Planning Board - Special Meeting

and county of deeds. And I checked to see what you guys covenants were and it specifically says they'll be brought to the beginning of cherry blossom, right? Unless you guys get together and say talk. It's about time. We did an HOA. Yeah. Wait, we actually talked to him several times. I know. That's what I've heard. Testing. Testing.

I mean, my argument with him. He said, "Well, we don't want to destroy the this road, the road to the building subdivision built to the same standards in the town today. Shouldn't make any difference. Okay. So, what do we do next week? Right. You have to know because we can't feed that many trash cans. And they're big, aren't they? Yeah. I can put a month's worth of recycling in one. I think

um that mic is live, so you might not want to talk about how much trash you live in. I'll tell you what I want to put in the van. There is a clock ticking. Calm down. You have your eyes on it, George. So, I'll let you let us know.

I think good enough. Yeah.

All right. Welcome everybody to the um uh Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 meeting of the planning board. This is an extension of the April 1st meeting. Um, it looks like we have a quorum here and unless somebody would like us to sing a different song, we can get up and say the pledge. Pledge 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. Uh, do we have any amendments to tonight's agenda?

All right. Continuing business. Completeness review of the ID Ridge Preliminary Subdivision application 335 Newbrook Road Tax Map 6, lot 61. No public comment will be taken this evening. Um, first of all, Mr. Burgess, I appreciate you being available and extending tonight's meeting for your application. And at this point, I think I'll turn it over to George to give you your staff notes.

Sure. I'll just summarize those quickly. Uh, you're proposing a 12 lot cluster subdivision. Um, and the planning board held a a sketch plan review of this project on January 14th, and you did a sitewalk on the 21st of January. And the preliminary plan packet contains the application form, location maps, the boundary survey, the subdivision plan, grading and utility plans, storm water report, soils and test pit logs, wetland delineation, a traffic analysis, open space documentation, erosion sedimentation uh control information, uh right title and interest documentation, There isn't a Butters list and the application indicated that they had not notified the neighbors yet and we can discuss that when you talk about scheduling a public hearing and then other supporting technical documents. And as I've iterated on several of these applications is that the first step in the process is to determine whether the application is complete without getting into the substance of any of those documents. uh the substantive review will begin to question is that documentation accurate and does it satisfy the burden to uh establish conformance with the standards of the ordinance. So once you determine that it's uh complete that all of the required documentation that that is listed in the ordinance is uh in your hands then you have a clock start a review clock under main law you have 60 days to render a decision on the application unless the applicant agrees for a time extension. You do have the ability under the ordinance if issues come up during your

substantive review that you need additional information uh you can request that and uh and if the applicant is uh in you know wants to provide additional documentation because there is an issue whether it be traffic or groundwater or anything else then typically they would agree to extend it for the time period necessary to get that information and have it reviewed. So the 60 sorry the 60 days is after the approval or well not determination of a complete application correct and so um I would expect that we would run a public hearing that happens between correct

then and now uh now and then. Yeah, it once you determine that it's it's uh complete, if you're going to hold a public hearing, it is done within 30 days of that determination and then you have the full 60 days to make your decision. Okay? So if we determine the application is complete, 30 days for public review, 60 days for final uh preliminary

and then u a simple motion to determine that it's complete is adequate and we would put that into a a notice to the applicant. If you determine that any information is missing, then what we should do is list those deficient items and then a letter will be sent to them declaring that their application is incomplete and uh and for it to be considered complete, they have to provide this additional information. Just to clarify something, u the applicant isn't required to submit public notice right now. They're required ahead of the meeting, ahead of the hearing. Correct. If you if you're going to do a public hearing, if we do a public Yeah. I just wanted to state that that it's not

insufficient right at this stage. Yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you. That's it. That's it. Um um one thing I just wanted to bring up is um since the April first um submission, we did receive one other document and it's the boundary survey um that is included in this package. Just that was the only change we received. Um just wanted to mention that. Um Mr. emerges. If you'd like to present

I I like Sorry if I can. I like how you you're telling us that like you're specifying between what we've already had and what's been what's newly submitted. When you say the boundary plan, you mean I think it's sheet two, is it correct? It's it's one of the sheets in the site plans that is posted on the on the website, right? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Originally, that wasn't submitted and um the applicant acknowledged that. Yep. and George added that to the um to the application. Got it. So, we we have that now. Okay. Thank you.

Uh good evening. Craig Beris with Acorn Engineering. Um so, the plan that we submitted, still a 12 lot single family cluster subdivision. Um the feedback that we heard during the sketch plan was that we needed to uh better protect wetlands that were originally shown on the lots. Um and then we talked about another concept that kind of did that. So what we did is we kind of took the original idea that we presented and we shrunk down the lots to the greatest extent that we could while still meeting the 40,000 square ft usable area. That's really how we arrived at the concept that's or the plan that's now in front of you. So each of those lots has the 40,000 ft usable area as defined by the ordinance. What we did to to determine that was to subtract wetlands and easements from that that raw acreage on each lot. Um we also and and to meet that standard we had to shift the roadway I think like 10 10 ft to the north. So the roadway just slightly shifted. Um but it is generally the same as what the planning board walked. It's generally that same layout that we walked. There's really u no significant changes there. The open space is generally the same as what we looked at on the site, what was originally represented in the sketch plan. Um, as noted at the planning board sitewalk, the lot was previously harvested by the by the previous owner. So, the current client acquired this land as it is today. So, I I know that that was discussed at the last planning board meeting last week, but I just want to make sure that that's not the case here with this applicant. Um, and the intent would be that that open space is just left undisturbed so that in 10 years you start to see those trees

