Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Say your people Sounds good.

Okay. Um, thank you uh everybody for showing up tonight. Um, welcome to the May 6th, 2026 um, planning board regularly scheduled mate meeting. Um we have five of us in attendance tonight plus Mr. Starge our town planner. Um so we do have a quorum and if everyone could please uh join me in standing for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Any amendments to the agenda set? Okay. Anybody has everybody have a chance to review the meeting minutes from last month? But we have two sets. Yes. Any comments there? I'd move to accept the April 1st and April 8th minutes as presented. Second. All in favor? Uh, no. That look pretty.

Thank you for asking. All right. Um, next on the agenda, um, informationational exchange on nonaggenda items. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I did include my monthly report to the town manager and select board of the work program for the planning division and would be happy to answer any questions you might have on any of those projects. you know what the status of forming the economic development committee is?

Well, understandably the select port has been a little bit uh tied up on budget issues and other matters. So, uh we're expecting that at right after the town meeting uh that project will get rolling. Okay. Okay. So, we'll talk about at that time like who might want to join from our board. Mhm. Right. Okay. Right. That'd be good. Okay. Okay. That's not

um any residents um on non-aggenda items. Any comments from any residents on non-aggenda items? Any non-residents that have comments on non-aggenda items? Okay. None. Next. Uh, continuing business, public hearing on preliminary plan for Ivy Ridge subdivision at 335 New Brook Road, map 5, lot 61. We're going to open this up for public comment. Um, I do have some rules that I need to walk through. You'll please give me a few minutes to go through this. Um so the public meeting uh for this um subdivision is now open um before the Durham Planning Board on the application for Ivy Ridge subdivision. Uh Rivy LLC Acorn Engineering is the owner's rep and the project is located at 335 New York Road. Uh the purpose of this meeting is to hear uh to hear and receive oral and written testimony relevant to the board's review of this application under the town's adopted ordinances and standards. This hearing isn't this hearing is not a form to debate broader town policies or growth management issues which are established by town meeting and must be applied by the planning board. The board's authority is limited to determining whether the application meets or fails the adopted subdivision standards. Uh before we begin, I'll review the procedures and ground rules. Under the planning board's bylaws, the chair is is responsible for describing the purpose of the hearing and proceed procedures to be followed. The board may receive oral or documentary evidence, but must exclude testimony that is irrelevant or unduly repetitious. I'll determine the relevance of testimony or evidence

presented. Any board member uh may challenge that determination by motion subject to a majority vote of the board. All testimony will be taken in an orderly fashion. Speakers are asked not to interrupt others. The chair may impose reasonable time limits as necessary to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has an adequate opportunity to be heard. Um how many people are here from the Ivy League subdivision? One. Okay. So many times will be set on that. All right.

Um all questions and comments shall be directed to the chair. I'm the chair. Um I will then direct the questions to the appropriate party whether that is the applicant, the applicant's consultant, staff, or another party for a response. Direct questioning of parties by members of the public is not permitted. Uh all parties will be given an opportunity to prevent to present information, submit rebuttal evidence and conduct cross-examination of other parties through the chair within reasonable limits to prevent an abuse of process. For the record, an agreved party is defined in a land use ordinance as a person who can demonstrate a particular injury resulting from the approval or denial of the application. An injury shared equally by all residents of the town does not constitute a particular injury. The application materials and staff comments have been made available in advance. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive public input on the application itself, not to provide a general explanation of the review process or ordinance requirements. These procedures are necessary to ensure fairness, protect due process rights for all parties, and allow the board to meet its legal deadlines for decision-making. Uh, if you get up to make comment, please provide your name and address for the meeting record. Okay. Shoot. All right. Um, so Mr. Burgess, if you'd like to start us off.

Would you like me to project this to you as normal?

Uh, to the public. It's a public hearing, so are you able to pull up the site plan, the overall site plan? do. Yeah. Thank you. So, the proposed project is um well, first of all, my name is Craig Beris with Acorn Engineering. I met many of you last week. Um I am the project manager representing the applicant Riby LLC. I'm here with Hunter today, also from Acorn Engineering. The proposed project is a 12 lot cluster subdivision. Um, as you can see there, it'll be served by a single road to serve all 12 lots. Each lot will have uh greater than 40,000 square feet of usable land area. Um overall the project will result in about86 acres of new impervious area and just over 2 and a half acres of overall kind of developed area for the construction

of the roadway. The homes shown on this map are for illustrative purposes only to demonstrate that the lots are buildable. Um the project will result in no wetland impact. So that was an important consideration when we initiated the the design. The wetlands were done by mainly soils and you can see there's a larger wetland area up on the north side with an unnamed brook over here in the northwest corner. Um so the open space is this entire parcel here. So it's one um contiguous open space area which is over 60% of the overall parcel. the amount of wetlands on the property on the within the open space represent um less than 50% of that overall open space area as well. We are keeping like a there's a strip of open space here, but that wasn't intended to meet the open space calculations. We could completely get rid of that and still meet those open space calculations. Um underground electric will be brought in from from this is New Brook Road right here. So underground electric will be brought in from a a utility pole at about this location. It'll be brought across the street with overhead electric telecommunications. And then from there it's underground the rest of the way. Each lot will be served by uh individual wastewater disposal systems as well as as well. And we've made sure that there will be at least 100 ft of separation from any well and any disposal system as part of this project. Um as part of the storm water, that's another item that we'll have to look at for this project. The storm water is being handled through two detention basins right about here near Newbrook and that will discharge directly to the

