continue to go down. Of course. Right. Unfortunately, you're not. That's okay. comments other comments from

I might have to recuse myself for this cuz I'm friends with Justin Johnson. So I don't want to friends with a business partner friends personal friends. I don't think you need to be different. We need bodies. So just for the record, the way you deal with that is to say, okay, does he have a financial vested interest? And I think the answer is no.

However, uh would he be biased in reviewing the application? And if he indicates he can do it without any bias notwithstanding the friendship, if the board is accepting of that and the applicants or any concerned parties are accepted, then you can he does not need to recuse himself. It's a good point. What do you think? like me on

friends. Good friends. Very good friends. Together. That's very Yeah, I think those are all my thoughts. Okay. Aside from going through the um do we feel there's a need for a site visit? Yeah. I don't because it's been grandfathered. Anybody else? Do you? No.

No. Yeah. Bring your own shovel. I don't I don't think there's a need for a site visit. Do you? No. Okay. Should we go through the findings of fact? Yeah, you can. We should. Okay. Has anybody looked at the findings of fact that George drafted? Mhm. So, I'm going to try to abbreviate this. I have to read everything.

Exactly. All right. Um, so, um, conditional use review criteria number one, public health impacts. The proposed use will not create unsanitary or unhealthful conditions by reason of sewage disposal, emissions to the air or water, or other aspects of its design or operation. And uh there are four findings. We've all read those and don't have any comments. Move on. Can you give me a second? Sorry. So, do we want to bring up the test pits in this part? Like we 5 ft above the groundwater.

This is on the public health. Well, I know, but it says there are a proposed set of approval conditions that address those standards and and the requirements at the end. There's conditions of proposals. So, okay. Oh, I see. So, it'll be separate than this. Y. Yeah. Okay. Understood. Thank you. I'm good with this. Okay. Number two. Brian, you should make a motion on each of these. Each one. Okay. Yeah. Yep. I see that. All right. I'll make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for public health impacts. A second.

All in favor? Number two, traffic safety impacts. The proposed use will not create unsafe vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions when added to existing and foreseeable traffic in its vicinity. And there are four findings here as well. Any comments, questions on that?

No. Sounds like um adequate side distance. No issues there. I have a motion. I will move that the applicant has satis satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for traffic safety impacts. I'll second.

All in favor? Number three, public safety impacts. The proposed use will not create public safety problems which would be substantially different from those created by existing uses in the neighborhood or require substantially greater degree of municipal uh services than existing uses in the neighborhood. And there are also four findings here. Questions or comments on that? I'm just wondering whether how the neighborhood is aware of this. How much information has been provided to neighbors?

I mean granted it's a grandfathered but when something has been dormant for 20 years and all of a sudden the activity increases and concerns there. But actually, I want to correct. I don't think this part has been grandfathered. Right. Which part? The one that you're The reason why you're here. The reason why we're here is only inside that yellow outline, which is the grandfathered piece. Yes. The rest of it is not correct. And we have no Yeah. According to the town attorney, uh the fact that they're D grandfathered does not grandfather them from the conditional use permit require.

Right. Which is why we're here. Okay. So the the public hearing. Okay. So first question is did you notify the abuters? Yes. So no the butters have been notified. The the receipts are right here. And you can determine whether you want to hold a public hearing or not. I would certainly think that if I was in butter, I would certainly be aware of what was going on tonight and I would be I think expressing my concern, but it doesn't appear that there's anybody here expressing that. So long as everybody's have been notified. Okay.

Would you mind handing those to the town planner, Mr. Blanch, please? Okay. A motion on number three. I'll make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for public safety impacts. Second. All in favor?

Okay. Number four, environmental impacts. The proposed use will not result in sedimentation or erosion or have an adverse effect on water supplies. And there are four findings here as well. We talked about the wetland delineation, but that'll be a condition, right, George? It can be or it can be. It might be. I just want to state again that it is heavily disturbed in this area, but there is a part that was not ever disturbed. They're going to get into

I will move that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criteria for environmental impacts. May I add I'm sorry. Um Allan um George is this the right spot to add um that there is some proof of what the water table is? Uh that is a proposed condition that they provide documentation. Okay. Okay. Yep. All right. Um the motion stands. I'll second.