coming up and then over time that eventually becomes a completely wooded open space as it's intended in the ordinance. um the open space. When I originally looked at this site, I thought that it was important to kind of put those wetlands into the open space. There's a there's a small uh segment of a a named stream which eventually drains to Newb Brook. Um and also there's a potential vernal pool that was identified on the plans that's in the souththeast corner of the site. that potential vernal pool will be checked um this spring which is I think the time period to check vernal pools is coming up within the next couple weeks. So that will be checked to see if it's significant or non-significant. But uh more importantly the plan also it we designed around as as if it was considered significant and we also tried to move that one lot which is um lot eight. We tried to shift that rear property line as far away as we could away from that vernal pool um just to further just promote just protection of that area. And we also trim the building envelope at that 250 ft buffer zone. Um the open space provided exceeds the standard. I believe it's around 63%. Um there was a comment at the last meeting that we were potentially trying to meet our open space standard by that strip um along the south side, but that's not the case. We could actually give that whole strip to lot 12 and we'd still far exceed open space standard. So that that open space standard which includes that some upland area. It wasn't intentional. It was just really to kind of create a space between the rightway and that southerntherly property line. And what you'll notice is that area, there are two areas where we're trying to utilize it for for storm water detention. Um those are generally the two low areas

on the parcel. So in and for storm water management wise, we're looking at doing a detention basin in the the southwest corner, which is uh right here. So this is one of the low spots of the site. It's the ditch line. So this detention basin right here, it's it's it's um discharging out to the roadside ditch. So we know that there's a neighbor close by here. So we want to pay attention and um to that. And we we're also proposing like some landscaping and like a pretty dense hedge of arborites so that that area is completely screened. There's also another low spot on the site here. So we're proposing another detention basin at this location again just to detain the Whoops, sorry. detain the runoff and then that detention basin would ultimately overflow discharge into that nearby wetland which is identified as one of the other points of analyses in our storm water report. Um about half of the roadway drains to those two basins. The other half drains out to the east which goes out to the open space. So the the the ditches along the roadway eventually go to level spreaders which will discharge runoff as sheet flow back towards the open space and that larger wetland complex on the site. Um each lot will be served by individual wells and septics provided as part of the application material. Um there were 16 test pits done for septic suitability. Um there were on a couple lots there were two test pits uh evaluated and the reason for that is when it fell within that 12 to 15 in uh groundwater range. They just did another test pit just to make sure that there was uh appropriate soils out there for for septic and those test pit analyses were provided as part of the application. And it also did show uh generally sandy soils which generally agree with the with the soils mapping

that we provided. Um which was a good sign. It's pretty sandy soils out there. And we tried to keep the roadway up mostly in the wetland area. Um I mean in the upland area so that we could avoid wetland impact which is what we're doing here with this project completely avoiding all wetland impact. Um, one of the comments at the last meeting was about the the 50 foot buffer or the setback structure setback from the wetland. So the updated plans do reflect that wetland setback in the building envelopes that are shown. Um, so this project because we're avoiding wetland impact, the area is below 1 acre of new impervious surface. We we're not required to go to main D with any type of either storm water law or wetland NERPA permit. Also, because no wetlands are impacted. Um Army Corps standards don't apply. Um we're no because we're not impacting any wetland. Um the the wet the Army Corps rules for wetlands have changed. Something the board may want to be aware of is jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. And that's when there's connectivity to waters of the United States. So in this case, they would be considered jurisdictional wetlands because they're directly connected to a a stream. Um so in this case, we're we're not doing we're not we're not proposing any wetland impact, which is which is great for a project. You don't see that too often nowadays in Maine. Blots are becoming harder and harder to come by um with with minimal wetlands. Um so I think the site layout does a good job. And again, we we did try to reduce those lots down as much as we could while keeping that buildable area. And each of the building envelopes that we show um are generally good buildable areas for each of the homes that we that we show on the plan. However, those

homes are for illustrative purposes. Um we'd like to provide some flexibility to the builder to situate the homes within that envelope. Um, so but generally the home locations that we show, I have a good idea they'll end up around that same area because the test pits that we did uh considered those locations. So I guess with that I'll open it up to the board for comments. Um, if you think there's any application material that we missed here. Um,

well, I think we need to go through the application just to any Let me let me start with the board. Um, any questions on the application itself and whether or not you see anything that's deficient? Yeah, I have a couple things. Um, on the application itself, um, just curious, um, acreage wasn't noted in the application. Um, it is noted, you know, I think in your written. Yeah. But it just wasn't noted on the application itself. Just it was a lot. I should own that. Yeah, we just talked about it.

Okay. The U application form, which I prepared using Adobe to make it a fillable. Uh, those boxes, if you check on yours, it's a check mark instead of being able to type in text like others. So, I fixed that today on the website. So, that's why it's not on there. Got it. Thank you. My bad. So, in general property info, section C of that app, maybe like five, six lines down, it says total acreage of parcel and it was noted right there. Um, 46.3 acres. Okay. Yeah. It just the one I'm looking at.