roadside ditch. And then there's another detention basin right here which will um outlet right at there's a there's a wetland area at this location. Some of the comments that we received from the planning board is just to make sure that those detention basins are 20 ft from the property line. Um since the last planning board meeting, we have revisited that storm water and we can make it work. We're going to narrow up. This detention basin was the the difficult one to try to push at least 20 feet, but we have been able to make that work since. So the the revised plans as part of that final application when we get into substantial storm water review, it will show generally the detention basin's at the same location. This one skinnies up quite a bit. This one gets slightly bigger. So we divert just a little bit more runoff to this detention basin to make those numbers work. So, um there will be a forthcoming storm water management report that addresses that because the project won't create more than 1 acre of new impervious surface. A a storm water law permit through main D is not required. So, there's no state permitting as part of this project because we fall below the thresholds. Um, also because there's no wetland impact as part of this project, we don't have to submit uh permits to Army Corps or D for the wetland permit. So, we're completely avoiding wetland impact for the roadway and for the lot development. Um, as part of the preliminary plans, there was an area in this corner of the parcel, the southeast corner, um, that was identified as a potential vernal pool area. mainly soils did get out um and they finished that vernal pool assessment just about a week and a half ago and they determined that it is not a a significant vernal pool. It did include some it did have some of the indicator species within that vernal pool um which are like woodf frogs and

salamanders but the amount of egg masses that were actually counted are less than the thresholds that that require it to be classified as a significant vernal pool. So this 250 foot buffer that's shown on the plans that will go away as part of the final plans. However, the lot configuration will remain the same. So there'll be no change to the plans other than just removing that 250 foot um vernal pool setback. Um as part of the preliminary application, we submitted a very detailed plan set um with storm water plans. We did resubmit storm water plans to better identify the soils types and uh how they're classified for drainage. Um there's also a a usable lot area table here that did include drainage easements, but that will be revised to take out drainage easements as part of that calculation. Um there's also net residential calculations in this top left corner of the plan which showed that um up to 12 lots uh are the the the land area will allow for 12 lots and that's what we're proposing at this time. But the lots are pretty they're they're all pretty good size lots. Um they're about all 50 thou around 50,000 square feet in total area give or take. Um, but the intent of this subdivision is to kind of meet the characteristic of the surrounding residential uses. Um, we're proposing a 50-foot no disturb buffer here and the hope would be that over time that will grow in and provide some additional buffering. Uh, where there's a detention basin proposed here, we're proposing some um some vegetation for visual buffering from this property at this location. Um, so I guess with that I'll turn it back over to the board with comments and back

over to the public for the public hearing. Are there any public comments?

Uh, yes. So this is Jess Costa. I live on 35 Brianna Drive. I'm the chair of the conservation commission. Um we attended the sitewalk that you all did in um January and um the commission sees there's um positive aspects of the proposal um including u the fact that it's a cluster subdivision and that it's adjacent to an existing roadway um minimizes impacts to wildlife habitat and the wetlands. Um and we definitely see the benefit of the proposed open spaced area for wildlife and for maintaining the watershed um quality. And um one thing we feel strongly about is avoiding tree clearing in the summer from May 15th to August 15th um when bats and birds are breeding. Um so if you avoid tree clearing during that time and avoid impact state listed bat species as well as migratory federalally migratory bird protected act um bird species. Um so um we think that this time of year tree clearing restriction um would be part of the uh approval of the permit. Um, and yeah, other good things is even though that's not a significant pool, that's great that the layout's not going to change. So, it technically still will there'll be a buffer around that small vertical pool. Um, and there was uh I did have a question about um a potential spring or spring box on site. I wasn't at the site visit, so I'm not really sure if there is a spring on site, but um I just wondered if um the applicant's representative could talk about if there

is a spring on site and what protections might be for that. I am not aware of a spring on site. Do you know generally where it would be located? There was an adjacent land owner that mentioned it. Um maybe we'll need to follow up after the meeting um with some more specifics cuz like I said, I wasn't at that sitewalk. Sure.

Alan, you were at that? I don't remember. I don't remember. Not at all. Granted, we No, we were there in uh sub freezing weather. I don't recall a neighbor being present at the walk sidewalk. Okay. Is that all right? I'll I'll follow up with the committee. We'll get back to you if there's still any concern. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Any other public comment?

I have one question. Is there um some sort of zoning in Durham as far as like uh could you please say your name? Oh, sorry. Jessica Copeland on Swamp Road. Okay. Um is there some uh zoning as far as buildable lots that there needs to be like two acres per building or is that am I talking about that? Um Greg, do you want to describe the clustered subdivision? Yeah. So because this is a cluster, you don't have to worry about that because it's just one road in. Is that

No, the cluster the cluster subdivision standards allow the lots to be smaller. However, it also requires the open space out in the back. So, kind of like a tradeoff with the smaller lots. The um we're trading this big block of land as open space. Got it. Um, and there's there's some wooded areas like further around the site where it will pro provide like just a bigger wooded area for wildlife habitat. Just it's better for the overall habitat ecosystem. So that's kind of the tradeoff within this particular zone. So the 45,000 that's the minimum lot size um with the cluster. But if this if this was not a cluster, I believe it would is it 90,000? It would be 90. So if this was a traditional subdivision, they would be 90,000 square foot. So 2 acre lots roughly.

Mhm. Okay. Any other public comments? U Roger New right across the street. Um those no disturbed areas about how big is that no disturbed area? This this area? Yeah, this that's a 50ft buffer that's required through the ordinance as part of this project. Okay. Were you guys planning on planting any kind of tree line or

uh right now? It's not shown in the plans, but that's something we could consider. Excuse me. Yeah, for the planning board members that weren't at the sitewalk, um, this area doesn't have much existing vegetation that would offer visual habitat. So, that would be certainly a consideration by the board. Would you like to point out where you are proposing a screen buffer? Yeah. So it would be it would be kind of along the property's front edge. I mean the current your current layout shows a buff screen buffer on the south edge there.

