Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Yeah, what is that?

That are like, stay tuned, like, you know, music. Case hold. Countdown timer. Okay.

Good go. Thank you. OK, welcome to the August 5th.

2026, REGULARLY SCHEDULED DURHAM PLAINLAND BOARD MEETING. WE HAVE A QUORUM AND ONE MEMBER IS NOT WITH US TONIGHT. SO MR. LEVICK, YOU'LL BE A BOARD MEMBER TONIGHT.

OKAY.

PERFECT.

AND IF YOU WOULD ALL PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.

to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Do we have any amendments to the agenda?

If we have time, one thing I want to add to the end of the agenda is A DISCUSSION ON PREPARING FOR THE 2027 TOWN MEETING AND WHAT ITEMS WE HAVE TO REVIEW AND WHAT KIND OF HOMEWORK WE NEED TO DO IN PREPARATION FOR THAT. I HAVEN'T SEEN A LIST. I KNOW, GEORGE, YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S STARTED, I BELIEVE. BUT I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT AS PART OF A ROLLING AGENDA ITEM IN OUR MEETINGS GOING FORWARD SO WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF THAT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE PREPARED FOR THE 2027 TOWN MEETING.

Is that okay with everybody? Yeah. Yes.

Also, we have a full agenda tonight. So I just want to mention that we do have a meeting continuation policy. We have a cutoff time at 9 p.m. No new agenda items are accepted after 9. But what happens is at 8.30, we'll have a check-in to see how the progress is going. At that time, we'll see if anything can be taken up after 9 p.m. And if an application cannot be reached before 9 PM, it gets rolled over to the next month's meeting and you'll be at the top of the agenda. If we determine that additional time is needed, we can extend that time or change the time of the next meeting as well. And an applicant has the option to request a table.

their application, given these time constraints that we have.

Any questions on that?

Item number four for tonight, the acceptance of the July 1st, 2026 meeting minutes. Any comments or questions on that?

No, I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from our July 1st, 2026 meeting.

Second. All in favor.

Thank you.

Number five, informational exchange on non agenda items. Mr. The barge, would you mind giving us your report?

FROM JULY OF 2026 YES I DID INCLUDE IN THE PLANNING BOARD PACKET THE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED THE PLANNING BOARD ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 1ST INFORMING THE SELECT BOARD AND MANAGER OF THE SITE WALK YOU DID ON JULY 20TH AND THEN ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FORMATION OF THE INTERIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPING COMMITTEE AND THE FOR THE STUDY THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE OF THAT AREA THAT WE DESIGNATED And then finally, I did give the select board a report, an overview of a process for examining gravel pits, which seems to be on their radar screen front and center.

I have a question. The gravel pit thing, is there anything for the planning board to do, or is it all in the select board?

I think the first step is for the staff and town attorney to kind of look at the information that I put in that outline and determine the best approach to compiling all of that needed information to deal effectively with the issue. So at such point as the staff does a report, I think it'll probably first go to the select board to see how they want to proceed. And then it may or may not be referred to you folks. And again, this is for the, and just to clarify, this is for the overall issue. Right. Not for any specific project.

The ordinance itself?

It's a combination of the ordinance, but it's also a combination of the status of about a dozen gravel pits in town.

Got it. Thank you.

Any non-agenda items of public would like to discuss tonight? Are there any non-agenda items that non-residents would like to discuss tonight? All right, cool. Let's have some fun.

Continuing business, number six. Public hearing on Pinkham Brook, GLC, solar energy system, conditional use application, map four, lot 85. And I have a script here. We're opening it up for public comment. for the Durham Planning Board on the application for Pinkenbrook GLC Solar LLC Flycatcher LLC as the owner's rep. The project is located on 360 Pinkenbrook Road. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive oral and written testimony relevant to the board's review of this application under the town's adopted ordinances and standards. This hearing is not a forum 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 to meet the adopted subdivision standards. The board may receive oral or documentary evidence, but must include exclude testimony that is irrelevant or unduly repetitious. The chair will determine the relevance of testimony or evidence presented. Any board member may change that determination by motion subject by 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. Gaging the size of the crowd, I don't think we're going to need to establish time limits here. All questions and comments shall be directed to the chair. I will then direct questions to the appropriate party, whether that is the applicant, the applicant's consultant, staff, or another party for their response. Direct questioning of parties by members of the public is not permitted. All parties will be given the opportunity to present information, submit rebuttal evidence, and conduct cross-examination of other parties through the chair within reasonable limits to prevent an abuse of the process. For the record, an aggrieved party is defined in the land use ordinance as a person who can demonstrate a particularized 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 meeting 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. If you do decide to provide input, you need to please provide your name and address for the meeting record.

Thank you.

Okay, so now open it up for public comment.

Hi, I'm Jessica Costa, 35 Brianna Drive. I'm the chair of the Conservation Commission, and we provided a letter to the planning board with our comments on the proposed solar project. And the Conservation Commission is excited about solar coming to Durham and support proposed projects that are consistent with our land ordinance for solar. There's a couple items that we wanted to address related to wildlife. The first one being hopefully incorporating time of year tree clearing restrictions to protect threatened and endangered bat species. And these time of year tree clearing restrictions would also be protective of breeding birds if the tree clearing could be conducted in the winter. So in our letter, we specified if there were no tree clearing between April 1st to September 1, that would be beneficial to breeding birds and bats in the forested project area. um then the the second concern and we realize that the wildlife fencing that's proposed is consistent with the town's ordinance standards but since those were written it's come to my attention that that type of fencing that's a wire fencing that's eight feet tall that has it's like six by six inch wire squares can pose threats to wildlife, especially deer, in terms of entanglement. So deer can maybe not detect it and they're running through the forest and they run into the fence and get their head stuck in the fence, can't get out, or they try to jump it and their foot gets stuck. So in our letter, we had some some options for consideration and discussion if the planning board were open to that. And the first was if there would be, if it's for wildlife fencing and not for security purposes, if there could be no fencing at all, or a different type of fencing that would be less of a risk to wildlife, like entirely wooden fencing, or if The project moves forward with wire fencing, and it could be all smooth wire, no barbed wire, and then be marked with flags at pretty set intervals so that deer have a better chance of detecting it when they're running through the forest. So, yeah, that's it for comments from the Conservation Commission.

Thank you. Any other members of the public? All right, I'm going to close the public comment period.

And we will move on to the substantive review.

Brian, can I ask a logistics question? Sure. In regards to comments that we hear during public comment, What's our process? Does it make sense to wait until the substantive discussion to discuss those comments, or does it make more sense to hit those at the time?

Yeah, I think as we roll through this, and George, correct me about the process, but I think we hit these comments up as we go through the substantive review.

Yeah, I think it's better to address it and keep a clear separation between substantive, because the problem is if you discuss it during or immediately after the public hearing, you're rolling into the substantive review and elevating those public comments above all other considerations. Got it. It's probably better to wait until you address those criteria and give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the public comments. So I'm sure it'll flow into the process. Okay, what if we have questions? You can ask by follow-up questions during that time.

Okay, so I did have a question relating to the Conservation Commission thing. So should I, should we email those or something?

I think they can come up as we go through this next process.

Yeah, you can invite, you can invite any person who has given public comment to clarify issues, but This ought not to be a iterative process where the Conservation Commission or any other party in the board discusses and arrives at a certain conclusion. Public comment is public comment.

Yep. And then, so we're getting into the substantive of the conditional use. If the topic has to do with substantive site plan, and that might not come up for a while, we'll just table it.

Potentially.

Okay.

But again, these are specific design issues that probably should be considered as part of the site plan review discussion. The fencing design. Right. As opposed to the conditional use, which is more general.