It was Yeah, I know. Blank, but So, you you're saying you had it in yours? Yes, I understand. under under section C of the application. Perfect. Okay. And it was just a note like I like I said, it's also noted elsewhere in the application on site plans, things like that, but I just wanted to bring that up. Um I have bunch of other questions, but I don't I wonder if we should just go through our questions and then go through or this is about the application right now. Okay.

Yep. Um so if you have any application questions, comments, concerns, let's let's go through them. Um, one of the questions has to do with liquidation harvesting. Um, I understand that where it is right now. Um, has any liquidation harvesting of timber occurred in the past 5 years? I understand that the um, land owner pretty much just bought the land. Yeah. Any timber cuts was done previous, but was that liquidation harvesting? Like I don't know if that answer should be yes. Where is that? Um is that on the application? Same same. It's just a couple under uh the acreage one.

Same page is on the application. Is that liquidation like Well, my understanding of liquidation harvesting is you take all all the timber off the as opposed to select selective cutting. Okay. So, this was more selective cutting, wasn't it? Like they left some There's there's some trees out there. Yes. Okay. May not constitute liquidation harvesting. If you want the applicant to give uh some determination of whether it triggers, you know, how long ago did it happen and did it does it qualify under the forestry rules as liquidation or not? You could certainly request that additional information. Okay.

You don't remember that cold January day? She blew us off. That's why you brought it up. Yes. I I was not there. I It was cold. I haven't seen that site. Um, I it doesn't I'm not really bothered by it. I just wanted to point it out. I wasn't sure the definition of liquidation harvesting and this this site. So, sounds like it was not liquidation harvesting. Regardless, I don't know that it was within the five years, right? Right. Yeah. Oh, I thought it was 2020 says no. in the application. I think it does say the year and I think it was 2023 or 2022 that was cut, wasn't it?

Yeah. I'm trying to look confirm that now. I know that when we were working on this, I remember looking into that at one point. Yeah, I think I saw 2023, but even if it was within Yeah, it was cleared in 2023. So, even if it was within five years, Yeah. I don't have a was a different land owner. I don't know. I don't have concerns about that for this project. Okay. Unless anyone else does. I don't I don't after the site work, there's not much you can do there if it's owner. Exactly. Exactly. Did

it exactly right. Um but if we could stay on trees for a second. Um, so on the site plan, I do see tree line, which is great. And I'm looking at I think this is called the subdivision plan that's proposed, right? Those tree that tree line. Yeah, those were tree save areas that we tried to identify between lots where there's some trees that currently exist out there. So, we were just trying to identify where there's potential tree save areas. Okay. Is there any more tree clearing needed? Um, and if so, where is that shown?

So, the there will be some trees removed between lots one and two. There were some trees. Okay. And where where would we see that on the plan set? Where does it show? Like, how do I Looking at the existing condition plan right now. Okay. Doesn't look like Yeah. So they that existing condition plan reflects the old trees. I mean so you you're looking to see where like the trees are being like where more trees will need to be cut. Yeah. Yeah. I would like to see that.

Yeah. We can with the with the next iteration of this plan definitely update it to show where the trees we could highlight it with like a red where the tree cutting will occur. Yeah. Um tree cutting overall because the the site has been harvested um it will be fairly minimal compared to you know this was a a raw wooded land. Okay. Oh rest um the tree line on the south side of the site generally reflects where it is today. So there won't be a lot of cutting for between lots 9 through lot 12.

Okay. Um, as I noted, it's really between lots one and two and then just kind of toward the back of the lots out towards um, what lots of are those like north lots five and six. I think we'll have just some ultimately for the construction of the homes, we'll have some trees trimmed in the back there. Mhm. Okay. But overall, the amount of tree clearing is pretty pretty minimal here. Um because it has been partially harvested. Okay. Um on that note, I know I said rest, but has the Durham Conservation Commission been consulted yet? I think if George um what's that process? They

they typically just monitor the agendas and we'll submit if they have comments, right? Okay. Okay. Great. Two I think two of the members were at the sidewalk. Yes. Okay. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. They usually have comments, you know, bats and tree clearing and things like that. You had mentioned on the buckler between this lot and the neighbor that you're going to use arbavati trees. Yeah. My my only concern I have arabati trees in one area and deer love them. I would hate for you to plant them there and have them not survive.

Yeah. So, it's just one of those something to think about. We can look into an alternative there. Yeah, I know. Um I know they grow quick and they provide a good buffer and they they they'll trim the ped off the bottom. Yeah, I can look into that. The other tree species that's good. I'm not a landscape architect. We have landscape architects at my company that can provide another recommendation for a tree that can grow pretty quick and be a good buffer. A good species to think of is the green giant that's um deer almost deer resistant. I think I think that's a species. Okay. Um there's some out there.

Okay. Yeah, we you will note like we we're showing up to 44 of them. So there's we're trying to provide a pretty good buffer there. Recognizing that the neighbors right there, did you indicate anywhere whether these homes were going to be have a fire suppression or a fire pond? There's So, they're going to have they're going to have sprinkler systems that I didn't see that have been noted. I think it might be a note on the plan. That could be. I did not see it. It is. Is it a plan? Yeah. Yeah. This was brought up.

Yeah. It's note 16 on the on the overall site plan. I guess to that we also sent these plans along to the fire department and I guess I just want to confirm that that note meets their standard if if the fire department actually requires the NFPA 20 standard to be met for I believe they do. Okay. For life safety. Um you might want to follow up on that.