So we we we are providing a buffer right there. So um there's there's like staggered evergreen trees right there. Yeah. For a visual buffer. But right here in the front um that buffer zone, we don't have any trees proposed as within that area. What about on the uh around the south side and the the south and the west I guess uh of that out lot that has the house that's there now and the barn that's there right now. You get that kind of L right here

down. Yes. That that so that back area right there. You planning anything there? That lot staying that lot staying as is.

Yep. Anybody else? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. And um thank you all for your comments. Um and we'll move into our review. All right. You have anything else to add? I think I discussed um most that I had to add during the presentation.

Okay. Um any comments on the application? I uh would like confirmation that nothing additional was submitted uh between our last meeting and today. The site plans, the application materials is all the same, right? since it's been the only supplemental information we submitted were just the revised storm water maps that showed like the the soil designated. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Aside from that, but everything else is still dated March 26, right? Yes. I believe. Okay. And and the reason why I know we we did get into the storm water redesign, but I also

understood that the board's not considering the full storm water design as part of the preliminary. So I was just waiting to get into that resubmission with the final to show the storm water change. I just wanted confirmation that there wasn't anything. Yep. Okay. Thank you. So we will have this peer reviewed but can you explain how the poorly drained soils aren't affecting?

So there so that that's a bring up a good question. We did look into that a little bit more today. They're on the plan they're called somewhat poorly drained. Um and that was the the somewhat poorly drained was associated with the drainage or the hydraologic soil group. But then when you go into the particular soil types. So if you were to like zone, one of the changes we're going to make with the final is we're going to instead of looking at the hydraologic soil group, we're going to focus in on the type of soils. So when you look at the type of soils that particular the the the soil that was identified as a hydraologic group C which is that blue shade right there which is a big chunk I think is that the BGV y

um and and that that particular soil actually what's the classification of that drainage you have NGB is we did print it out. So, oh yeah, here we go. Yeah, moderately well drained.

It's it's actually moderately well drained. So, we went through all when you look at the specific soil types, they're all actually well drained. Um but when you looked at the the soil class or the hydraologic soil group is where it broke it out somewhat poorly drained. But that's really one of the revisions we would make in with the final is that these are actually all well drained soils on the site with the Are there any exceptions to that within the property? I don't

believe the a so the so the AD is Adams and that's like about as well drained as you can get in Maine. That's excessively well drained. The blue was was the one we just discussed. So, these are all really well- drained soils. Um, when I did get a chance to walk the site prior to the snow, I could tell that these were these were sandy looms that um were generally good for this. And then we did submit the test pit data that generally shows that each lot has there there are pretty good soils out there to support the septic systems. Okay. And I think it might have been wallp. Is it wallp soils, right? I think

a a slash I think they're a d, right? Is that right? Okay. So maybe just some edits to your application, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So um in the bottom I think right of this plan um this the the drainage classifications was associated with the with the hydraologic soil group but we're going to change that so that it's directly tied to the specific soil type and they're they're all well drained soils asident as identified and that is shown in the uh test pits right. Yeah, there were done.

Yeah, there were test pits done that didn't identify this the soil classification. It just showed that there's it identified like sandy lom and that it identified the drainage right characteristics. Yeah. Okay.

So this is where over here the drainage classification was tied to the hydraologic soil group. So this drainage classifi class classification with the final app would would move over to here and then be specific to each one of these soils. And in that case all all those soils u with the exception of like scantic and scantic could even be removed off that because there are no scantic soils that were shown on this. So um scantic is a poorly drained soil but that's not within the limits of this project. It was probably pulled from because it's somewhere out. Yeah,

it's further north of the property outside the property limits. Okay.

Not on that question I have it's on I realize that you've done I believe you you had listed three other uh developments that you had done. Correct. um in Brunswick. I believe the the reason I'm asking under the financial capacity in the letter that we received from u savings

and they specifically say the approved financing is is contingent based on but not limited to appraisal of the subject property. And I'm just is that something you anticipate doing at a later stage or

um the key word that I see there was contingent. Contingent. Yeah. Would you like to see that done as part like I'll have to take a look at it right now to see exactly how that's worded. Oh, thank you.

Can I address that? Um so typically at final stage they would be required to get an engineer's estimate for all the infrastructure and then the typical documentation of financial capacity is a letter of commitment from a bank stating that they reviewed those project estimates and the proform of the developer and they're prepared to issue credit for the project if the board approves it. So that's the typical way. There are other ways of doing it but uh that does raise a question that I had shared with the chairman is that the applicant is Rivy LLC and the projects cited as demonstration of technical capacity were not done according to the public record by Libby Rivy excuse me LLC. They were done by Snell Construction LLC. So there's a question in terms of the documentation um being actually of the of the developer of this project and that should be clarified with final approval.

Okay, we'll get that taken care of. Yeah, I certainly understand that these are some expenses that you wouldn't want to be occurring until that uh preliminary approval from the planning board. So, who is Rivy LLC?

Um, what do you mean by who is Rivy LLC? Well, I guess if again getting back to the technical ability part, if Rivy was not the developer for these three projects, who who is similar owner similar ownership as Rivy LLC, which is uh Johnny Snell is associated with it. Okay. Thank you. Johnny Snell. Yeah. Are we open for discussion? We are. I was still talking about sorry

the application. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um so regarding the vernal pool, so that that I think is is great news. It's not significant, but like um Jess mentioned, I do love the fact that you know the the layout isn't changing. Um you're just removing the buffer that's not needed anymore. Um but that protection is still somewhat there which is great. Um you still need to follow back up with the main department of inland fisheries and wildlife with the results of the vital pool survey. Right. So that's still okay. It's more of a question. We can do that now that we this information just came in within the last week.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. part of the letter from the agency, it does ask to um have the survey results sent back to them. Okay, great. Um any word from the fire department yet? Did you hear back from them? I did not. I Yeah, I'll circle back though. Yeah. Um the hammerhead was designed per the town standard. Um, so wouldn't expect um any hopefully major comments on the turnaround design, but

well since all uh all the homes are going to be sprinkled, correct? Yes. Therefore, we're not developing a pond to Right. Right. I still think it's good to have the fire department, right? Just Yep. Um there are a couple of attachments missing. Um the hydrocad calculations are they going to be provided in the final? We did provide them. I think George intentionally removed it's just all you mentioned that got

200 pages of them. Um last month we had a comment about um changing the species of the plantings on the west side there. You still planning to change that? And that was we yes we can if uh that could be something considered as part of the next submission that would be great but and I know that there was comment about not having a species that attracts deer. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. They become unsightly.

