Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat.

Heat. How's the campground business?

It's good. A little bit slow this time of year, but you could use the break. Not bad. Did the the uh what do you call visiting nurses? Is that still a deal? Is that still a thing? Most of the people in there are visiting. Really? My mother-in-law went through a spell a couple years ago and it was amazing to me. Oh, nobody was from Maine. I mean, forget Lewis and Robert, they were Arizona, Philippines, Europe, wherever it may have been. You're on.

We're on. So, I'll quit talking. Okay. So, welcome to the November 5th um regular meeting of the planning board. And um so, we will go through roll call and determination of the quorum. There's five of us. So we have a quorum. Uh we are good to go. Would you rise and join me 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 under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So number three, amendments to the agenda. Does anybody have an amend amendment to the agenda besides me? Okay. So, um I cannot serve as the chair after I'm sworn in. So, I have not yet been sworn in. There's two things that make you select besides good looks and charm. The uh one is u certification election which Jessica has done. Second one is being sworn in which will happen tomorrow for me. So, but basically after tonight I can't be the chair anymore. So, I would like to add if you all are ready uh towards at the end of the meeting um an election of chair. So, it's been moved and second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of adding an election to the chair at the end of the agenda, please raise a hand and it is done. And then give you plenty of time to think who you're going to vote for. Uh, okay. So, the amendments to the agenda is done. Amendment, the acceptance of meeting minutes, we have two. October one, our regular meeting, October 22, which was the u ladies ordinance changes that are being proposed. Do I have any comments on either one or both? And George, can we approve them both together? I would move we accept October 1st and the 22nd as presented.

Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Seeing none, please raise a hand to approve. Unanimous. It is done. We're on to number five. Oh, information exchange on non-aggenda items. Uh Mr. the bars, the town planner, we will start with you. Okay. And I did include my monthly report to the town manager in your packet to give an update on what activities I've been involved in.

Okay. Did you want to highlight any or does anybody have any questions on George's? He is so happy to be getting rid of me. He's moving us through. Anybody have any questions or comments on George's well done planners report? I'd just like to compliment George on how thorough he is for those.

Greatly appreciated. Do I have a second on that? We don't need a vote. I would agree. And thank you, George. So, okay. So, we're past the any other town officials. I haven't seen any. Any comments for residents who are not here for a particular u uh application? Seeing none, we'll move on to non-residents who are not here for any of the applications on the agenda. Seeing none, we will move on to continuing business, which is request for final site plan approval for the expansion of the leisure campground for 40 RV sites map to lot 13. Public comment will not be taken. Um, so George, do you want to get us start if the two folks would come along to the table?

And can I just say that I'm going to recuse myself from this application just because I'm the neighbor. You can stay there. I'll stay here. I'm not going anywhere. Okay. Uh, Mr. Sar, did you want to kick us off? Yes. I'll just summarize why the applicants here are here tonight. Um, they received a conditional use approval for the campground expansion back in September of 2023. They followed that with the site plan application and you gave them a preliminary approval in February of 20 of 2024. Do I see 20 23 on that one?

Yeah. Okay. and uh they uh received conditions of approval. It required them to bring back to you the state permits for the engineering of this of the wastewater system as well as the storm water permit. And so they have uh acquired those permits and have submitted them with the packet and they've updated the site plan as also indicated in those conditions of approval. The last one was that they worked with the fire chief on the numbering of the of the sites within the campground for public safety purposes and they've indicated they are working with the fire chief.

Excellent. Okay. So, reminder this is final approval. So, we've gone through all the nitty-gritty about the layout and all that other stuff. They've gotten their final state approvals. So, do we have any other questions or comments about the final site? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve? I get before we get there, I do got one question on state approval on the uh wastewater treatment. Has that all been implemented? All installed? No.

Okay. No, no, no. We can't join that stuff until we get to So this is the step before we go. Yay. And when you stand with the discussions with the fire chief and the numbering he said that uh I discussed with him did anybody talk to fire chief at all? No. Yeah. He said that uh I have numbering for that but uh it's going to the map guy. We don't have it yet from the map guy. So I didn't want to start with that. So we're just waiting for that at this point in time. The map guy is No, the map guy is my map guy for your engineer. It's the actual map guy that makes maps for the campground. Oh, okay.