Yeah. just to make sure that they're okay with it. But that's the direction that the town would prefer to head into. Y another item I didn't notice was a readiness to serve letter with our waste solid waste hauler. Uh Cassella Cassella I can is that a requirement for preliminary completeness but I can certainly reach out and get that. It's not even a requirement yet will be potentially on June 13th but for final or was it prelim? Are we adding it?

Just they just need to state what they're going to do at this stage. At this I would strongly recommend it. Yeah I've done that now. Well, site location requires that ability to serve letter now. So, I'm familiar with the contact at Cassella to to get that info,

right? Um, I've got one on the site plan. Um, again, the same ones, the subdivision plan. There's like a dark hatched area. Um, it's not wetlands. It might be trees. Do you um I don't know if you have it on your big plan there. It's kind of like dark hatched like dots or something. Yeah, right here. this.

Oh, so that is that is um um where wells can be installed on the lot. So that represents the areas on the lots that are outside the 100 ft well exclusion zone. Okay, got it. Yeah, sorry if that wasn't it's probably on there somewhere. I just It should It should also Yeah. have be noted a couple times on there. But yeah, that's what that dot that dotted hatch represents where the wells can be installed. Okay. Uh where were the test pits done? Can you are they on here? Do they show?

So the test pits are Yeah, they show better on the plan and profile drawings, but you can see like these little symbols at each of the basically where each of these squares are shown. And so this is where the proposed septic is going. Y and so there was at least 12 there 14. there were 16 total. So like in areas like this one Mhm. in areas where there were two, that means that one of the test pits showed like groundwater within that 12 to 15 in range. So they just wanted to do another test pit to see if there was

some deeper groundwater at another location on the site. Okay. Or nearby. Because I will note um that this area right here is really where the wetland is which makes sense is um I think a poorly drained soil and having like standing water surface water is common for that type of soil. Um it's not very poorly drained. It's just poorly drained. So when we get into the review of the subdivision, you know, lot requirements. Um, but I do just want to note that that I'm kind of surprised that those test pits worked out okay, but sounds like they did. Yeah. Up up up up in the upland area, it's actually sandy soils. Yeah. Surprisingly.

Yeah. I would have thought, similar to you, that it would have been like a silty type soil even in the uplands, but it was it was actually like a sandy lom. Yeah. Um, is there anywhere on any of these planes where the types of soils are shown? They're in this. They're in this. So maybe I saw the I saw the map, but I mean on the site plan itself. It's on the drain the drainage plans we show it. Oh, okay. Um that's at they're at the tail end of the plan set. Okay, perfect. I'll take a look at that. Thank you. But I could certainly add I see them. I could certainly add them to the overall site plan if that's No, I think the last sheet, the colored one

there. There's two sheets that kind of show. Okay. Um Mhm. Um and I think it was the wall pole, right? Wasn't that the one? Yes. WA. And there's a second one. Um yeah, just something to pay attention to for cluster subdivisions. Um it I don't think it says very poorly drained soils, but poorly drained soils should not be within um the sub. I think it says so in our regs it's very poorly isn't it? Yes, it does say very poorly. Yeah, it says very this but Wallpole is poorly drained.

I think there's WA and there's another one that's Oh, there's another one. There are two that are within the um site the buildable sites that that are hydric. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So something to look at at um again are the one subdivisions is that none of that occurs within the building site. Could we do you know about the soils Craig or No, I can look more into it. Um I'm kind of digging in I'm looking at the the map right now.

Okay. All I saw was wallpool was hydrate and then I I didn't see any of the others that were but I was looking at the physical report that submitted with the application. I know that Buckton and Scantic are generally poor soils. I didn't um those are gen scantic especially is typically representative of like a a wetland area. Okay. Um Walt Oh yeah. So where is that on your site? Where's Scantic? I don't see that color anywhere. I mean, I see it on the legend, but I don't see it. I'm going to BGB.

I'm going to go to the my soil map just so I can take a look at that, too. So, the said that there's it'd be great to see that overlaid in the site plan. We'll talk about it more next time. and actually just include this the scantic and very poorly as opposed to all the soils. It'll be more clear. Yep. Yeah. I mean, we're not we're not going to, you know, we're looking at drawings individually and we're not going to overlay them ourselves. You're the engineer. Yeah. If you could just kind of overlay that to the site that I feel like there are more than one.

Yeah. No, you're right. Scantic I know is, but I didn't see it on the site plan. That soil, I didn't know it was on the site plan. I see it in the legend, but I didn't see it on the site plan. So, if you want to provide that next time, I think that'd be helpful. Okay. Anything else, Julia? Mhm. All right. Um, no waivers are being requested at this time, right? No, unless the board sees anything that I we should be asking a waiver for, but at this time, no,

we can get into that maybe when we go through it, but um just wanted to make sure you weren't requesting any. And yeah, as you mentioned, um I think in your application, it does say that the vernal pool assessment was going to be completed this month. Yeah. Um if it is noted as significant um I know MDIF&W is proposing or not proposing they're recommending that lots um 89 and 10 are without that uh 250 foot buffer. So if if it's not if it is significant

if it is significant. Yeah. And and we can cross that bridge afterwards. I think that's fine. But I did just want to have that discussion of you know what you're you you have mapped it out. Um we see where it is. Um MDINW came back and did say that they do recommend that um the 250 uh setback is pushed out of those three lots. Did they look at the earlier iteration or I think they did because I think the consultation was done a while ago, right? Cuz the earlier one had those lots extending, right? Yeah, the lots were

that could be. You mean they've seen another site plan? Yeah, they they saw the earlier version. Mhm. Um so yeah, that veral pool assessment will be done this spring. Um the plan that we have in place does show how we're considering it being identified as significant. Yeah.