I didn't see anything from Cassella on this. Trash pickup.

Yeah. What are we calling that? Letter of Letter of Serve. Yeah. Attent to serve. Attent to serve. Is that the plan? That'll be all curbside pick up. It appears that with the change in our trash and recycling pickup that Cassella has been receptive to going in on subdivisions. Yeah, I think they're getting used to the process of putting together ability to serve letters now. That seems to be a common request and that's pretty new within the last couple years anyway. Mhm.

Um, so I heard no need for a wetland permit. Um, no need for a um site law, right? You don't need the big storm water permit. N um any anything else general permit? So it will when when there's a contractor lined up um the state requires submission of an NOI permit. So that could be something that would be like a possibly a condition of approval to the final is that um that that NOI would have to be submitted to the state of Maine and that's through Yeah. DP. Yes. Right. Okay. Aside from that, that's it, right? Okay.

The contractor is just for the infrastructure, right? All the individual lots would be sold off. Correct. The road. Yeah. It would be constructing the roadway, the drainage, the the underground electric. Um, and then the lots will be sold off. There's no like designated builder or anything like that.

Not at this time though. Uh, could we just talk a second about the um the veg buffers? So, currently you're proposing veg buffer. Oh, not that one. Um, along the southern. Yeah. But not the east western. Uh, not the western at this time. Does the town have any specific standards for for that particular roadside buffer that's required as part of the cluster? I don't think we have standards.

I just looked up the language and it says that if there is wooded vegetation in there, it has to be maintained except for cuts for driveways and roads. So, there's nothing in the ordinance right now that requires a planted buffer along there. But we could discuss, right, if we wanted to add anything in there, require it. Um I wasn't at the site visit, but it does sound like it's pretty bare right there. Yeah. Okay. So, both sides, the whole thing, right? Kind of bare.

Well, on on this side here, um we do have like a like a drainage pipe kind of going through. We really wanted to try to get that drainage pipe back out to the roadside ditch. Um, so there is an under drain going through there, but that front area, it's currently like grass today or it's there's there's a lot of ditch, so a lot of the ditch grading extends kind of into it. Uhhuh. Um, but but for the most part, this area here, it's it it's grass today. Okay. And would we be able to put trees? Where would you be able to put trees if if you did? Would it be on the further side? You said there was like a drainage ditch. Like would that

Yeah, it would probably just be kind of closer to this side right here. Okay. Okay. What are our thoughts on that? Where's the um there's an existing tree line that's set back from the road. Where is that? Yeah. So, this is this is the existing the tree cluster and then there was some trees in this area here. So saving that. Yeah.

Yeah. We're trying to save as much of this as we can and then there are there are good stand of trees right in this location here which will be preserved and then we're trying to we're trying to replant some buffering there. Um and as I noted this this grading here will be pulled back 20 feet. So that will be more in this area. Oh yeah, I think if the developer is amenable to putting some wood or some screen. Okay, we'll look into that. Part of the final.

That'd be nice. Thank you. for the final plan. I think uh we are not think I know that we'll need to see where the tree clearing will right that'll be on the final plan set.

Yes. Okay. and an upgrade on the location of the detention basin. It was

and I think we talked about showing the adjoining houses on the next plan set just being able to see where they are. Um just as a reminder Um, are you opposed if we were to add as a condition of approval here, are you opposed to um not performing any construction between May and August 15th?

Not performing tree clearing. Clearing between what were those dates?

May 15th and August 15th. Um, yeah, that seems to I'd like to at least pass that by the applicant. Make sure that I mean with with the ultimate approval of this, we we would be looking into probably July anyway for construction start sometime in maybe August, September. Um, but there's not a substantial amount of tree clearing to begin with on this property. Um especially the trees that would support any sort of bat habitat would really probably be just with any tree clearing associated with this roadway to be cut in through here.

I think that's the only um area that would support but I think it's something we can consider. Um I would just like to talk with that before we make Yeah. I mean that there that was considerable amount of tree clearing within the last 5 to 10 years. Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty sparse unfortunately you know for a cluster we like to maintain as much as we can but yeah it's unfortunate that it was cleared recently. Yeah it it is pretty sparse there now.

Okay. Thank you for considering that. Should we look at the draft conditions of the pool? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'd love to. Would you like to go through that? Anna, do we want to summarize them? That would be helpful. Definitely would be.

Okay. So the first one is the standard requirement of designating that the planning board is going to require peer review of all the engineering for the project and also uh given the cluster lot questions. They will also review the calculations of the um building envelopes for each lot as well as the u building site uh provisions for the cluster lots. Just double check their calculations. Um the um construction estimates for the performance guarantee will include the road construction, the electrical service, the storm water management and the erosion and sedimentation controls where there is no fire pond. Uh that would not be included. Um the ordinance requires that they submit within 6 months of their preliminary approval the final application. However, if for some reason they have delays, they can come back and request an extension of that. That's uh COA number three. Four is the approval of D if necessary and it appears that that would not be necessary. So we could probably delete that from the four. Um the and it notwithstanding the D exemption, they still have to meet the town's uh storm water and erosion control which are basically the same as D, but that can be done as part of the subdivision review.