I had one here to show you in case you spot I didn't want to print it out with the number on it. Um, so has chief seen this fire chief? Yeah. And he's okay with it. Y does that answer the question? It does. So this is this is basically what we what we have. So after we we finished one of the last meetings, we did preliminary sketches in the campground and now we're gonna color them to show different areas of in case they have 911 issues and stuff like that from going back and forth. So

would you pass it on to Mr. Tars? Also, I started too quickly. Would you introduce yourselves? Okay. I'm Ken York. Okay. Uh so are there any other questions about the what if final approval was granted? When do you anticipate that you'd be able to break ground on the uh waste?

Um I would probably do storm water permit first if I want first because that's more of a thing for the campground existing now. Um, but yeah, as soon as I can get somebody to do it, I'd like to get something in the next couple months before the ground freezes, but I don't really see that happening. It'll probably be springtime.

And then construction wise, I'm not going to be con doing construction all summer long and killing my whole business to to do construction. So, it's going to be a lengthy process. It's not going to be like a bang bang and it's done in a month, you know, right? So, it's probably going to be a couple years going through this. So just just so you're aware that both permits are uh are regulated by the state. So the state engineers have to go back through and approve these these the wastewater permit. They have to submit their approvals to the state for us to be able to write off for the state to write off on my engineer has to write off on all projects. So it's not doesn't fall on the town to inspect these things which they're more than welcome to come out and and do his inspections but my engineers are supposed to do the inspections as well. state put that into your approvals as I recall, right? I know that you had to

pay the guy to do it. Yeah. Any other questions? Seeing none. Um, do I have a motion to approve their final plan as submitted? So move. Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please raise your hand if you have approved the final plan. She said uh four approved one estate. Well, thank you. Thanks for your patience. Good luck to you. Good luck with your new venture you got there. Well, thank you. Thanks, guys.

Come visit us then. Okay, I think uh the next So, we're on to the new business, right? Thank you, George. You're welcome. So that took care of the campground. New business request for sketch plan and review were proposed. 14 lot cluster subdivision at 439 Quaker meeting road map 2 lot 60. Public comment will not be taken. Uh okay. So uh please come up who'sever representing the owner of the member and your name and address and your relationship to the project.

Sure. My name is Joe Martin. I'm a civil engineer with Sightelines in Brunswick. Sight lines 118 Harington Road in Brunswick and I'm here representing.

Okay. So, George, if you want to give us a quick intro and then I will have uh Mr. Martin add anything he'd like to add to the discussion. Yes, I'll summarize the agenda notes which uh indicate that this project is going is proposed to be a cluster subdivision. Uh the based on the packet information, there's a 94 acres is going to be used for development. About 17 acres will be retained by the current owner. And I did describe in the notes with a diagram the basic lay of the land which is a height of land in the northeast corner. Uh and then from that high point it appears to all drain down either toward the tributary to Norton Brook or a large wetland system on the CMP power line. Uh they've submitted uh lots of uh site information. All is called for and more in the sketch plan submittal requirements. The basic project layout is a 1500 foot deadend road with 12 cluster lots and we're also proposing uh a larger conventional lot out at the project entrance as well as uh a retained lot at the end which would also not be a cluster lot. Um, I did indicate that that end lot as well as the land by the um rear of the property to be retained by the owner do not appear to have the legally required uh road frontage. Uh, as well as questioning whether or not the proposed easement on one of the lots constitutes uh the required designation of open space under the land use organ. So, I did suggest that the applicants perhaps consult with attorney to kind of look at those technical issues. There are different arguments and I know different

code officers have interpreted the road front turnaround. So that may be part of their thinking, but it' be good to get that kind of at least on the table at the sketch plan stage so that they know what to expect when they come before you formal application. Uh I also pointed out that there is on the town's GIS inventories indication and it was also noted in the soil report that there are farm soils uh and under state law as well as our local ordinance uh those have to be mapped as part of the subdivision uh submissions. However, I did point out that under either state law or local ordinances, it doesn't really tell you what you do with it once you get the mapping. uh but one thing it can do is give indication of support for proposed open space. So um because they would be preserving those natural resources and that can factor into your decision on whether to grant cluster pool or not. I did also point out that uh my analysis indicated that this is going to come very close proximity to the to col the budding subdivision with columns way which comes to their property line the adjoining property line and under the ordinance the planning board is required to look at interconnections of uh future existing street networks and future property. So that would seem to be a logical one to discuss. And then I went through the basically the process of review in terms of the three phases of the subdivision review process starting with where you are tonight with sketch plan process to discuss generally their approach to the project the the site in terms of whether cluster is the appropriate way to approach this property.