Okay. Okay. Alright, so I guess at this time, if the applicant would like to come up and provide us with their presentation.

So I'm Jesse Hutchinson with Flycatcher, and I'm the agent for Pinkham Rook GLC Solar LLC.

Jeff Martin with Norwich Solar. I'm the developer for the project.

So at our last meeting, we kind of talked about completeness of the application. We got some comments at that meeting, requests for additional information, WE ALSO SINCE THEN HAD THE SITE WALK ON JULY 20TH TO SHOW THE BOARD KIND OF SOME OF THE STUFF WE DISCUSSED AS FAR AS VISIBILITY AND KIND OF JUST LIKE THE ACCESS AREA AND THE CROSSING OF PINKHAM BROOK. AND THEN WE PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND UPDATED SITE PLANS FOR kind of answer some of those questions. So just a little overview. I know we've kind of talked about what the project is, but it's a 600 kilowatt AC solar project that's at 360 Pinkham Brook Road. It is set back off the road to kind of minimize visibility and the solar array is sited in like a large upland area. It does require crossing of Pinkham Brook with the access road. And so they're planning to span Pinkham Brook with a bridge and it's approximately 11 acres of the larger parcel that's being disturbed by clearance. And it does cross the shoreland protection overlay and the flood zone. overlay along Pinkham Brook. So some of the additional information that we provided were proof of current property taxes, documentation that Norwich Technologies is the owner of Pinkham Brook JLC Solar, revised plans that included the proposed CMP easements, lease area, a site plan that has an aerial photo overlay. kind of making more clear the FEMA flood zone symbology and wetland impact summary. We also provided a project cost estimates, details on transformer noise and how that will be kind of more minuscule and then set back over 400 feet from any abutting properties. And also, we had more discussion on the floodplain, the bridge height in our response, and then provided a permit status matrix. I would note that since we provided the supplemental information, we have had a pre-application meeting with Maine DEP and with the Army Corps of Engineers, and both have pretty clear pathways ahead. And one thing that kind of did come up is with the Army Corps is that because we are spanning the stream and we're proposing to clear in seasonal clearing windows, there's not really any concerns with endangered species and that we won't have to go into like further consultation with the U.S. Fish or anything for that. We'll be in compliance with the nationwide permit for that.

So that's kind of just taking it to where we're at, but if there's further questions, we'll move forward. Thank you.

Can I ask a question, please?

Yeah, let's get through the substantive review. Starting with questions? Yeah.

So it sounds like, and I was going to bring this up earlier, we had talked about you adhering to the time of year restrictions before and you had said no problem. And you just, I think, said it again, right? And that's one of the reasons why you don't need to go further into fish and wildlife in the state wildlife reviews, whatever. So I think that's great. And I do want to just flag that I think we had talked about May 15 to August 15 before. I know the Conservation Commission brought up April 1 to September 1. And maybe we can talk about that later on why those dates are different, but you did agree to May to August, right? Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a condition of our, you know, spectrum of it.

Right. So it's something that you're going to do.

Yep. Which is great.

Awesome. And then another question I have is you said that the US Army Corps in the main DEP application process is pretty clear now. Can you explain a little bit further?

Yeah. So for, while we're on the topic, for the Army Corps, we're applying for a nationwide permit number 51, which is for land-based energy generation projects. So it's like a pre-construction notification that we would submit on their online RRS system. And then I've it's like a 30 to 60 day review timeline there and then with DEP originally we will be applying for a NERPA permit application but originally due to the fact that at the crossing we thought in clearing within wetlands of special significance according to DEP we were anticipating it would be a tier 3 permit that they actually think that it should be, we should request a waiver and be a Tier 1 and then a permit by rule for the crossing.

What's the timeline on that, approximately, you think?

Permit by rule is about 20 days once you submit. Tier 1 is a little bit longer, probably around like 30 to 60, kind of depends a little bit on the staff capacity. But we'll also kind of additional permits beyond that is stormwater permit by rule and the decommissioning plan approval. And sometimes they might like just kind of review those ones and everything's in. So, yeah.

And are you close to being able to apply? Yeah, pretty soon. Yeah. Okay. Speaking of that permit, I wrote this down because I hadn't heard of it before. Solar decommissioning law? What is that?

Yeah. I'm going to hand this one to Dave because he's pretty familiar.

It's a state law that requires that all projects have a decommissioning plan and financial assurance in place prior to construction.

Who does it go through?

DEP.

Okay. So you send the plan to them and they review it and approve it? Okay. A lot of states have that, I guess. Yeah. Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

And I guess who monitors that because the lease runs out in 20 years. So that's basically the life expectancy.

Yeah, so.

Monitors the decommissioning plan. Right. That's DEP, the Department of Environmental Protection. So they have a requirement to review the cost estimate. I think it's the after 10 or 15 years, it gets reviewed. And then every five years after that, there's a review process. So that cost estimate is updated throughout the life of the project.

It was a rolling target. It's not a, this is the end date type of thing.

Yeah, there's language in the decommissioning plan that specifies when decommissioning has to occur, which is typically at the end of the life of the project when the product's no longer generated.

Because that is part of the lease agreement. It specifically talks about the removal of the solar facility. Okay.

I think we also require it.

Yeah, we can't require it.

Yeah, a copy of that.

Yeah.

Now, as far as the crossing goes, our codes officer slash road commissioner had expressed concern that it's one foot above the 100-year floodplain. Is that not an architect, but is that a common concern?

to design those is there any concern from your side um so it was designed by our engineer to um meet the minimum the requirement for the town in your floodplain ordinance is like that one foot above um the base flood for a hundred year flood stage so that's like um kind of how that how that was designed um yeah yeah yeah i know i'd say that is quite common

And it was designed to meet the town ordinance.

I'm sure you're aware the 100-year storms are becoming more frequent than 100 years. Are these figures updated regularly? I'm not that familiar with who creates these maps.

The actual analysis was done by our engineers.

No, I mean like who creates the actual floodplain and says this is the 100-year storm level? How did you guys do that?

So FEMA kind of designates that area. In this area, it's not like a they don't designate the specific base flood elevation. They do that in zone AE, but this is a zone A. So it's basically, you have to kind of like model it based off of a hydro pad.

There was a comment from the town planner about possibly providing a spillway.

on that bridge design, just in the event that it does go over the 100-year point?

Yeah, so we're trying to kind of balance the, you know, meeting the ordinance with also like trying to minimize the impacts in the floodplain to wetlands and other kind of further impacts there. We can, you know, bring that to the engineer discuss more kind of that idea if it's a concern of the town, but kind of as it is now, we've just been kind of designing it to meet the requirements that are in the ordinance.

Yeah, I think we're open to other ideas. Like Jesse said, we definitely have to consider impacts to that wetland in particular. It's a wetland of special significance. So, you know, the town has specific goals that they'd like to see accomplished, we can take that back to our engineers and see what might be able to be done without creating additional impacts in that area.

So let's say this crossing did flood, what would the impact be really? I mean, no one's going to the site on a regular basis. Is there... any potential problems with that besides if there's a fire and you can get that.

It's really your risk, right?

It's really development risk. Private road, private crossing.

There are issues, however, of downstream environmental impacts of a catastrophic flood, such as the one that happened in 2023 on Dyerbrook, down on Route 15. Group 9, where it washed out the whole stream crossing. So it really isn't a matter of increasing the impact. It's a matter of designing, as Brian mentioned, reflected in my notes, that basically the road is going to create a partial dam effect in those over 100-year storms. So the question is, what happens to the water? the excess and if they at a low point create a hardened spillway in it, then that kind of carries that excess and can prevent the type of washout. If you don't plan for that, then it can have, once it starts eroding the abutments, then the whole thing starts to go. So we're not talking about expanding impacts. What we're talking about is using engineering solutions to accommodate those larger storms with the current design.