Um I know that that's a recommendation from Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, not a not necessarily a requirement. If we were to um make those lots less. I'm just thinking about the usable area to try to make that work. But I mean, what I've seen on other projects is um that it's marked permanently on the site with like signage like no making sure that it's a no cut area. And then in the plan that's ultimately recorded at the registry of deeds, it's has very clear notes at the and requirements that the owners of those lots would receive that makes it clear that when they buy those lots, this whole area is a noclear area.

A lot of times when it um there aren't requirements for subdivisions to convey that plan over to owners. Um, but I I think here what could happen is like that tree area could certainly we could identify a no clear area and it could be permanently marked with signage, okay, out there as well as um making sure the recorded plan it's it's very clear too because if that if we were to completely alter those lots, I'm just worried about the amount of usable the the land avail upland area available for each of those lots to meet the town's definition.

Well, let's let's I I recommend we cross that bridge after you get the the uh delineation results back. Um when was this site plan done, the new one? The new one was done probably like a couple days before the planning board sitewalk. Okay. Because that I was able to talk about some of the changes at that meeting um that we had made. So I I can certainly reach out if if it becomes significant. I can certainly reach out to inland fisheries and wildlife and share the revised plan to get their feedback.

Yeah, maybe with a proposed like I don't know if we want to call it a perpetual easement or something like that. Yeah, I I I'd like to hear that. See that? Um so I don't know George if MDINW reviews the new one their consultation letters to either January 7th. That could be a preliminary approval condition. Absolutely. Yep. Absolutely. Well, thank you for for considering it and and talking through it because I don't have any other comments on that part. I know.

Um, no field works being done on site, right? No. And won't be until Yeah. Okay. um the main water yield map. Yeah, it was really hard to read. Um it's at the very end of the application. Um I can't

It's hard to tell. My eyes are so bad. Um, it's this one that I'm looking at, right? Um, is that So, we have a yellow one near the site and you have an orange one near the site, then you have a green one back here. This is in the far edge. Yeah. Um, the green is what? Four is that four to six? Four to six. Okay. And I think that's like baseline, right? Yeah. Four to six or so. Well, below four is when you start to require some type of like tank system for additional um storage of water.

Okay. Um I don't think it will be an an issue on the site just for each lot will have its own well. So because of that, I think I think it's going to be all it's going to be fine. Okay. It will be fine. And then the yellow is um 6 to 12, right? I think that's what that says. The yellow one. And then 6.1 to 12. Yeah, I can see how that's hard to read. It's hard. I wanted to confirm what those print very clearly. All right, great. Thank you. What does the purple mean on this map? D something. Private wells. EQ

or DEQ. The EP is an eye test, isn't it? Well, it's not. I think it's just Is this like a um campground kind of thing? I don't know if it's like a a requirement for that lot or whatever that needed it. I don't know if it's a public well. Okay. Okay. It's not really adjacent to the site, but I saw them. I could read the thing. So, um I think we're getting close to the end of my questions. Um have you had any discussions with the neighbors yet? I think last time we spoke um you hadn't. Um we have not. Um

I guess public hearing next schedule that next. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And permits. You started out saying I think no permits. No. No state or federal permits ex with the exception it will require a main construction general permit prior to construction. Yep. Um so that might be like a condition of approval that before uh building permits are issued that the main construction general permit or so main D no long they only want you to submit the main construction general permit when there's a contractor on board and they're about to start construction. So really close to

Yeah. And and the re and and what triggers that is more than one acre of overall disturbance and development is being proposed. Okay. Here. Um so it only requires a main construction general permit. Okay. Back on the wells. Yeah. Um I believe that the mobile home park up the road has a public water system well. Okay. And that may require notification of this subdivision going in within the certain radius of that. Okay.

So, we did put together the butter labels. And I thought when we did that, it looked at all those land owners in that mobile home park. And I guess a question for you, George, to the board, is do we have to notify all of those owners in the mobile home park or is there like a probably the owner? Yeah, the owner of the land, right? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, whoever's responsible for the water system, which would be the owner. And again, it's just a notice that doesn't require you to do anything other than notify them that this is going in.

Okay? if it's within certain distance and I can't remember if it's a thousand feet or but that would be the EEQ. Okay, I think we're on that now. Okay, thank you George. Okay, that is all of my questions. Thank you so much, Alan. I don't think we have further questions at the moment. Sunny,

uh I have one question. So on your application the checklist there is a uh on the section C 26 it says any identified historic resources. Uh it says yes. Are there any? No. So we did reach out to main historic on here. Um I'm going to see which section that's in. It's in the consultation section which is uh I is that right? It's the last consultation letter in section I. Okay. From Yeah. MHPO or MHPC.

And so they didn't identify any historical resources around this this project. Gota. Thanks.