uh in also clarifying that no approvals are uh manifested at this point. But then they will come before you with a full preliminary plan application which will go through a review of the subdivision criteria and standards and you make a preliminary determination that the project that's designed would be able to meet those standards. Uh and with that preliminary approval, they can then with confidence apply for state permits and they've indicated in their submission what state permits will be required. Uh and then assuming they get their state approvals, they come back for the final plan approval. And the focus of that stage is making sure that all of the legal documents, the peer review of the engineering to make sure everything is is in order for actual construction as well as determining what the estimated cost of the construction is going to be and posting appropriate performance guarantees to guarantee that it gets carried out according to the approved plans. So that's basically the profit process. Uh again they're asking for a cluster approval with 50% reduction in most of the lots areas and reduction in the road frontages and uh sketch plan is also an opportunity to discuss whether they anticipate applying for any waivers and again you cannot give any approvals for waiverss at this point but you can at least discuss it and see whether or not uh you would be open on that note or not uh to consideration. And then finally, as uh Juliet appropriately pointed out on the Greystone subdivision, which I missed, at cluster, whenever you do a cluster subdivision, the sitewalk does take place at the cluster and not preliminary plan stage. And and it makes sense because you want to if you're going to give a cluster approval, you want to make sure that that's the appropriate

way to approach it. So you would need to schedule a sitewalk if the project goes forward. And I think that covers all my Okay. Would you like to add anything? Sure. I have a quick uh PowerPoint presentation. You guys too much. Um I'll give it to you. [Music]

Okay. All right. So, just a quick rundown of the project team we have assembled for this project thus far. Uh, so start instruction is the applicant. Uh, sight lines is the civil engineer and surveyor for the project. We have completed the boundary survey for the for the project or for the property say. Um, and then mainly soils is the weapon biologist and will be the person who gets the septic test beds completed for the individual lots. Um quick rundown of the review process. Um so as George um pointed out the review process with the town is a three-stage um three minimum three meeting process. Um for DP uh this project does not trigger um a stormwater management law permit or a site law permit. Um it does because it results in more than an acre of uh disturbance. It will require storm water PBR. Um there are a number of wetlands that will be impacted. I think right now I we haven't obviously done the grading yet, but it's going to be between 7 and 10,000 square feet of wetland effects. So that will require a tier one permit uh from the D. And then something kind of new from D is uh before construction gets started, we'll have to get a main construction general permit from D as well. Um and then lastly with the Army Corps of Engineers um because of the wetland wetland impacts and the uh tree clearing associated with those uh this will require a general permit uh from them as well. They just issued their new general regional general permits uh Friday. Um I've read through them. I'm still trying to absorb exactly what those entail, but um I do know for sure this will require general.

Can we ask questions? Sure. Absolutely. You had mentioned about tree clearing requirements. Can you expand on that? So the reason that trips to the Army Corps is um if you are um impacting wetlands and you're clearing trees that are over 4 in diameter, 3 in diameter um you need to get a consultation with the uh

fish US fish and wildlife service because this area is part of the northern long-ear bat habitat. So what they do is they check to see if there's u potential for impacts to those habitat the bats. Sometimes what they'll do is they'll say, "Hey, you can't clear between this time and this time and you have to clear outside of their their

Yes. Um sometimes depending how much you're clearing, they won't put that in. But recently they've been almost every project kind of having those clearing restriction windows. Uh, and that goes for the roadway and for the future lots if they're sold at a later time. You know, if they're not developed for a couple years, that clearing window timeline still goes with that. So, you're still held to a certain time. Usually, it's kind of the winter uh spring season where you want to clear, not kind of the summer time. Thank you.

Yep. So, project summary. Um, it's in the rural residential agricultural zone district. Um, so the property right now is utilized as a single family residence. It's kind of located right up on the high point of the property and it kind of falls away um from that high point down to some wetlands and eventually to a to a stream. Um, it's mostly wooded scrub brush uh type of growth. Um, up near where the house is. There is some lawn meadow areas uh but for all purposes it's it's undeveloped and wooded. Um so the project as George knows is going to be 1500 linear feet of new roadway 14 cents on the lots. Um there is going to be about 17 acres retained by the current owner when it's transferred to the to the applicant and then we are providing open space and accordance with the cluster uh sub apartments. Um, of course, we will need private wells, individual sub systems. Um, underground power will be extended and then in accordance with the Durham ordinance. Um, we will be implementing a new storm water system consisting mostly probably of detention basins to control the the peak runoff coming off that. I maybe we can answer this here or maybe later. I did have some questions on on exactly what the storm requirements were from the town. um just the language in the ordinance is a little bit different from some other counts. So curious about that.