There was a recommendation to have the independent reviewer take a look at this, and I think that that makes sense. I would almost feel like that is absolutely part of their review, right? Like a project like this.

We can ask them to take a look at this specifically during the technical review.

I like that recommendation.

That corner has floated in very recent history, so... on the road, 1.5.

Finding a balance between, you know, appropriate treatment without you designing. Right. I think it's doable, having done elsewhere.

Would you prefer us to come back with a proposal that's been reviewed or?

What's your prep aspect?

My plan tonight is to get through this review and then send everything out for a technical peer review before we make any decisions on final. This way here, we can get our peer reviewers to provide their comment, have you all address it before we move on to final so that we can see what kind of changes may or may not occur based on the peer reviewers comments.

And just to clarify, there are two different actions here. There's a conditional use, which may or may not require the peer review of that issue or the defensing or other issues. Just it's more of these use questions under the zoning. And then there's the specific site plan review. So theoretically, you could go ahead with the conditional use decision tonight. and then table the site plan review to get that peer review of the detail list.

I'm sorry. Yeah.

And we've kind of jumped into the site plan review, getting into this detail.

And that way you're not spinning your wheels on the site plan stage until you hear back from third party reviewer. Yeah. And who knows what they, I mean, I guess there's a chance they could come back and say, great, great design, you know? Absolutely. You know, so. While we're on the staff notes section here, I did want to just say publicly that the site walk was on July 20th. I'm sure you probably saw that already, George, but we do say June 20th in here, but it was July 20th. Yep.

Missing in action.

Could I actually ask Jess a question about the comment that you brought up or your comment from the Conservation Commission? Six by six grid. Is that what's proposed for your fence? Does it say that?

It's eight by eight on that proposal.

I didn't see anything. I didn't see. Okay.

It's on there.

It's eight by eight.

It talks about a wildlife fence and it's eight foot and the gaps are eight inch square.

So the grids are eight by eight.

Right.

Yeah. Okay. And that is pretty good size.

And I didn't see that. There was no indication of any barbed wire.

Yeah. And I know that.

Oh, yeah.

No, no. We need a fence. I mean, we need the need. They need their fences. But it's the grid, the size of the grid, right? You can go smaller if that would be better for wildlife. You're leaving the space at the bottom already.

That is six inches.

Is it six? Yeah.

Well, is that the gap at the bottom, or is that the grid?

So it's a six-inch gap at the bottom, but in the grid, it's a six-inch fixed knob. Okay, so six by six. Yeah. Okay. So it's six by six, but there is also the six-inch gap for smaller wildlife passage. I don't know if the six by six is typical. Is that typical? Yeah, it is. Okay.

It is, yeah.

There's no plans to use barbed wire. No, no barbed wire.

No, good.

Okay.

Can I just follow up on that? Absolutely. Is there any chance you would consider lowering that to seven foot tall?

I think it, I mean, it really just comes down to what's required. And so there's, you know, there's national electric code. there's the town requirements, and then I'm trying to think if there's any other area where that would... IPW has recommendations.

Yeah.

And so that's here.

I don't know if it's to seven foot tall. Okay. I know we require it. Just trying to address the Conservation Commission's comments and the Department of Fish and Wildlife's comments, they say if you go down to seven foot, that may help deer jump over the fence um maybe 12 cheaper too yeah i know it's a security issue as well so if you're okay with dropping it to something to consider and then getting back on the um tree clearing sorry no no no go back up a few steps here um would you be amenable to going to september one Is it September 1?

Yeah, we had said April 1 to September 1. And the reason it's expanded beyond that, some birds start nesting early in this season, before May. Some of the local birds, you know, like chickadees and woodpeckers. So if that window could be expanded, it'd be more protective of birds. And then any quite catch, it you were going to agree to August 1 or August 15. August 15 would be better because, so the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has their summer bat survey guidelines, and that survey period for roosting bats is May 15 to August 15. So that's when they're breeding. That's the peak breeding period. So maybe you did say August 15.

Yeah, they had us read to earlier May 15 to August 15. Yeah.

Yeah, I think the expanded window, I would prefer if that's not a requirement. We could certainly try to accommodate that, but that's a five-month window that could really impact the project potentially. I don't think it would be an issue, but I just would prefer to have that not be a requirement.

Would the conservation be okay with, you know, May 15 to August 15 with the applicant trying, you know, like, you know, to adhere to the more strict?

Yeah, I think that's, you know, that's what the federal guidance is. So that's great for that. And if it can be expanded, you know, May 1, it doesn't have to be a requirement. But if the project is keeping it in mind, we're addressing management practices for birds and bats, that's totally acceptable to the conservation commission would be happy about that.

Great. All right. But yeah, let's talk about the fence.

Thank you for the accommodation on that.

The fence. So do we, our thing, ordinance, says, what's the height of it?

I'm trying to find it.

Does it say 8 feet?

Yes.

Okay. So it says 8 feet.

That does not mean we can't change it, but we actually, I think you need to be cautious. Okay. So we cannot change it. Okay, so we do say 8 feet, so we can't change it. There are four different parts to this. There's the initial use. There's the site plan review. There's the shoreline zoning and there's the floodplain. Okay. So the site plan review part, you have waiver authority over everything in Article 8 with supportive evidence. You do not have waiver authority for the solar standards at this point. Okay. Just based on past input from the time of attorney, she would caution you against giving de facto waivers of standards.

Okay.

And again, part of it is to protect the legal integrity of the permit that you issue. So she would caution against where you don't have specific waiver authority. Don't think about it. Okay.

So in other words, we can't change that eight feet height. I don't think so. It's got to be eight feet. But I do think we don't get into detail on like the grid and other things like that. So if, I don't know, six by six, Jess, I'm not sure, like that's typical.

That is typical and I shared those photos of some of those poor deer that get stuck and it's something that's happened that projects in Maine that use that type of fencing deer getting stuck and either knocking their antlers out or their feet are in and their head are in and they're stuck and that's how they end up and it's not a good way to go. So if there's a way, if If the fencing has to be there, and that's those specifications, maybe something could be added, like some, not just flagging that's gonna blow away, but like some placards that could be like zip-tied to it that sort of flap in the breeze at set intervals that help the visibility for deer. Maybe that would be a good compromise that wouldn't be expensive, changing fencing type would be.

Yeah, we could incorporate.

I'm not sure what you're referring to there, Jess, but flagging or something along the fencing to make it more visible.

We can do that. And one thing I'll note too is there is clearing proposed beyond just the fence line. So there will be like cleared area set back from the edge of the fence, which will help like, so there won't be, you know, like trees that are obscuring it and vegetation against the fence. So hopefully that'll also make it a little more visible to wildlife because it'll be in like a more cleared area rather than like when they're coming directly out of the woods.

And one last thing, maybe it's something that's reflective to light because deer are pretty active at night and at low. light period, so maybe some kind of reflective material could help.

Okay, I think those are some good talking points here. The reason I wanted to bring it up now and not during site plan is because Jess is here with the Conservation Commission comment. I thought it would be good to understand where that comment is coming from. I think you've got good thoughts, direction there. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Jess.

You're not proposing cameras out there.

I mean, do you look at these spaces?

No, not typically. It depends on ultimately the system owner if that's something that they would like to have, but it's not something that we typically propose.

You mentioned system owner. Who's that going to be?