Shall we talk while you go through this or do uh yeah, if you'd like. That one the the permit one I think we do want to keep in the NOI permit. Well that that is really just a notice requirement right after after approval. NOI yeah it's a notice of intent to start construction right? Yeah but I mean just definitely like for the erosion control certification of the contractor stuff like that. Yeah, we can put that in as a standard uh it's probably the standard condition for the final. Absolutely. Yes, that's what I meant. the final but it's not necessary but there's nothing else needed aside from that in my opinion right yeah

okay uh number six in the draft uh conditions would be the vegetative clearing being shown on the final plans which was discussed seven uh was the u submitting the the street proposed street name for addressing by the town's addressing officer eight is the engineer drawings uh meeting all requirements of appendix one Uh nine is the limits of clearing being shown on the plans and referenced in GES. Uh 10 is the construction estimate for all those

and and part of this is documenting that at the final plan they will meet all of the specific requirements. That's some of it's repetitive. Uh 11 is the uh again include all D permits if required and uh any easements. So for example in the uh in the open space which is going to be owned by the association there should be drainage easements so that they can go on and do that maintenance and that should be clarified in those documents.

Uh number 12 is the actual documents that uh are going to be done by the homeowners as well as the association and the town does provide a template for that that's been approved by the town attorney. uh if they want to do something different they can do that but they have to cover the cost of a town attorney legal review of those documents. The templates are available on the website. Uh the 13th is the uh board's actual approval of the cluster plan. Uh and finally number 14 is that issue of them providing the uh financial security for the construction of all the project as a condition of final approvement. Now I did add one u that I discussed in terms of that issue of the actual developer in their financial and technical capacity. So on number 10 I think it was I added that they provide documentation of the technical experience of uh Rivy LLC as opposed to uh some other developer who has done different projects that are listed in their application. Uh, I would like to recommend that we do add in the bat claim here. Um, uh, specific language.

No tree removal between May 15th and August 15th. Yeah. Um, yep. No tree clearing between May 15th to August 15th. And the applicant indicated they want to check with their client and you could modify that at the final if necessary. Great. Does that work? Yeah. Okay.

Anything else you wanted to add there? I would move that we accept the preliminary subdivision approval of either subdivision as narrated and presented to us. I'll second.

Thank you very much. I can just say here next project.

Okay. New business. Uh request for conditional use approval for expansion of the Ripley Jaden gravel pit at 11:04 Hollowell Road, map 7, lot 57. Uh public comment will not be taken uh during this presentation. Um I will say that we have received um lots of public comments um through the um phone planner and um there will be a public comment period um that's not happening today. So as long as everybody understands that um thank you for your patience but there will be if if this continues um there will be a public comment period in the future. Thank you.

Um and all of your comments will go in record. We we have them. George has been keeping a file of them and um they'll be distributed or made made available when the time comes. Thank you.

So, we did have a chance last week to download the planning board. Sorry. Sorry. Can Are you the applicant who's serving? Would you mind just like Craig Burgess with Acorn Engineering. I'm here today on behalf of Jaden Landscaping. So Jaden Landscaping is the applicant. Jaden Landscaping, Inc. Inc. Yep.

Thank you. Um, we did have a chance to to download the planning board packet for this project um, early this week and spend some more time over the last couple of days to review the the checklist items as well as some of the staff comments. And some of those comments are fairly substantial and um we understand that and we would like some more time to provide thoughtful responses to those comments and make sure we get through some of these checklist comments. Um and understanding that this is an after the fact permit. Um, the applicant would like to table the review of this project tonight so that we can provide better responses to a lot of the items that have come up as part of this project. I tried to get ahead of that earlier today and I understand that's uh to table an item that's something that the planning board needs to take a vote on. And that's just in consideration of the substance of some of these comments that the application that's in front of you tonight does not respond to. Um so we would like to some just some additional time to provide some better thoughtful responses to those comments.

Could you generally just um summarize what the application is for?

Sure. So um it this is a it's an existing gravel pit. Um it was previously approved as noted in this picture here um around 2021 for a 5 acre pit and um the applicant recently acquired it and also acquired an adjacent parcel and there's been some existing flattening of the site throughout um this parcel that's on the screen here to the west as well as the parcel to the um to the east as noted as shown here. So, this is being considered an after the-act application. We did have the opportunity to meet with most of the public that you see here uh today as part of DP's publicformational meeting requirement. So, we have submitted a like a it's an NOI, but it's also there's a variance aspect to it because we're looking to go bigger than a 10acre pit. The pit that you're looking at on the screen today, um that is roughly 14.75 acres of mind area. The proposed project is is proposing a 13 acre pit area. So we're the intent of the conditional use amendment application is to formalize both of these lots which will be combined into one as a single operating pit of roughly 13 acres. Um, we did have an opportunity to hear from the public last week, so we understand we understand what the complaints have been so far or have a general understanding of it as well as reviewing the planning board packet. And there's a number of items that we we'd like to just provide a more detailed response on um before we really open this up to

comment from the planning board. We we understand that. So um that is the reasoning why we're we're proposing to table this just provided the the the items that are missing from the application that were recommended as part of the checklist.

Um well I don't think that our comments will change much so I still would like to go through the application and confirm um what our comments are. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify that is on the completeness of the application as opposed to the substance of the application. Absolutely correct. Yes. Yeah. Completeness. Um can I just ask we we just looked at another gravel pit, right? Yes. Okay. This is separate area. Yeah. Separate everything, right? Not anything related. Okay. Thank you.