All in favor or denial? Number five, scale and intensity of use. The proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to physical size, visual impact, intensity of use, and proximity to other structures. And there are four findings here as well. Yep. Lots of pits in the area, lots of disturbance. M I'll make the motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden approve of compliance with the criterion for scale and intensity of use second. All in favor

number six noise and hours of operation. The proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to the generation of noise and hours of operation. We didn't talk about three findings here. Um the in the application um they have seven it complies with our ordinance. Okay. It's okay. Yeah. Did I hear somewhere where it's not you're not blasting? Okay. Yeah. In their application they list the it meets our current standards. Okay. Take a motion.

Right. I'll make a motion the applicant has to satisfy a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for a noise and added operation. Second that. All in favor? Number seven. Right title or interest. The applicant has sufficient right title or interest in the site of the proposed use to be able to carry out the proposed use. And there are two findings here. So never mind. This this is this isn't financial. I apologize. Looks good to me. You make the motion.

Sure. I'll make the motion the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for right title or interest. Second. All in favor?

Great. Financial and technical ability. The applicant has the financial and technical ability to meet the standards of this section and to comply with any condition imposed by the planning board pursuant to subsection 7.5. And here we have three findings. So we are pretty much assuming a good assumption that we know Krooker, right? and they've got a good financial backing. We have a lot of experience with DP. Um, but we haven't seen anything, but we're just saying that, you know, we know them. They're a big company. That's what we're seeing here, right? Because usually we see something.

The applicant has made statements in their conditional use application. Okay. To that effect. Okay. Okay. I will move that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with criterion for financial and technical ability. Second allies

uh on the conditions of approval. Basically these mirror the ordinance provisions in article 14 for gravel pits. So they uh obviously one of general standard is the under conditional use article 7 is that they meet any specific requirements of the ordinance and 14 point um 6B and CD uh include the water supply setbacks which would include wetlands I believe uh the boundary and road setbacks they have indicated those on the site plan I uh buffer strips along the property lines. Uh the specifications for those have to be the same as the state erosion and sedimentation controls. Uh groundwater protection. We talked about that including uh establishing it by competent technical data. the bank slope cuts, steepness, the hours of operation, inspections and records being available to the code officer. Uh control of the access for safety. Uh there is an annual registration requirement and the pit reclamation is uh specified and then finally compliance with state law. So again, those are all right straight out of the ordinance.

Okay. So, I need a motion on conditions of approval. Um, I would like to add the wetland delineation. Okay. Or I'd at least like to talk about it. Um, it sounds like you need it anyways, right? And if you say you need to be within X feet from Yeah. I would have to verify through the D notice of intent. Okay. That it would need to be done. And yes, if everyone's okay with that, you should make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to add a wetland delineation um uh will be required at the site. Um yeah, second.

So the motion is for conditions of approval with the addition of number 14. Is there any other additions that we needed that's um number six? Okay. Yeah, I think that's correct. Brian, you want to require a wetland delineation, but where will you want to just submit it to the staff? Mhm. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's okay. Right, George? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If we know that setback buffer is from the pond. Yeah. I can just we can update it on this site plan.

That would be great. Thank you. Was there a second on that? No. Yes. Yes. All in favor? Thank you.

The final decision. Okay. Um wouldn't really to make a motion on our final decision. I'll move that the planning board grants conditional use approval of the reactivation of the Jackson gravel pit on Cushing Road subject to the adopted conditions of approval. Um I'm really sorry here. George, did you want to go through your staff notes on this? You're good. Okay. All right. Perfect. Good. Good. All right. I'll second that.

Perfect. All in favor? Okay, good to go. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right, it is the ability chair. Not that noise. Yes. Um, continuation rule. Continuation rule. All right. So, we um I think there are three things left in the agenda. Correct. Is that right?