That's typically how we we handle it. oftent times um they'll flag if there was um either if there's known historic homes in the area. Um often times when there's a stream nearby stream if there's if there's evidence that it was ever historically settled upon they'll they'll flag like a phase one archaeological. Um, in this case, they didn't see any anything of any resources in or around this property. And just clarify, the yes means it's checked. It's not that there is historic. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, my comments are min minimal here. Um, you all have done a great job reviewing this. Thank you so much. Um, one of the things I wanted to bring up, Craig, is that we recently received um um feedback from our town attorney regarding um the building envelope site. Um and um it needs to be and I appreciate the fact that you've taken out um wetlands and slopes and um uh but but it needs to be an envelope of George's envelope, right? I still of 40,000 contiguous minimum of 40,000 contiguous square feet. Just wanted to make sure that

we did look at that. So like in for instance where on lot eight, lot eight is separated by a wetland. There's kind of like a wetland that kind of cuts through it. So in that particular instance, we didn't count because it wasn't contiguous. We only counted the usable area where the building envelope is shown. Um, so that was one place where I saw an example where where that might be applied. So in other words, in on lot what? Lot eight.

I'm sorry. The key word here is contiguous. I see where wetlands cross through lot 8. And if it's a 49,000 square foot lot, I just want to make sure that it's 40 contiguous square feet. Yes, that's buildable. Yeah, that's that's how we looked at that 40,000 square foot calculation. Sorry to cut you.

No, no, that's kind of what I was going to say is that the white circleish around the um the pit and the house and the road, that is the area that you've measured. That is at least 40,000. It doesn't include that break, that additional white area that is broken by the wetland. No, it does not include wetlands. Yep. So, it doesn't include that additional area because it's broken, right? Yeah. Okay.

And then in areas like at the end of the road, you'll see you'll see like some drainage easements for like the level spreaders. Um those were taken out as well. Does that area need to be taken out for drainage easements? I just want to back up and just I want to make sure we're on the same page. This is we've have we have three um cluster subdivisions on our plate right now and I want to make sure that we get this right for everybody. Lot 8 from what I see is 49079 square feet in total. Yeah. And

well, oh wait, no, sorry. Lot six. I was look at for some reason thought it was eight. Lot six has the wetland going through it. Switch gear to six here. 666. And And you're right. Lot eight does also have a wetland. So lot six is is is one area. So is lot eight. So lot eight does also doesn't have include that little piece in that corner.

But lot 8 is a total of 49,00079 square ft. Is that right?

Yes. The contiguous buildable area needs to be 40,000 square ft. So if this wetland that crosses through lot 8 does not provide you with that contiguous area, it needs to be redesigned. I'm going to do a quick calc right now to see.

Right. So everything within the wetland would be deducted and the area on the right side of the wetland. So that corner there could not be more than 9,000 square feet or it trigger push it down under 40. Exactly. But I think everything else counts. Yes. I think that's I believe that's how that lot should have been calculated. So, if we go down to that lot usable area, lot 8 49,000. Oh, the it's at the middle bottom of the sheet. Y So, we have taken out wetlands.

Okay. Okay. And just as a reminder, on the last project, we are going to have the peer reviewer check those numbers. Yep. Yeah. Craig, we we'll probably um ask the same of you all. Yeah. Just to have that peer reviewed. Um just wanted to bring you up to speed on that. It's kind of new information that we Well, you were here. Um yeah, and that was something I kind of when I heard you we we talked about that during the sketch plan and that was something that I did pay attention to when I prepared this revised layout plan. I I really wanted to make sure we hit on that.

Good. Um, so I will double check that. Um, but to your to your point around that, so we had some discussion around the vernal pool. I was just going to bring will the vernal can the vernal pool upland area be counted toward that calculation? Where in our our ordinance is this listed? Do you know the top? Question 6 uh a 4.1.8 8 4 4.1 1A or A1 is the overall 40,000 square ft of buildable area. That's for all subdivisions including cluster.

Correct. Okay. Yeah. And so under that standard you must deduct in resource protection wetlands or slopes greater than 20%. And so that is the standard each of these lots would have to meet. Then that one you didn't say soils. So soils, correct? No. So it's clusters. The soil clusters. Where's that? It narrows it down and says within that 40,000 square ft.

You can't put your buildings and developed area of the almost an acre of land which is 40,000 square feet. You cannot put your building, say there's a wetland just adjacent to it, within 50 feet of the wetland or on very poorly drained soils or steep slopes. So even if they had the 40, say they had 45,000 square ft, but the 5,000 square feet like on the other subdivision is a steep slope area, they can't put the building into that steep slope area. They have to keep away from that and the wetland buffer. Correct.

Yeah. Buffers. Yeah. So in that particular lot, you can see like how we came up with that calculation. So it it it does back out that ent this wetland and that entire corner there, but it does include that vernal pool buffer because when I looked at that standard, it didn't specifically state that being part of the subtraction. Um, and the town attorney has what's the what's the um hatched area where the where the black red dot or black circle is right there underneath the number nine?