At this point, we don't know. It's too early on in the process. We own about a third of the projects that we develop. The remainder, we will finance, sell to a third party, independent power producers. Our company, as I said in the first meeting, we do the development work. We also are the installers. And then we have a division that's responsible for operation and maintenance. So we're with the project, whether or not we own it. But at this point, it's just too early on in the development process to know who the ultimate owner would be.

Yeah, just note the ownership change we have in our ordinance. 30 days, 60 days, something. A notice of that.

One comment that was brought up in our staff notes.

CMP access. I thought it was a really good comment. It would be, I think it would be great to hear from CMP that they do agree and approve of your access in and the poll layout and the line, poll and line layout. I think that would be good to get something in writing, like just a, yep, good to go. I know it might not come until later, but I still think that seeing that that it matches with what you've got on your site plan, I feel good.

Yeah, they tend not to engage until a little bit later. Right, right. So we did at request that they sign off on the hammerhead turnaround. Yeah. But we didn't get a response. So once we get further along, then we'll get into the actual design work with CMV. Yeah. We can provide that. Yeah.

Okay. And we could just keep it as a condition too if it comes later, later. construction of a building permit construction start or building permit whatever i'd say construction start but right right you do need yeah permit but even if it doesn't come in by then well yeah i think yeah i think by the time we pull the building permit we should be able to get that okay sign on okay

Regarding the road, and this kind of ties into your emergency management plan, the road, it's either going to need to be named or an address on a pole is going to be required out there. I'm not sure the best way to handle that. You might want to talk to our road commissioner, who is also our code enforcement officer, to determine. So if I call 911 and say there's a fire at the solar,

Farm, right? Like, where am I going?

You have an address.

Right, or a street name. We know how it works with subdivisions, but again, this is the first time we see a solar array out there, and it is a decent, quite a lengthy road.

Typically, we'll get an E911 address closer to construction.

Okay. Yeah, something that needs to be worked out with our internal folks as well. Okay.

A lot itself isn't actually subdivided, right? It's leased from an owner, so it doesn't have its own address. How does that even work?

It would probably give a street address.

It's 830, right? Nobody physically lives at 830, right? I don't think.

It's 360. Yeah, 360.

There is a

There is a house on the property where it's 360.

Yeah. Okay. Silo and the, yeah.

What they do is they typically go 50 foot increments along the road. Right. Where that number would come out. That's what they assigned to the address. Okay.

Even if it's the same lot?

Yeah.

Okay. Another thing that's mentioned in our staff notes is a comment about the final construction plans. I can just read this. Applicant proposes submitting final plans with building permit application. I just wanted to point out that in our ordinance, if there's any change to the project, you will have to come back. So whether we decide that we need to see the final final ahead of our approval or not, you know, if things change, you'll have to come back. and we'll have to review things that change. So it's in your best interest to submit the final site plan, right?

Is there a definition of change?

Great question. So it's in our thing twice. It's in our ordinance twice, I believe. One, it's under our solar-specific ordinance that says, I think I wrote it down, which it is on. a 108 letter C, no, letter L, sorry, of our ordinance. And I don't think it gets into the detail of the change, but then it's in our site plan standards, and it talks more about minor versus major change.

So that was actually something they used called remittance. So if it doesn't affect anything, then typically the code officer road commissioner.

Right. If it doesn't affect anything that we have reviewed and approved, which is almost everything of the project. So anyways, I'm just saying it would be in your best interest to submit the final plan set or else you might need to come back if there's any changes. But we can talk further about whether we want to require final plan set or not.

Okay.

Yeah, OK.

So I think one of the staff notes we haven't touched on yet was the transformer noise. No one has been selected yet, but I think you have provided us with some preliminary specs that said it was at 58 DB, which exceeds our noise ordinance. Ours is 55 DB. but you're 400 feet from property line, so I think we're going to be all set with that. One thing I did want to mention is your pad, the concrete pad that's currently designed for the transformer doesn't address containment. So the transformer right now you're saying is going to be liquid. I don't know what kind of liquid, what kind of oil will be there, how much oil will be in it. but the pad should be designed to have containment in the event that the transformer does leak.

This is protecting our water quality here.

Now the noise ordinance 55, that's at the property line, right? It's not, because I can go outside and play a speaker, six decibels, but as long as my neighbors

Right, exactly.

So I imagine 58 at the site is probably quite quiet.

Yeah. It's more of a refrigerator.

People just wash their hands.

Or this, whatever it is.

Are the panels fixed? Yes. Do they have the ability to be remotely Changed until no, so that's it. Once they're in there, set won't exceed 15 feet, correct?

Maybe running through my comment. Yeah. So do you anticipate that the access road will be gated?

Not the access road itself. The project obviously has a fence around it that's gated. The access road we don't anticipate.

Which will be on the opposite side of the of the brook. Correct. Okay. And who has access to that in case there is a fire?

So there's a NOS box lock mechanism on there so that the fire department could- Has access to that.

That's a good question about the gate. So the gate is proposed to be- On the other side of the brook. On the other side of the brook. Right. Which I guess makes sense because you don't want to fence all the way. That'd be a big fence. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

Good point. One of the issues the fire chief had raised was needing multiple points of access into the fencing. So if there's a fire, that the part where the gate is, if you only have one gate, they want to be able to access it from multiple places. At least that's what I recall from our discussion.

Access it as an individual or like a vehicle?

because that's just probably one ingress anyway yeah i think so you might want to get clarification from the fire chief but i do recall he was saying you need access from more than one point into the fencing you should get a comment from him right yeah i talked to him today and he has reviewed the emergency management plan he's talked to the applicants about applications and they have agreed apparently to provide some uh equipment to be able to get in there regardless of whether it was blocked or not.

In training, too, I think he said.

Yeah, in training it's required. So they've had discussions about all of that, but we need to see what is actually proposed with the fire chief saying, yes, I agree to those proposed things. So I did talk to him today. If he's prepared to do that, he'll end up getting it. peer review, he could provide his comments at that point in time. So you could follow up with the fire chief and just make sure he's comfortable. Maybe the gate is so far away from the panels that if there were a fire, but could be grass fire too. So I think the concern of being able to get in there from multiple points as opposed to just one single gate.

Yeah, our last meeting, George, the chief was here. Yeah. And he seemed pretty good with everything. Yeah, I thought he had signed off on it.

Okay. Yeah.

I just thought you brought that up. Okay.

Yeah, that would be.

Might have been on the battery storage.

That would make more sense. Yeah. But I don't know. I mean, yeah, definitely confirm with them, with him. Another gate on this project. I don't know where they come in.

So you haven't seen that on other solar drugs? No. No. Okay.

No. In the event the fire chief is, you know, yay or nay on something like this. Yeah.

Is there a following? Now that I recall, it was on batteries. Storage, yeah. Because of the intensity of those situations. Yeah.

Those fires can be pretty annoying. Yeah. Yeah, I think the issue here is whether or not they can get around through the panels to it. And they've got the five foot buffer outside of the fence on the outside so they can get around. Yeah, exactly. And lighting is not determined yet whether or not there will be lighting there. Is that what I understand? There may be some maintenance lighting there?

Just like if a maintenance crew was there and had to like

be working on something at night they would have like a temporary light going no permanent okay so something they flip a switch to turn on not something that's on constantly yeah not okay definitely not okay

Any other questions on the conditional use?

I'm good, Brian.

Good. All right. So let's go through the findings of fact here. So George put together these findings in fact.

And then there are seven.

There were eight criteria. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. You may just want to brief support and process that we discussed finally. Yeah.