Yeah. All right. Um, can we get through the LO stuff in the older drive maintenance agreement and maybe push um Ivy Ridge to next week or next month in the matter of time? So, what do we have? We have Alderway maintenance agreement which Ivy Ridge yep will be

Ivy Ridge and then the LUO stuff that needs to get to the select board. Yep. We need to get through that. Um Yep. Post haste. I guess what would the applicants for Ivy Ridge uh wish to have us review that in a week or a month? Oh, so is there a meeting next week? Well, we not.

No. Right. Um, so the this this evening we just um agreed on a um continuation rule, if you will. Um if we go past this time. Um so we could if everybody if if we have availability, we could move it to next week. um or next month or at another time, right? Um those are the nights those would be the nights that the uh meeting will be available to sell. Yeah. Wednesdays either. Yeah. Either next week or hold off till next month. Oh, just next week or Okay. Okay.

Next week would work. Works for you. It's not possible next week. Next Wednesday. What's the availability of the board? Good question. I cannot do next Wednesday's day. I cannot do next month's day. I can do it. I think I can. You can jerry duty again. Jerry dudy and birthday and kill me. I can know but I can also and Sunny can can Brian

and Brian see Wednesday the next Thursday the eighth. Mhm. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. We need four. Mhm. I can be there. Okay. All right. So, great. Um Craig, is it? Yes.

Thank you for being flexible. Um yeah, we'll push this out to Wednesday, the uh April 8th. Thank you for being able to get to it next week. Thank you. Sure. But yes, let's try and uh Do you want to try and hit the maintenance? Yeah, let's do this now. All right. And then we'll do the Lo stuff after that. Okay. So, um George, do you want to run us through your staff notes here?

Yeah. So, I did uh do summary notes which I have shared with the applicant. Um, and this is typically the backlog provisions, but in Durham, you mix private ways with backlogs. So, uh, this one was established before the current, uh, standards, and the town attorney reviewed it for the code officer and determined that in order to make lot what's designated 15e buildable, they would have to get that uh, existing uh, deed easement upgraded. They have uh worked with the code officer and the public works director, excuse me, uh road commissioner here uh to improve the prove the existing driveway that serves lot 15C. And you do have email in the packet from the road commissioner. And so under the under the current ordinance the they need the claim which approved the maintenance agreement which has to have all of the uh component parts. They have submitted a draft maintenance agreement addressing those component parts and a simple motion to approve the maint maintenance agreement would be adequate for the decision of the board. the applicant like to step up and

I don't have anything to present other than what he already shared with you. So, I don't know if I need to come over here, but what's your I'm Sue Lid. I'm the realtor for the property owner. He's also my son, so I've been doing the leg work on this for him. Okay. The parents of all He should be here tonight, but he's home with his kids. So, I wasn't even sure if I needed to be here, but sure. Just wanted to and interesting timing because it's off of Cushing Road. Um, not loving the previous application, but that it is what it is. Yeah.

Any questions or comments from the board? I don't have any. No. Um everything is in quite great order here. Um okay, great. You I'm just looking at the letter from um uh the code enforcement officer and it looks like you hit his three issues um including as George said the letter and and bringing the road up standards the letter from um the uh Calvin. Um I I say this is good to go. Great. A motion to Approve.

I'll make a motion to approve the elder drive maintenance agreement. I'll second it. All in favor? Thank you so much. Thank you guys. That was just a two-hour waiting period. It was good information all. So, thank you so much. Yeah.

You're very welcome. All right. The last thing this evening is that there are two other or two parts of the land use ordinance updates that um one uh some some we received some comments from some local folks regarding the uh marijuana policy. Wait, I'm sorry. cannabis. Take me a while to do to get there, but cannabis. Um, and it's still, this all still meets the intent of what we're trying to um, accomplish here. I don't see any issues with it. Unless anybody else sees anything that they'd like to amend or comment on, I think we'll just bring it to the state law. self.

And then the last one is an update to the violation enforcement regarding tree clearing. Um, yeah, thank you George for putting that together. I feel like it meets or it is going to be helpful if you run into this do.