The other one's further south. That was Jackson. Nothing to do with this one. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I would I my my thought is that um I don't think it's worth anyone's time right now to go through this um if you are looking to submit additional materials and answer questions that I think the public has. Um so my vote is that we give you time to do that. Um, however, yeah, there are issues I think that are not going to go away that maybe we might want to discuss today. Maybe even just for our benefit to get some answers or at least for you to take back and to look into further.

Probably don't have the answers to much tonight, but right. But you could hear the the questions and you take those back. Yeah. you know, so in other words, I don't think we should go through the substantive review at all, but I possibly we could bring up some questions. I wasn't suggesting going through the substantive review, just through the checklist. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Of of what what's missing. Okay. What's missing? Yes. I don't even know about what's missing because if we have to identify what's missing that means we have to go you know it's outlined in page

right right but toward the toward the end of the PDF right but that would mean we'd have to go through like kind of go through the application and if they're saying it's not complete then

but could I address this because I think it's important for the board uh and the applicant to recognize iz that this is a followup to an enforcement action of the town and the code enforcement officer issued two notices of violation and required the applicant to rectify those violations. And so the application that was filed uh a use amendment uh was done in response to a an order of the town related to those violations. So uh the timeliness of the response is an issue. In most cases, you give deference to an applicant. Uh but in this particular enforcement matter, I think it's very uh important to uh keep the process going and make sure that it's done according to proper procedures.

So I think tonight you should issue a formal letter of incomplete application. Okay. uh and then the applicant will know uh for the record what it is the board's going to require as opposed to come back next month and determine that there's not and and roll it down. So I think it's very important to to establish and I did provide the applicant and the the packet and board members with a comprehensive checklist. uh and one of the comments that I made in my notes is that the current application uh has a lot of general statements without uh associated supporting documentation and particular areas that I identified that many of the public comments that we you've received uh will highlight those issues of noise impacts uh there are standards in the ordinance and there are uh studies that need to be done in order to verify compliance with those noise limits. or non-compliance with the noise limits. U there are uh traffic issues involved. there was a traffic fatality at the entrance and u they should submit uh traffic log of uh how how many trucks are coming out of there and I've I've suggested that uh a log for the past year would provide uh both the board as well as a traffic engineering consultant with the data they need to determine the safety or lack thereof of that existing entrance uh for continuation of the original permit and certainly for expansion onto to the uh the to the adjacent uh property. Uh this is in an aquifer protection district and the DP inspection indicated that the uh storage of a 500galon diesel tank on site did not have D uh standards. The town's aquaer protection standards are higher

than that. uh town's uh standards indicate that wherever you're storing uh any type of hazardous uh fluids, you have to create a containment dyke that is impervious uh for the content as well as a 15% margin beyond that. So they need to provide not just the borings uh of where the groundwater table is but and an assessment of what uh what existing violations um are there now and what corrective actions have been taken.

Um we don't have any of that documentation. So I think it's critically important that the board require those documentation items of uh for the sound for the traffic and for the groundwater and the the reclamation plan um is very generic just like much of the other data and some of these areas have uh have excavated up to and potentially across property lines uh not respecting the 100 foot setback from the property line. it was in the original permit that was approved. Um, and so there are obviously some issues of not just um reclaiming uh the pit when they're done, it's also restoring the 100 foot buffers uh that were violated during the uh past practices. Uh and that all of that leads to a question of the uh financial and technical capacity of the applicant to to to do the either the prior permit which is a violation or to expand onto the abuing property. U if they're not even knowing where their property lines are or the not understanding that a stated 100 foot buffer requires no disturbance within that 100 ft then there are real questions about their financial and technical capacity that need to be addressed. And then finally the I did in the notes the issue of right titler interest. Uh this project uh is being proposed by Jaden uh landscaping LLC and they are not the owners of the property. The owners of the property are Brunswick Trucking LLC. Now we're assuming there's some sort of a relationship there but that really needs to be documented because who is getting permit and who's responsible for following the permits. So all those issues I think should be spelled out. And I did prepare the checklist and for all of those items and then I've also prepared a draft uh letter of

incompleteness which will put it on the record. Y very helpful. Thank you so much. Um yes. So I agree. Yes. Go through it. Absolutely. But can I ask two questions just kind of a beginning things. When did the applicant buy the pit? um believe it was it should be it's 20 December 2021. Thank you. Okay. So ahead before the violation happened. So that was the original Did you say a recent transaction happened? I'm going to go back and look at the documents that should be in the the deed.

The original one that was presented to the planning board is in 2021. Yeah. Right. But that was that was for a 5 acre. I mean the recent you mentioned Yeah. There's a second lot that the pit has expanded into that was recently purchased. Correct. Yeah. Yes. I think it'd be good to note for the public that the documentation checklist that we're looking at tonight is actually on the website. If you went under and looked at the agenda this meeting, you can see that information that we will be reviewing. Looks like June of 2025. Okay. Yeah. So, less than a year ago. June 12th, 2025 was the deed, recorded deed. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. And right before the violation, I think violation is October 25. What's the the lot to the left? The the dog to the right. I'm sorry. To the right. The dog leg. The dog leg work that has frontage on Rabbit Road. Yeah. Okay. And then my second question is, is there a timeline on the violation? Apologies if it's in here that you're supposed We'll have to go through that. That was one of the That was one of the items that George brought up that we have to document, right? Like I'm just Is there a timeline the state has given you? It's pretty much a as soon as possible. Yeah. So that's why we got the con we got the There is a specific timeline. Yeah, I I'll I'll find it.

Okay, we can talk about that. Yeah. We once we were engaged to to assist on the permitting of this um part of the delay on our end was we had to provide a a boundary survey for this parcel here. There is an existing boundary survey for this parcel but we didn't have any information on that one. So there was a little bit of time that it took just to complete that boundary survey. And you were brought into this recently. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. So the um D deadlines were December 31st, 2025 and June 30th, 2026. Um so before the end of the year, we did submit a transfer of of ownership application to D. Yeah. So that's been complete. But by June 30th, 2026, D has a another list of items that they need to So, what um Yeah, that's in the packet. Thank you.