Yeah. a somewhat new process, but George outlined the criteria and some comments for each conditional use criteria. And we'll just go through each one and edit comments as we need to. Then once we get through, in this case, the eight of them, we'll move to a motion on the conditional use permit. So I'll just run through these real quick. I'm not going to go through every findings. You all have had a chance to see these and review these as well as the applicant. So number one, public health impacts. The proposed use will not create unsanitary or unhelpful conditions by reason of sewage disposal, emissions to air or water or other aspects of its design or operation. And there are seven findings of facts. Does anybody have any additional edits or comments to those seven?

I think you brought up a good point about containment on the transformer. I think that would be appropriate here.

Okay.

So in addition, we'll add number eight. George, are you catching this?

Yeah.

Okay. So finding number eight. that depending on the type of transformer that's selected, the concrete pad should include containment for any leakage. Line number two, traffic safety impacts. The proposed use will not create unsafe vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions when added to existing and foreseeable traffic in its vicinity. And again, we have seven findings of fact. Are there any additions or edits to these?

Seeing none, we'll move on. Public safety impacts.

The proposed use will not create public safety problems which would be substantially different from those created by existing uses in the neighborhood or require a substantially greater degree of municipal services than existing uses in the neighborhood. And we have eight findings. Any additions or edits to that?

Yeah, maybe add something about fire chief expected to submit a comment. Right?

That's five.

Five says it's the applicant states at the fire chief. Right. We talked about getting something in writing from the fire chief, which is typical. Okay.

Any others?

Number four, environmental impacts. The proposed use will not result in sedimentation or erosion or have an adverse effect on water supplies.

Any additions or edits to this criteria? Do you want to put the engineer peer review here?

Yes. Yes, I think that's great.

For the bridge? For the bridge. Okay. If a spillway was needed to turn on, yeah. Yep, we can add that.

Number five, scale and intensity of use. The proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to physical, size, visual impact, intensity of use, and proximity to other structures.

And we have 10 findings here.

in comments or edits i would like if it's not in here i don't think it is is that um during the site walk it's apparent that you are not going to be able to see this site at all so um yeah it was quite like yeah it's fully forested surrounding it

Number six, noise and hours of operation.

The proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to the generation of noise and hours of operation.

Seven findings of fact here. Any comments? No?

Number seven, right title or interest. The applicant has sufficient right, title, or interest in the site and the proposed use to be able to carry out the proposed use.

Six findings here. Questions, comments, edits, any additional comments?

No, we talked about if, you know, the owner does change the process there. We talked about that.

Number eight, financial capacity, financial and technical ability, sorry. The applicant has a financial and technical ability to meet the standards of the section and to comply with any conditions imposed by the planning board to subsection 7.5. Seven findings here.

Actually, I have a question. I have a question.

Do you all know who's going to build this yet?

Almost certainly would be us. It will be you. Norwich. Yeah, Norwich. We've built, I can't think of a project that we've developed that we haven't built.

Okay, okay.

I don't want to guarantee that. There's always a chance that there wouldn't be, but yeah, like I said. All right, cool.

Thank you. Okay, section 7.5, conditions of approval.

Now, George, we talked about this briefly, so please chime in here, but this is for our vote.

We've been through all of the conditions here. So based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions, the planning board has identified the following proposed conditions of approval prior to final action on the application. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to state on record whether these proposed conditions are acceptable or whether any conditions should be modified or clarified. The planning board may amend the proposed conditions of approval prior to taking final action once adopted by the planning board. The conditions of approval shall become part of the final approval decision. So we've been through our findings of fact, we've made some edits and comments. Do you all understand and agree to what we've discussed?

Okay.

I'll make a motion to adopt the findings of facts, conclusions, and conditions of approval as amended and grant conditional use approval to Pinkenberg TLC Solar LLC for proposed Pinkenberg Solar project subject to the conditions of approval contained here.

I'll second.

All in favor? Okay. Thank you.

And just for the record, the applicants did affirm acceptance of the draft conditions of the program. They nodded.

Yes.

Thank you. We have it on video. So site plan review. As I stated, we're going to send this out to our peer review team. So I think we're going to hold off on any site plan review or any decision on the site plan until that's been complete.

Can I ask what the peer review team exactly would be reviewing? Like the entire site plan application or are there specific aspects of the application that Um, you have questions about and want want to be reviewed just want to understand the scope.

Yeah, um, and you've got this up recently. I did. Yeah.

And actually, we, um, George, we are more usually more formal. We do usually have a list of a specific things that they do look at. Um, I don't have that in front of me right now, but, like, definitely the bridge. Yeah.

Well, whatever the issues are for the cycling review. subdivision, typically we have a preliminary approval and that lists what you want. Here we'll just have one step site plan review and decision. So whatever the issues are, obviously this is the first solar energy system and we've got all these standards. Nobody in this room or any town offices has any expertise on the equipment, the connections. We do have an electrical inspector, but typically I'm assuming these are done by state inspectors. The local CEO is not qualified to review this type of installation. They typically don't do any commercial. It's all done by the state. So obviously the solar energy standards being met would be one issue. And I think the other one was the stream crossing. Flood lane and the bridge. Yeah, just that issue of the flood. only being one foot above the elevation they may say hey that's standard and you can't really go beyond that you shouldn't go beyond that again or they say yeah putting in some hardening and spillway makes eminent sense for everybody yeah and I don't know if there are any other issues yeah I think the company that it will go to is um

very knowledgeable, I believe, about these types of things. So it's not new to them. But yeah, this is our first project.

And you can work through George with obtaining contact information for the peer reviewers.

I actually have a question. So if this is going to go to the peer reviewer now, What about any changes? Are there any changes that you want to make ahead of that?

Well, from what I understand, they receive the meeting minutes from tonight's meeting. Yep. They review it, the technical issues. Okay. And they cross-check until a new ordinance. Yep. It's pretty thorough.

Make any edits you want. Then it goes to peer reviewer. Right. So if there's anything you want to change ahead of that, you can do that, I guess.

That's right.

Right? Yep. Yep. Great. And how long does that process take, George?

They've been very good. Yeah. I don't know if they have the in-house expertise on solar or not. They do. Okay, good. So typically, and, you know, getting back to the issue of any new submissions have to be done, and it's two weeks before the meeting. So hopefully they can do a peer review. Obviously, if they get their application to Coral Palm or ASAP, they can typically turn it around fairly quickly. And hopefully that will be written by that 14-day deadline for new information to be posted.

For the next meeting.

Yep. Yep. So you'll connect us with the contact information that we're already working on. they aren't expecting any applications to come. So just send them a cover letter or an email to, it's now JBL, I think it is. Yeah. LJB. Yeah, they get bought out.

Yeah, you know they know them. Yeah. Yeah, they got them.

And so the review will be on the solar energy standards and the stream crossing.

Stream crossing. Okay, so we will table motion be motion.

I'll make that motion. If he will be the substantive review of pink and broke GLC, solar energy system, cycling application, not for a lot. Eighty five second.

All in favor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

A. Next next on the agenda new business.

Complete this review of ivy ridge final subdivision applications three three five newell brook road tax map five lot sixty one.

It is the applicant with us.

Good evening. Good evening.

Am I good to start?

Yeah, I think we're good to start.