Oh, this is that's just that's just uh areas where wells can be Okay. Yeah, that's just areas where wells can be installed. Okay. Uh, so great question on the vernal pools. Yeah. Um, yeah, the town attorney has said it's not specifically listed in 4 uh 1 A1. You do not deduct it. You don't have to deduct it. All right. So, we're good. And but should it be set back? Uh, yes. Excludes the say back from 50 ft. 50 ft. That's for the buildable. That's back. But they don't have to deduct it. Right. Right. That's for the That's what we did. Yeah. We So, so that's

that red line along the wetland is the setback or the wetland? No, the setback is shown right with this line right here. So, you can see that this line right here is a that right there is 50 ft. Yep, I see it. I meant to ask this earlier. So, you're saying the wetland needs to be deducted to No, no, no. It already is. Well, it's not but not in that for is but the setback from wetland is not and it should according to the town attorney. No. Okay. But they can't build they can't construct a home within 50 ft of that wetland.

But it can still come towards the beautiful area. And this is our local rags, right? Yeah. It's interesting it doesn't talk about vernal pools but if yeah vernal pools isn't mentioned in this um I meant to ask earlier resource protection not on the site um no no well there is that unnamed stream it would not be resource protection don't rural residential yeah so no resource protection okay yeah cool so one of the new standards I want going back to the vernal pool we approach. We can talk about it if it went looked at more.

Um I know main department of inland fisheries and wildlife said a lot shouldn't go onto it which I think they might like this update but D also updated their standards recently. Now they look at if it is considered significant they want a a 100 foot no cut or no disturbance zone. Mhm. And I think it's important to note just because this plan will have that it will have a no protection zone as part of the lot configuration. Now,

um it's just that 250 ft buffer and you are allowed technically to have 25% disturbance within that within that 250T zone if you file a permit by rule. Um, I'd like to just have that as a no clearing area so we don't have to have the permit by rule, but there is some clearing allowed within that 250 foot zone. It's just within a 100 ft of a significant vernal pool where D now says you can't disturb it. Okay. So, you'll have that shown on the plan.

Yeah. At a minimum, what we'll and that's a very new rule. At a we'll update this plan to show that 100 foot zone and the 250 foot zone. So, it will show how how that 100 foot zone is outside. It's within the open space. It's fully contained within the open space. I would still like to hear your proposal on how to respond to MDFW. And just one more note on that regarding an easement. So, if we go back to the cluster requirements,

um I saw an easement listed here. Oh, yeah. Right here. um portions of the tract subject to existing easement. So if that was put in an easement, I don't know. You know what I'm saying? Like that could be something. Well, I think that's in the net residential area calculations. So, for instance, if there were a sewer line easement, that would have to be deducted, but I don't think that's in the building.

Yeah, I think it's the same thing as we were talking about before, right? It's like the wetlands and the slopes and the soils. You can't develop on those. But I I was just saying that easements I think is also another piece of that cuz we were talking about ement you I think you mentioned it earlier some sites with easements on it. So I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. Right. Yeah. So number four it is net residential acreage George but it's talking overall site not individual lots. Oh okay. Yeah. So the easement calculations they don't affect the usable area. Okay. No.

Again the assumption is that the clustered lots are going to be in the non sensitive areas and areas outside of these. So that they're two separate calculations. Okay. So we still need to note it but it's not overall going to make an impact. And we should we should know if that's significant or not with by the next time we meet. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Brian.

No, no problem. Good stuff. Good conversations. Um yeah, I had another Well, no, we already talked about soils. Please pay attention to that. It looked like um just make sure that we're not in very poorly train. Um um the only other comment I had I well sure if it's the only one yet but um your detention basins. Yeah. Um they are they're not allowed within the setbacks with within what setbacks? The

property line setbacks. Okay. Does it say where does it say that? Just look at the definition of structures. Structures. Okay.

Um and getting back to cluster rags. Um all all sites are supposed to have views to open spaces. I was questioning a lot one. Um, but I guess it depends on where the final site of the house will be. Um, maybe we want to make sure that that house is sighted so that it has views to open spaces. Um my other comment regard just following up on um Allen's comment regarding the um um Abraite line or line of um plantings Um, I don't know if that needs to be extended further back because we don't know in the future what's going to happen to the lot beside you and whether or not that line that planting line should go further east, plant east. I'm not I'm not sure how to how to really deal with that. But

can you explain that a little more, Brian? Yeah. So, right now, if you look at drawing C1 Yep. So, beside on the south side Mhm. there's this plant um line that they're proposing 44 abberites. Um and it's it's to um meet the requirement of um a tree line. Mhm. between properties. Yep. And it just kind of randomly stops. Oh.

Um and it it's to screen the neighbor, but the property line for the neighbor actually sure how far it goes, but um I'm just not sure whether or not that should be extended further. Okay. What is our ordinance? Our new ordinance thing say didn't we add something about buffer rows. So we don't have anything

current say what you're saying Brian. So you're saying potentially add buffer all the way. Well, maybe it'd be good to see like where the um existing structures are on the neighboring property to try to figure out what you're actually screening or what we want to screen like current right now. Yeah. Yeah. Is that on is there the existing conditions plan? Do you show neighboring lot structures?

No, we can add that to this plan. Okay. know we showed some of the existing home that the on the out parcel but we'll ex and some of the homes up above that but we'll expand it to specifically show that one to the cell. Um going back to the definition of structure and that detention basin needing to shift. So does that detention basin need to meet the side setback standard in this case? So it's would be 20 ft.