What What um violations have been rectified? I'll have to get back to the board as part of the supplemental info. Okay. All right. So, we want to go through the checklist. Mhm.

And this is checklist of incomplete items that we're going to go through. Is that right, George? Yes. Let me see if I can get that out.

Okay. Again this is to verify compliance with articles 5, 7, 10 and 14. Five are the noise standards. Seven are the conditional use criteria. 10 is article 10 is the uh aquifer and article 14 are the grot standards. And I can just walk you down through this if that'll help.

That would be great. Yeah.

Okay. So, the first issue is the narrative uh fully advancing the scope of the January uh 5th 2022nd additional use approval. The nature, timing, and extent of excavation beyond the approved 5 acre pit, the nature, timing, and extent of excavation on lot 60A, that's the second parcel, and any work crossing the original lot line, total acreage disturbed to date, and total acreage proposed. Some of that has been stated here tonight, but the record isn't clear in terms of their application. Explicit explicit acknowledgement that excavation occurred beyond the limits approved in 2022. Deeds for the affected lot, you do have those. And then that issue of uh evidence of right title or interest written uh consent from Brunswick Trucking LLC if different from the applicant or an executed lease operating agreement or authorization. a unified project statement explaining uh how they're going to function as a single operation and how setbacks are calculated across lot lines because uh until the parcels are combined that joint property line theoretically should have a 100 foot buffer on either side of it from each parcel again it's a technical issue that can be solved but they don't have it right now uh D permitting status you've kind of discussed that uh they have submitted copies of the notice of intent I think um and then uh explanation of whether there's any difference between the two proposals uh that they're getting from D and the town and a written statement regarding their uh applicability of site location of development for Bradley that's

uh sorry George can I just um I just want to confirm that we do have or it's already been included What was submitted at the end of December 2025? Yeah, that's the notice of intent to transfer. All of that was submitted. I think that was in in your submitt, right? Not 100% sure. Um I it was sent to D. So it's up there. I think it was attached to the conditional use application.

While you're looking for that, I'll keep going. a comprehensive plan set. There is in the in the um application. There are comprehensive plans, but they're less than clear in terms of what the existing areas as built are. Uh including the clear designation of authorized and unauthorized areas of the first parcel that were that what what is the status of those? Are they in violation? uh the proposed ultimate excavation limits uh they've talked about shrinking it from what it is now I understand from 14 plus down to 13 again that's not indicated on the plans the internal lot lines and setback measurements the acreage calculations clearly delineating the originally approved pit area uh and area excavated beyond that approval the total disturbed area existing and proposed The topography with sufficient contour detail to evaluate slopes and drainage setback plans 100 ft from all property lines, 200 feet from public roads, 100 ft from any wells, buffer and burns. And one of the issues uh is that as I stated earlier they have compromised the 100 foot buffers on several locations and they should show their rec reclamation plan restoring those areas not just vegetating the slopes because if they cut 100 foot buffer and the and the slopes go down away from the edge of the pit any landscaping you do is going to have zero uh effect for buffering. Uh so that that needs to at least be addressed in the application what they're going to do to remediate that. Uh stockpile processing areas, equipment locations,

and fueling areas should be shown clearly. Uh access roads and internal hall roads, excuse me. A comprehensive reclamation and closure plan covering all previously disturbed areas and all proposed expansion areas. And uh the cross-section as I stated is generic. Uh they should show those areas that were violated and show the the not just the reclamation of the pit but the restoration of those areas that were violated. Um geotechnical and engineering report demonstrating the they do have some borings but they don't really have an evaluation of how the pit might affect the groundwater. uh how they're going to maintain that groundwater separation included in that uh hydrogeeological report. Uh slope compliance 2 to five 2.5 to one for the originally approved areas. That's the standard for 5 acres or less and 3 for all expanded areas. uh cross-sections of the existing and proposed reclamation slopes for the original excavation areas, the extended excavation areas, and any areas where the excavation crossed property lines. Um erosion and sediment control uh drainage buffers uh the erosion sedimentation controls meeting the standards of the ordinance and D. The buffer analysis and mapping showing compliance with 14.6E 6E and areas where buffers have been reduced or removed. A vegetation inventory for existing buffered areas. A vegetation restoration plan for compromised buffer areas. Uh aer protection and hazardous materials. We've I mentioned that in my comments. The fuel storage uh is not in compliance and needs to be a response to the D findings including any corrective

actions taken. the reclamation and financial capacity. Um they should have an estimate for the cost of restoring all of those areas. Uh and the expansion of the pit area uh when it gets to completion uh with timeline lines for the restoration uh updated reclamation cost estimate and an evidence of financial capacity to complete that and remedy existing violations. complete the reclamation and comply with future approval conditions. Noise and hour of operations, getting a professional noise study according to the standards of the ordinance at the property lines. Um, and any mitigation that they propose to try to mitigate those noise increases, meeting the standards of for 55 dB daytime, 45 nighttime, and again, mitigation point for sound impacts. Traffic study or memorandum prepared by qualified transportation engineer addressing current and proposed truck volumes, truck routes and frequency. A log of truck movements in and out of the pit for the past year. Uh site distance and access safety analysis. Uh interaction with residential traffic. an analysis of accident history including relevance to the access design or operations measures to prevent recurrence of the accident that happened. Uh compliance history and technical ability. This gets back to the financial and capacity technical capacity. uh summary of compliance history including documented zoning violations, D inspection findings, corrective actions taken and finally demonstration of technical capacity to implement mitigation measures, maintain groundwater

separation, monitor noise and traffic impacts and follow approved plans and approval conditions.