Okay, great. My name's Craig with Acorn Engineering, and with me is Hunter, also with Acorn, and Johnny from RIVI LLC is in the audience if there are any specific questions for him. So since the preliminary approval, we did get a chance to go through all the different preliminary conditions of approval, and we addressed those. And some of those... involved obtaining the vernal pool sign off for the from maine department inland fisheries and wildlife to to demonstrate that the vernal pool that was found on site is in fact non-significant we obtained an ability to serve letter from casella for the uh solid waste removal we uh some of the peer review comments that we received minor in nature addressing some of the um, detention based in some of the HydroCAD model. And there were some differences between the plan and what was depicted in the HydroCAD. So we cleaned that up. They recommended an additional drainage easement on lot one for the culvert crossing. So we went ahead and added that. We labeled the, uh, concrete monuments on the plan and we identified the 50 foot buffer strip along the front, along New Brook Road. We updated the tree line and we identified tree save areas throughout the project. We updated the technical capacity section of the application. So those are the main changes to the plans and the application material. There were some other minor small preliminary approval items, but all seem to have been addressed through the application material in the plan set.

If you mind, Craig, going through each one, just so that we can make sure that just go through one through 15 and point out to us where in your application all of these have been addressed.

I'm actually sorry. Before you do that, can I also ask another question? Did we get, you got the review back from the engineering. Now, where is the comments? It's in the packet, yeah.

So they signed off. We had two rounds of back and forth with them.

Okay.

Generally minor comments. And they signed off on July 15th.

Finally signed off. Yes. So good to go there. Okay, great. Thank you so much.

So that's number one. Perfect. Of the conditions of approval. Good. Number two is about the performance guarantee.

So let's just. Yeah. So 1A. They reviewed the engineering design, road construction, utilities, review of engineers, construction costs, estimates for the project. Do you just point where in your application we can find these and just address them each, please? So 1A.

1A is through the plan set.

Okay.

1B? We provided, as part of the performance guarantee, Well, I guess is that comment related to the performance guarantee or cost estimate?

I can clarify that. Yeah, thank you. So they are proposing a conditional agreement whereby they are not allowed to sell any lots or get any building permits for any of the lots until they've completed the infrastructure, unless they come in with a performance guarantee for whatever improvements are remaining. So like on Deer Creek Crossing, took the restrictions off with an amended plan and maintained $75,000 for the final payment and some other minor changes. So until they come back to get the release of the restrictions, there is no performance guarantee for the infrastructure. However, the ordinance does require that they provide in town with an estimate and the peer reviewer has confirmed that $10,000 is adequate if the project is abandoned and you've got a road out there with no erosion control measures, that's enough for the town to go out and stabilize that site. So that's all that's required under a conditional use agreement. And Goral Palmer did confirm that they are okay with that number.

Okay, I'm going to hold your comment until let's continue on to D or C, I'm sorry. Yeah, we had a comment about the individual lot building envelopes.

And I think you guys have done a pretty good job of adhering to the cluster subdivision.

And we have a pretty detailed table on lot sheet C10. It's called the lot usable area table. And that's where those calculations are provided.

Okay.

an individual review of the individual lot site plan. So that was something we were seeking like a a condition of approval for that the peer review engineer agreed with. And that was one of their comments in the July 15th that they agreed with that a lot individual lot site plans really weren't needed. They didn't think it was needed for this project. So they agreed to a condition of approval that that would be, I think, before the building permits that The builder will have to identify with the house locations, and the peer reviewer agreed with that. Okay. Number two, I think we kind of discussed how we're handling the cost estimate performance guarantee for this project.

Yeah, so the $10,000 was only for erosion and sediment control, right? Yeah. So we asked for access road construction, electrical service, stormwater management system. So it looks like you've only provided cost estimates for one of the four that we had asked for as a condition of approval. I didn't see any other cost estimates other than the erosion and sediment control. And yes, they agreed that 10 grand was sufficient for erosion and sediment control, but no other cost estimates were provided.

And I think where that comes into play is beyond the performance guarantee. There's the question of the financial capacity to do the project.

I'm just getting back to the fact that these were conditions of approval that I haven't seen.

They're not part of this package right now.

I'm looking through the application now that we had. The financial capacity doesn't specifically list an amount.

Could we provide that as a condition of final approval?

Right now, let's just say that it's incomplete.

Let's move on to the next one.

so three yeah we submitted the final app within the six months yeah okay um number four we don't need any of we need a main construction general permit prior to construction once a contractor is chosen for this this site

So this is looking for approval from the main DEP for a NERPA strong water and wetland alteration permit.

Yeah, we don't, we don't. There's no wetland in the background. And we don't require a DEP approval. So that's kind of a condition that's not really applicable. And the peer reviewer did agree that a main construction general permit would apply here.

Yeah, I do.

I do know that there's no impacts. Yeah, we did a great job avoiding impacts. I do. I do know that.

The erosion sedimentation plan is included within the final plans, so we do have. We do have erosion control measures labeled, we have notes and details for that.

So that addresses number five.

Yep.

On the site plan, we identified the tree save areas, lot clearing limits. One item, number seven, I never got feedback from the addressing officer on the road name. I did reach out. I've never heard back.

so that is a pending condition of approval just because i haven't heard back and i did send the request in in june when did we have a changeover and ceo george probably about that time about that time i just wonder whether because there was a changeover

Note number nine. Sorry, can you give us just a minute? I'm trying to find a document.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry about that. Please continue.

No, number nine.

All right. Yep.

So we do show the driveway, the home locations, the septic, the well, the tree clearing needed. But I want to note that those locations that are shown are for illustrative purposes only. Prior to construction, there will be a building permit pulled on a lot by lot basis. And at that time, the house location, house type, all those details will be worked out as part of that building permit application. Okay. The technical ability section was updated. That was a comment of the planning board at the last meeting. and we do have a financial capacity letter within the application. And I believe that was section L of the application.

F. F, thank you. Document F, anyway. Thank you. Switching between PDF and . So, okay. We did May 7th, 2006 letter from Bath Savings. Is that the financial capacity letter?

2006? 2006.

I'm sorry. Yes. 26. Yeah, 26. 26.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

We did include for this, now we're on to number 11.

11, thank you.

DEP stormwater permit.

So again, the DEP stormwater permit stormwater law doesn't apply here.

You're getting a general permit.

Yes. Right. Yes. Okay. The general permit. And that doesn't come until until prior to construction of the roadway when there's a contractor on board that will do that, then that general permit is filed.

I just want to back up to number 10. I don't consider this to be complete. Again, it was a construction cost estimate for the full cost of required improvements, including roads, utilities, fire, ponds, stormwater management, and erosion and sediment controls. along with a letter of commitment from a lending institution referencing said letter engineer's cost estimates. And a letter from Bath Savings is very vague to me. It says, we believe Mr. Snell has the financial capacity for the subdivision and approved financing will be contingent upon receipt and review of all financial information. So I don't find this one to be complete.

Since item number two wasn't complete, that one couldn't be complete.

Right, exactly. Well, yeah, item two and the financial capacity letter are not complete.

Thank you. So number 12.

The final plan shall include copies of covenants bylaws. So that was included as one of the last sections in the application.

And was this approved by the town attorney and reviewed and approved by a town attorney?

Can I clarify that? So the template that the town provides to applicants was reviewed and approved by the town attorney, and they pretty much followed that template. Okay.

Okay.

Um, I think they have met that standard.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Number 13, this is a cluster development with reduced lot size. So that was. Generally depicted within the plans, um.

Number 14 again, getting back to the.

cost of the improvements that was covered as george i believe that is that comment getting to what george covered for uh talked about for the erosion and sedimentation control valued at ten thousand dollars yes thank you uh well um uh costs for all improvements are more than just sedimentation and erosion

Yeah, I think at the time this, they have not proposed the conditional agreement. So this was not, this would have been different if they had been proposing that at preliminary approval. So basically they're substituting the conditional agreement and then the part of this for the erosion and sedimentation control. But again, that's a separate issue from the financial capacity. But as far as the performance guarantee is concerned, being tied to the engineering estimate, I think that is met with their proposal, just for the performance guarantee issue.