Yes. And how is that defined as to the difference between the detention basin structure and a side slope? Is it to like That's a very good question. So if we're proposing So in this particular detention basin one we're proposing there's 2 ft of detention. I guess would we go to like the the embankment on in this case is where that 20 foot would apply. I just want to make sure I I'm clear because that will require a slight redesign of both of these and I just

Yeah. Do do you have a um a a section or a blowup floor plan of those that shows the property line in relation to the I I do not but in this like here like where that where this is right here that's almost 16 ft to the embankment line. The rest of it is kind of like just like some excavation work associated with it. So the actual structure itself for the embankment is currently about 16 ft. So um do you do you have the definition of structure? Yeah, I'll look at it. Yeah.

Yeah. Cuz I think the definition of structure means anything that's from ground level down. Anything that uh let me see here. Yep. Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on or in the ground. Yeah. or attached to something having a fixed location on or in the ground excluding driveways, walkways, patios, and other paved surfaces and fences and stone or brick walls used for area separation and not as part of a building.

So yeah, in in my opinion, and you're welcome to get legal opinion if you wish, but that whole thing is within a buffer and cannot be in the in the buffer. And that buffers the the side set back being 20 ft. Okay. What I would observe is that if you think about a storm water detention basin, what portions of the basin are functional? Yeah.

And what portions are just grading terms of the topography? So clearly if you had lawn there the lawn would not have to once you get into this structural functioning which one would argue that the highest level of the water treatment or detention would be part of the structure but the very periphery and what I was looking at is the septic systems I think would be a good parallel. So within the septic system you have the stone bed and then you have the grading beyond that. So this clearly the the stone bed with all the piping in it would be structure question whether or not the the slope extensions which could go a long ways of the topography would those have to meet setbacks. I don't think most reasonable people would say that

it's part of the structure. I mean you have to do that structure as a whole. Yeah. I think it's a really good question for legal uh Let them let them make their case. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. If if you wish if you can find a better way to do it, that would be great. But am I I just don't see that.

No, that's a good comment. Detention basin 2, we can definitely easily rework that to narrow it up or raise the there's like inlets that control the water. So, we can maybe increase the inlet elevation 4 in and that might solve it. So, we can narrow it up. The other one, detention basin one, I'll just have to take a closer look at because that one's was a little bit more challenging to design just to get the peak rates to work goods. But, um, I'm confident I can I can rework it and protect the 20 foot buffer. Set back. Set back. Sorry.

Yeah, it's a good point. Okay. Anything else? So, um, next we need to schedule a public hearing. Yeah. Okay. How's our next meeting looking or is that too too quick? That works.

Mr. Burgess, do you think you have enough time to notify and be prepared for a public hearing at our Oh, jeez. May 30 days. No, wait. We're off schedule now. So, it's going to be miday. Well, we can do it earlier. No, no, no. You go with your regular main meeting, but we have 30 days from today. Within you have within 30 days, which is that is and the notice for the neighbors is only 10 days. So, okay. What What's the date of that meeting? Right.

May six.

Confirming. Yep, that would that would work. So, notice for the abutters is 10 days in advance. Mhm. Okay. We're still talking about this application, right? Or Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I'm jumping ahead here. That's okay. Yeah. And I can make that meeting. Brian can make that meeting. May six. Yep. You two good to make that meeting? Great.

Okay. for that meeting. Is it is it recommended to submit any additional info or is the current application that's in front of the board sufficient to get if they determine it's complete? Okay,

get to that. I can see it being having some conditions almost for the next stage and then if that's the case I think what you have could be okay but depends on a motion if anybody's ready to make for what? For the for a complete application with or without conditions. Oh, okay.

But it should be just the determin determination that it's complete. If it's incomplete, state what they need to submit. If it's just guidance that you've given, which my sense is, then um any conditions would be put on the preliminary approval, I think. Okay. So we should discuss that. Yeah. Do you consider it to be complete? If it's not, list what they incomplete. But if you if you just talk tonight about making, you know, like getting the soil, they've submitted their soil map. So

no, I agree. I I I I don't see anything that's incomplete in the application. You had a lot of banter. Um I think it's going to be taken into consideration but the application itself I believe it Mr. Burgess has submitted everything that we require. I will move that the Ivy Ridge preliminary plan is complete

with let's talk about that. Um, I I agree, but I do think that there are some things we should mention as conditions of the next approval or the next submitt or something that I would some things that I would like to see in the next round. Is there something that was not supplied within the application that is required to be supplied by the ordinance? Uh, I mean there's certainly some detailed information asking for. Okay.

Do you see something? I don't think so. I don't think so. No, no, no. You're right. Nothing missing. No, just details. But I didn't I don't know how we should if we do those as conditions or not. I guess I'm getting stuck there. I think during this substantive review is when we get into that detail. Okay. We made comments and yeah, we're heard. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, I would you'd second it. I'll second that. Thank you. That just puts it on the floor. Doesn't mean you have to agree to right. Right. Do you have any any thoughts? Everybody in favor? Yeah. Great. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah. And I'm fine with the comments. We'll uh we'll start looking at those detention basins, too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, okay.

Any other discussion? Our next meeting will be on May 6th, correct? I believe so. And we'll have a public hearing at that time. If for this application, correct? Yeah. As well as whatever else on the agenda. Yep. May 6th. That's right. Wait. I move to adjourn. I'll second. All in favor? All right. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Great comments.

Yeah. You feeling more comfortable? I think I'm still burning a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Just Yeah. Yeah. Hearing what you guys are thinking about. I'm like, "Oh, okay. Maybe next time I think about that." It certainly takes time to get a lot to Yeah. A lot to learn.