Thank you. looking at the last I think the last letter that came from town of Durham uh February this year um there were two options there. One of them was um 30 days of the notice, you either must submit a complete conditional use permit application for the expanded area or enter into a consent agreement with the town to reduce it to a 5 acre limit. Was it the second one that was done?

Yeah, we're going to try to permit the the So, the first one, can you repeat that again? Sorry, there was two options. The first one is you submit a complete conditional use permit application for the expanded area. Yes. The second one was you reduce your operations down to a 5acre limit. Um and then you comply you try and comply with the 5acre limit. So was either one of those chosen do you know? I believe the first. Okay. So that says within 30 days that was sent in November I mean February like March 11th. So, I'm just I'm just sorry. I'm just getting into this now. So, I'm just curious why was there another letter sent out or anything?

There was a second letter. There is. Okay. Yep. Again, I'll have to confirm with the applicant on that. Um, they did engage us around that time frame and to submit the conditional use application, there's there's work that was needed to get that done, including that survey. So it's it's not as easy as just submitting the conditional use because that information there was information to be collected as part of it and obviously a lot more too. So Okay. And is the pit still active right now? Yeah. Very. Okay. So that wasn't part of the enforcement or anything like that. I have been discussing that with the town attorney.

Okay. Great. I'm sorry. Sorry, I'm just looking at the notes. Um, and I mean the packet and the last one I have is from February. I don't have anything beyond that. Oh, future. It's in another one.

Yeah, PDF.

I have the chronological record right in there. PDF. Um in 203 you see it. Yep. So that's there's one from July 15th, 2025. Yep. November. And then February. I'm in town of Durham. The town of Durham. Yep. The second one. town of Durham was from February 2026. Yeah. So, there's the one I see too. Yeah. Okay. So, not one after that. Okay. That's the last one.

And in between that was the D, right? Got that one. And so, from what we've heard is that the only thing that's been addressed is the um notice of transfer was submitted to D. Mhm. None of the town violations have been addressed. Right. heard. Okay. So, it's being discussed.

Well, just to clarify, the filing of the condition of this application is a step toward compliance. So, noted by the code officer. So, it's not complete yet, but it is a process. And typically when you're dealing with enforcement matters, you give an applicant the opportunity to bring the issue into uh compliance before you take any enforcement uh court action. So that's what the process we're involved in right now. Right. But I'm just looking at this notice. It says submit a complete conditional use permit amendment application within 30 days. Yes. Of that notice. They did not meet that time frame.

Right. So, I'll have to get back to you on whether or not the second option was was chosen as the path. I mean, is the pit active in the whole area? I don't know the answer to to the D states it's 3 million acres. That's right. And this is an enforcement issue anyway. Right. Right. Not on a perview, right? Sorry. Yes, it's hard not to I know. Mr. Chair, I would uh make a motion that we allow the applicant to review the documentation checklist and we will postpone this application until that has been satisfied.

Can I just Are you saying this is an incomplete application? Definitely is an incomplete application. Would you like to revise your motion? I will I would recommend that we allow the applicant to complete the documentation list because the application submitted to us today is incomplete. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Thank you. A general note with that so the public knows the planning board has nothing to do with enforcement. Understood. Yeah. We're talking about a checklist. I totally agree. Just want people to understand.

George, what were you going to say? I was just going to say I think the intent is to follow the checklist isn't just in terms of what is incomplete. Correct. Yeah. Go ahead.

And so we have a letter that will follow up with this issued to you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you all.

The heat coming off this. Okay. Next. Just going to turn on. Sure. Okay, last um other business. Um planning board discussion on May 20th hearing on draft land use ordinance amendments. Um no public comment will not be taken. Um they all have

they have a um so um we were supposed to be on the last select board's agenda to discuss this but it didn't happen. Uh we're going to be presenting Tuesday night. Correct. Um and that's that they'll they'll vote on it. I believe they're going to vote on it that night. And then um and then May 20th, the following week will be the last public hearing on the amendments.

I thought tonight it just be good to go over what the plan is for the public hearing next week. And um so rather we've done like all last fall we did uh public hearing, public information meetings, public hearing uh and so pretty much all the stuff's out there. It's all been vetted multiple times. And so the intent for uh next Wednesday would just simply be given opportunity for people to ask questions as opposed to go through a presentation of everything like we've done multiple times. Uh and we've always talked about that the uh May 20th the formal legal public hearing you can't make any changes. So, it's just a matter of giving people the opportunity without having to ask at town meeting on the floor.

Uh what what is that provision? Uh it's an opportunity. So, basically what we would do is just go down through the transmission letter. Uh Ryan can do that at the public hearing as you'll do next Tuesday night and just say here are the uh seven major poly minor policy issues and 10 administrative changes and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have on any of those. So, we just did want to clarify everybody knows what to expect next week. And that's the um select board meeting, right? Yeah. Not Tuesday. Tuesday is the select board meeting 20th is our um is the public hearing which we'll be doing right here like we've always done.

But again, no presentation other than just listing what they are and being prepared to answer questions. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, you're more than welcome to go to the select board meeting, but you're not needed there. George and I will present, but May 20th would be good if you all could show up. Yeah, speaker. Great. Um, I had just one other thing. I should have added this to the agenda. Um, Durham Heights, um, we had given them 30 days to install, um, soil erosion. What's 30 days? 30 30 days. 30 days, 30 work days, 30 calendar days.

Usually, if it's not specified, it would be the work days. Okay. Yeah. Okay. They said they do it like tomorrow. So, what's that? They said they do it immediately. Yeah. Right. It it hasn't been done yet. So, just wanted to clarify what the 30 days is. A really great question. Anybody have anything else this evening? I move that we adjourn. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Great. Thank you all. Yeah. Thank you so much. Good meeting.

Power on this recording. Um saved somewhere, you know, you just