And has that been reviewed by the town attorney?

The town attorney review of the conditional...

So it says here, number 14... Any other proposed performance guarantee must be reviewed by town attorney at the applicant's expense. I'm assuming that's what we're talking about. This is in lieu of, right? So has the town attorney reviewed this proposal?

I can answer that no, the town attorney has not reviewed it. And the premise is that under the ordinance, a conditional agreement, which is right in the ordinance, is approved by the town attorney. If they wanted to bring in a performance bond, by a contractor, that would be the type of arrangement that would raise the need for a town attorney review. So either they do an irrevocable letter of credit using a template that's been approved by the town, or they do a conditional agreement, which is right in the ordinance. And I'm assuming they're proposing to put up a cash deposit for the $10,000 as opposed to some zone or something. The conditional agreement doesn't raise the need for and again, this. Condition was drafted without knowing that they were going to provide right?

Exactly. Propose the conditional agreement.

So, um.

addressing the board, there are a few things that were part of the conditions of approval that have not been met as part of this final application. And they are, number two, construction cost estimates for access road construction, electrical service, stormwater management, Um, the other outstanding item is street addressing.

Um, and that's number 7 and number 10. Um, engineers.

Construction costs us the same same as number.

2, basically, and then the letter from.

Confirming financial capacity.

So I guess my question is, are we comfortable with moving forward without these items complete? And there's still three months on the clock to have these ironed out. I'm not comfortable with moving forward.

We've asked for that information and it has not been submitted. So we could table this until

Actually, what you do is give a determination that the application is incomplete until you write them a letter. As soon as they get the information, they can resubmit.

We do have estimates. We have two estimates from contractors, so we know how much it's going to cost. But it looks like what you're looking for is a financial capacity letter that ties it to that amount.

But your estimates are just for erosion and sedimentation control.

Yeah, but we intentionally didn't provide it, but we do have several estimates for the entire roadway being constructed.

Okay, that's not part of the package tonight.

And just to clarify, a proposed bid on the project by a contractor is not an engineer's cost estimate. And there's a fundamental difference between the two.

There's a very big difference between the two. Yeah. Okay, so is there a motion?

Or would anybody like to make a motion?

Yeah, I'll make the motion that we find this application incomplete.

Ivy Ridge subdivision.

And should we base it specifically on the items that are incomplete? Yes. Okay.

Yes. Sorry, I didn't bring all things down. Number two. Number two, letter.

Two and ten and seven. But which letter? Two. Two, A, B, and C. A, B, and C. Are incomplete. And ten.

And ten.

Ten. And seven. And seven. But we have to, on the null on seven. in the applicant's defense.

It appears that they submitted that, but we had a change in CEO personnel, and that may have been missed on the town's part.

Is that person the street addressing officer? Yes. Okay. Road commissioner? Road commissioner.

Okay. All right.

Okay.

So that's on us for sure, but it's still missing, I guess, right? Yeah. If there wasn't anything else.

Okay, I'll repeat. Yeah.

2, ABC, 7, and 10.

Is there a second? All in favor?

Great. Okay. Quick question for George. To be on the next planning board, is that submission date in like one week, right? Two weeks. Two weeks? Two weeks before the meeting, get that information in. Two weeks before that? Okay.

Yeah, and our meeting will be September 2nd.

Then when we come back, we just review those things, right? Don't have to do the whole thing again. Right. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. As long as those three are met, then we can go on closing this and move on.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, moving on.

Seven, new business. Number E, sketch plan review of a subdivision plan amendment for a lot split on Winters Way, Map 11, Lot 41-V. Public comment will not be taken.

Hello.

Welcome.

My name is Evan Jones with Jones Associates. This is the technical applicant. Steven Bassett. So what this is is a sketch plan application for, it actually is a subdivision amendment. The previous land here was part of a subdivision in 1974. There was another subdivision that was done in 2005 on this parcel. which was a lot in the 74 subdivision, that subdivision plan called this parcel remaining land, even though it was technically part of lot two of the 1974 subdivision. So even though it was labeled a lot split, it would be under the legal requirement, it would have to be a subdivision amendment to At this point, two subdivision plans, the 1974 plan and then the 2005 plan, which is the area that this lot was split out of. So what the applicant's proposing is to split that one parcel into two parcels. One of those parcels is his existing home site. and he's planning to build a home on the back of the parcel. But in order to do that, obviously it has to be two separate lots. The access to the site is over Winters Way. There's currently one other house accessing on Winters Way, about 200 feet up that road in addition to his existing dwelling. So this lot amendment would put that number of lots at three lots accessing off of Windsor's Way. So therefore, at least the first 200 feet of that road would be classified as a road and not a driveway. So one of the main points that we wanted to discuss with you folks is your town road standards have a maximum grade of 8%. to those road standards. This entire road, existing road, because we're utilizing the existing road and putting a turnaround at the end of it, is between 12% and 13% grade. So it exceeds what your current grade standards are. So obviously, that's one of the main points we wanted to discuss with you folks tonight. And I think that That was done by the road commissioner and they didn't see an increased grade on the road, particularly because it was a shorter grade distance. AASHTO standards, which is the highway safety transportation standards for like a 25 mile an hour road, usually that maximum grade allowance is between 12 and 17 percent. for distances that are less than 500 feet. So we're on 400 feet for that grade distance. Your specific town road standards don't have that short distance allowance to increase grade slopes. So we would be seeking a waiver for your maximum grade slope because this is an existing road on site and there's not really an opportunity to put the road in a different location. It's obviously a main requirement for us to use that road for two more or an additional lot up there. So with this obviously being sketch plan application, the plan that we've provided to you is very basic. We haven't done a wetland delineation on the property yet. We obviously wanted to get through some of the road grade questions with you first. The rear of the property is in a resource protection zone. And then the rest of the property is in both the rural residential slash agricultural zone, which have a minimum lot size of 90,000 square feet. The lot where the existing house is on would be at 90,000 square feet and the rest of the property would be with the raw land lot where the new house would be constructed. We're proposing to add a 60 by 120 hammerhead turnaround at the end of the road because it's what fits best for a emergency vehicle apparatus turnaround within the area. So, yeah, I guess with that, that's the gist of what we've submitted and obviously looking to get a read from you folks as to whether or not a waiver for road grade standards is something provided the correct amount of information you folks would grant and what you would be looking for beyond. Obviously, the next step for us would be running that grade by the fire chief, sort of from a safety standpoint, making sure that the turnaround and road grade are okay for an emergency access and apparatus turnaround.

Sorry, you said you ran this by the road commissioner already.

Yeah, so road commissioner did not, based on staff review analysis, road commissioner did not see an issue with granting him a waiver, but has not been run by, the fire chief has not run by the fire chief.

Let me clarify on that diagram. The frontage, is it lot two is the larger parcel, and is that owned all the way out to Snow Road? Correct. Who owns the fee to that? The lot two would own the fee to the right of way.

Okay. Currently, it's all of part one and two. Currently it's all part one and two. It was divided a little weird instead of leaving like a traditional 50 or 60 foot road right of way width for that bath blot. They left a hundred feet of road frontage. I think probably. Yeah. Maybe so count as a lot. And we get up to grade. Yeah. So that the lighter dashed line is the 60 foot easement, which would be owned in fee. by lot two. Does that exist right now as an easement? The road exists. The easement only exists in the form that it's shown on the prior subdivision plan as driveway access to lots remaining land and lot two, which would be the southerly rectangle So the other lot that uses it has an easement. To be honest with you, I haven't read their deed, but based on the prior subdivision program, they do. It looks like there's a potential easement off of snow, right?