So what I I guess the question I would if an applicant came to us initially for a subdivision and I don't know whether that would be asking for a waiver to put a road in prior to final approval or would that not even be acceptable? Well, I ran that by the town attorney and uh it's it's not a waveable standard. So then I explored whether it could be a procedural waiver and there's like three parts of the waiver provisions. Uh one is the waiver of the procedures actually two. The second is the wa the waiver of the standards themselves. And she said that's really not a standard. It's a procedure timing issue. And if you look at the language for a granting waiverss procedure, it only allows combining preliminary and final. Uh it does not allow you to bypass that

site. And and again now the intent of it which is what she was saying you could treat it as a violation is that as you've discussed you don't want them going out there and ripping up the site right before they get the approval because then if you deny it it stays that way. So, uh, she felt pretty strongly it's really an issue of their timing, not your problem. Right. It's also not a matter of denying it. It's if things need to change based on that, too. Right. I mean, yeah. If we we asked him to do some more research on more than half the lots, if we find that they need to be adjusted, he's already correct altered the site to the point where

Yeah. So it's if if but it's totally different that if someone an individual farms timber harvesting on a lot which doesn't that's not really many times there's no road that's been created or there could be. The issue is the issue is once they file that subdivision application, they shouldn't be doing that.

Yeah, I'm I'm glad for this. I really am. I'm glad we brought it up. We talked a bit about this last time. Um but looking at the tree clearance subdivisions admin change document. Um are we is this going to go to voters? Just the language change. Uh that's just a summary to explain it. Okay. And that will be included in the packet that goes before the public. Okay. I do just the last point there, the flexibility to deal with specific situations if we don't have waiver authority. Yes. We want to scratch that. Yeah. Okay.

I mean, I I understand what the the a previous applicant here tonight what their intent was, but their intent changed so much from day one to now. Every time you turn around, there were originally there was 10, then there were 14, then there were nine, and then the the previous owner is not included in this equation anymore. So, it's good thing to have. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

Is there a line and and maybe this is too specific because if you list everything, you don't list everything, then you've listed nothing. But you know for the purposes of developing roads or home sites in the example of tonight where we felt that they were doing more clearing than what was acceptable their argument was well it was just the road and then to get to the test pits where is there a line and and I don't think we want to put this we don't want to write it down but just something to keep in mind you know what is too much what is

but We have in there have been other subdivisions that test bits have been done prior to any road being put in. They do all the road at all. No road at all. They've done all of the surveys. They know where the lots are going to be and they do the test bits. So, okay. So, it's it's possible. Oh, definitely. Definitely.

Um there's there's another clust uh what's Greystone. We did a sitewalk for Greystone. They went in there. another cluster subdivision. We did a site performed a sitewalk and um they were test bits with no road like very minimal clearing. Very very minim that's good to know. This this is extreme. This is I I don't I'm not comfortable with it, but they've already cut the trees. Do this so it doesn't have to. Yeah, exactly. All right. I I'd like to make a move. Is there anything else to stop? How's your back? Hurts. Sorry for having

Thank you. So, yeah, I'll make a motion um to approve the tree clearing and subdivisions administrative change um subdivision regulation section 6.13. Sorry. And the added language on the cannabis. Oh, and yes, and the cannabis one. Apologies. I don't have that section in front of me, but whatever that one is. Second. Um, sorry. Um, it says exempt marijuana. Do we want to strike marijuana to say cannabis? Well, the amendments themselves say cannabis, right? It's the summary. Are you looking at the summary? Sh.

Yeah, that was a summary. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's just it's just people are going to say that. All right. just makes it harder for me to change my language. So, it's been moved by Juliet. No, I Yes, I I put the motion on four. I seconded it. Okay. All in favor? I guess I do have one question to George. What do we know about uh Greystone? Anything more? No. haven't heard. Oh, uh I'm sorry. They have submitted their plans to Goro Palmer for peer review. Oh.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Ahead of prelim which makes Well, no. They've got their Oh, yeah. Right. Right. They had a final, right? Right. Good. Yeah. Yep. Nothing new other than there was a solar farm coming. Okay. You have standards in place. We do. That's a good thing. I'll move to a journ. Awesome. I'll second. Okay. All in favor. Thank you. Thank you all. Yeah. Thank you. Everybody.

There's a power thing on the nest somewhere. Take off.