Is that the one you're talking about? Off from snow.

To the northern one.

To the upper right.

It would actually be the southern one.

So this lot. That lot comes off right there. It looks like they don't. There's no direct goes across this. So that's about where they're driving. You should check to make sure. And if it's not there, then part of this should be granted easement.

Yeah. And obviously this is a sketch plan. Oh, yeah. The reason why we're here. There's a lot of notes that would have to go on to this to make it a subdivision plan. But yeah, you're correct. We would have to research that easement, and the way it's shown on the resulting subdivision plan would depend on how it was granted. So we may not, we may have to just show the area, because in looking at the previous subdivision plan, it was fairly vague when it came to granting that easement. Right. This subdivision approval amendment can clarify that.

Right. Establish it for title... purposes for everybody.

Right.

Because it may be a prescriptive easement.

Yeah, and that's sort of my understanding of what it is right now.

Yeah, it would just be good to formalize that and that clears everybody's title.

Yeah, and another thing with this that we're trying to clear is the fact that this is part of a subdivision. Because in initial research of this, you pull this plan from the registry, it has a different plan name then the 1974 plan, it's not labeled as amended plan of lot two of a certain subdivision. And it's also labeled as remaining land. The final subdivision plan name right now, it's obviously listed as sketch plan. I'm gonna have to talk to my surveyor about how he's gonna label that. He may end up labeling it amended plan of, and then have to list both subdivision plans So, yeah, a few obviously things that the subdivision plan itself would clarify over previous divisions.

Hmm. Any comments from your board? Thank you.

So even though only there's one existing, right? There's one existing house and one proposed or two proposed? There's one proposed. One proposed right now. So even though only two potential houses right now, there's room. For additional houses.

Right. Further divided.

Oh. In the future, yeah, that would have to be an amendment to this amendment. Right.

But yes. Like what we're doing now, right? Exactly, yes. I'm saying that it's not just two. Could be more.

Right. I'd say that the fact that Law 1 is set at 90,000 exactly is not half of it. It has a possibility of opening.

Where will Law 1 get its 300 feet of frontage?

So along the road coming out of it, and then along the hammerhead.

So would it be from the, what's the lot down the lower corner?

Yeah, that was the previous subdivision. Is that along that corner over to the hammerhead, or is that all the way from the snow road to the hammerhead? No, that's from that corner to where the lot line comes off at a diagonal. Is that right? I don't know anything.

I'd like to see this.

Right, where that lot line comes off at a diagonal from the hammerhead, that's the end of the 300 feet.

So it's all... Yeah, under the new ordinance, you can count the size.

So stackable. Yeah, and that's something obviously we... Around there. It's exactly 300 feet now.

yeah the proposal the new standards obviously that wouldn't have been yeah we would have had to adjust that under the old standards yeah you're pretty close though i mean where the proposed house is it appears that there's wetlands how would you access that proposed

So the proposed access would come off from the sort of right hand or upper side of that hammerhead turnaround. Again, we haven't done a wetland delineation. So any wetlands on this would be shown on the final subdivision so that driveways could avoid them.

It's a tree line.

Yeah, that's a tree line. That's an existing tree line, if you're looking at that. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, around the building envelopes and things like that is an existing tree line. That area is obviously, because the grades are pretty high and dry, if I had to guess, obviously next to the stream is going to come up wetland, and then there's a little seep that comes up through that may end up wetland for some of that extent, but that would obviously be shown on preliminary and final.

Where's the floodplain here?

Yeah, so floodplain is roughly at the toe of that slope next to like... Which slope? Yeah, right there.

Okay.

So...

The last big flood we had, this whole area. I don't know how long you've been at the house.

I was there.

Okay, yeah.

So did you flood? No, we were high draft. Everything where the existing building is, that's not quite the high point, but that's very high. And then where the proposed building is. is, I don't know.

It's about 20 feet higher than the floodplain itself.

It drops down, very steeply down.

So you were dry there, both of those houses, locations.

Both those locations.

Yeah, yeah, okay, okay.

Yeah, the existing houses, oh God, that's going to be 70 feet above the floodplain. It's a fairly steep line.

Were you like an island?

We talked to Kyle, took the boat.

Nice little vacation.

So yeah, that's around 190.

So is there any problem with the hammerhead leading right into the driveway? Like an emergency or fire safety concern? I think I heard that come up previously that wasn't

desirable it's not desirable but I know historically there are some like that and nothing against it yeah our plan obviously with this with the preliminary room the next step for review would be this has all been done off from state line our data so those slopes are estimated off from what we can pull from public data sources um we would create a more detailed plan of showing the hammerhead and grade sheets on it so that the fire department would be able to do their review based on that and not this.

I can say that that is really the only location for a hammerhead on that property because it slopes off on both sides.

We can't go any further with the hammerhead location obviously because it without creating a lot of fill there.

Would the hammerhead itself be fairly flat though?

Oh yeah, the hammerhead itself is very flat. And obviously it's there because that is the flat spot. So just trying to avoid an extensive cut slope there that would result in a lot of trees being cleared and filling. So that existing... once you get up on that plateau so it's a flat plateau so at this point hopefully you still want to know if the board was entertained yeah yeah if your fire department and road commissioners are okay with what's presented given the um you know how few houses are accessing and the how short that slope distance is whether or not the board uh entertain a waiver.

It's already being used today anyway.

So can you explain a little bit more on the turnaround? How are you going to get from the driveway to the house? The proposed house. There would be a new driveway down through there. Okay, so you're just talking, we're just talking about the turnaround. I mean the hammerhead. We're just talking about the road. That's it. Just to that. Not even to that.

That would be a driveway. So we're just talking about to the hammerhead. The road portion. Or what's considered a road. What is used by both lots.

And that's going up. Obviously. So when it flooded, did that road flood? It did, right? The road in

snow road snow road winter's wind did not okay yeah i think on the other side if you're looking at that um plan the floodplain is there's a con those contours get little yeah i see them there's a little islands there yeah if you come in two contour intervals up from there i think that's roughly where the floodplain is perfect so it's so they're on a ridge here yeah the only spot on

this piece of property that I own, it's that back corner. That corner on the plan.

So George, maybe a newbie question, but does the board have the authority to grant a waiver like this?

Yes, it does. This is subdivision. And what you should do is include that AASHTO information that you mentioned, because that is the type of support documentation that helps justify it. So between the road commissioner and the AASHTO,

if there's a specific engineering guideline that talks about it.

And that was one of the issues. It's one thing to have a couple hundred feet of steep grade. It's one thing to have a quarter of a mile of steep grade.

How long is this? 400 feet. It is the sort of, well, pretty much the total length of the road to the turnaround. Okay, like 500 feet. 400 feet.

But there's roads already here right now. Roads already there.

Just not a road. It's not a road, it's not being called the road because it does not serve more than three, three or more garlands. So yeah.

But it is, is it not a road?

It's a named driveway.

Yeah.

For 911 purposes, it is, it has a name, but for road designs purposes, it's, it's a driveway.

And from the staff notes, there's some discrepancy as well.

Yeah, I think that was a typo. We have 12 Winters Way on our location information and then 11 Winters Way on its billing address, but they're both 12.

I think we were getting paid.

You still get paid if you send it to the... Yeah.

The only 123 portal was there.

This is tax map 11, and I think that's where the 11 came from on that one.

Any other comments from the board?

No. I felt like what George suggested would meet what you're asking.

We can do it.

I think the one thing that maybe we haven't really talked about is if we do consider the waiver, do we want to engineer to review?

Right? The steepness.

Or not.

That's interesting because it's already there today.

It's not a public way. So why would we want to engineer it? They're going to maintain it.