I'm sorry. Jo, Mr. Sh, if I could just ask a question about that last slide. Um so if we have land to be retained outside of the proposed cluster, is that property taken out of the equation? Yeah, it's not. We're just looking at what's what you're we're just going to look at the acreage that you're proposing for the cluster subdivision. Yes. Yeah. So, the entire property is I think 94 acres.

So, whatever that is - 17 acres. That's kind of the project. So, there is an exemption for uh subdivision law for um land that is retained by an owner. Um there is some restrictions to that. I think if they um try to sell that land within five years then that land would kind of revert to become part of the subdivision. It's kind of weird loophole. I don't know exactly what happened in that instance but so this is an aerial um Quaker meeting house road over here. Hen Brook Road is here. Collins way rafts right there. Um there is a CMP rightway or corridor that goes um right north of the the property as well. Um so this is kind of the property here. Um you see it's mostly wooded. Uh there is a stream down here that runs off site. Um there are some areas as I noted of like kind of scrub brush areas, but most of this area is wooded. And then the house is kind of up in this area. There we go. Um, so this is the conceptual subdivision plan. Um, Quaker Meaning House Road is over here. There's that CMP corridor that I talked about. Um, and here's the brook down here. Um, so north on this page is kind of this way. So, it's kind of been shifted just for ease of layout. Um, so the the project was extension of a new road. um number of lots. Um all this cross-hatched area is wetlands. You can see kind of fingers coming up through where the new road's going to be. Uh these areas that are darker hatched are steep slopes. Uh we try to minimize the steep slopes that are within the lots. We can see there's some loc,

but this large section of steep slope is primarily located in the open space. Um what else from this? And I'll I'll point out here too, this is where the the existing house is here. They have an existing driveway that leads back to Quaker being road. So that will just be abandoned once uh once the subdivision is approved. Um there are two lots that are a little bit larger in size than typical for cluster. Uh one is lot one. The main reason for that is um they're it's mostly comprised or the reason it's larger is the I say leftover land is comprised of that larger wetland area and uh one of the things we were trying to meet with the cluster requirements was 40,000 square feet of contiguous area. Um, so once I started to figure that out and chop it off, chop it off, it got to a point where it just made sense just to to include all that area in the long.

Where's the house going to go there? You think this? I'll show the next slide actually. Okay. Well, you probably see just want to talk about the connection to it.

Yeah, I'll go back to this in just a second. So, the house would be over here with the 50 foot setback from this wetland coming in on both sides. I mean, it' be a post stand buildable area there. So, um, one of the things not shown, I was looking at the ordinance actually, and I think I think this does apply here, that there will be a requirement for a 50ft buffer along Quicker Me Road. Um, but even with that buffer, we can locate a single family uh residence right there. Back to this one. So, this is Palms Way. It does not extend to end of the road here. Nor does the easement extend? you know, it is part of this lot. Um, I can't tell you what lot number it was, but

it's okay. So, I mean, theoretically, we we could extend a rideway up to up to there, you know, future right away. To connect that in the future, you have to get the permission of obviously that land owner and probably a subdivision as a whole. Um, personally, I think like likelihood of that is pretty low. People love living at the end of Denm Roads. Um, and I don't know if they would grant an easement, but uh it's something we discussed today. And that also on your side of the property or the project that's wetlands, right? Yeah. And I'll just only leave it up to there. So, I don't know if this wetland goes off here or not, but they stop. So,

can I ask two questions? Um, one, uh, the easement that George brought up earlier, where is that here? So there's there's two easements. So uh the land we obtained by the owners here we have a 50- foot easement sitting back there. Um which we would hope that this would qualify as a back lot. We can discuss that further. Okay. The other easement is the open space easement. So lot 13 is comprised of this I'll call it buildable area here and the remainder of the open space. So the open space itself is in an easement that will be held by uh the HOA and I don't know if um the town is simply holder of the open space as well but um it would be held in Okay.

Could you say go ahead could you say that again on there's lot 13 what lot 13 what does it consist of? It consists of this buildable area here, okay? And then you see this line right here. That's the open space ement. It's not a lot line. It's just an ement line. So lot 13 comprises all of this. Okay. But majority of lot 13 is under an open space e. So where would the um the cluster open space be? Your proposed? Yeah, it would be all coming up here, here, and then all of this area. That would all be open space, right? Is that part of a law?

It's an easement. So it's the easement. The open space is comprised of an easement. And that's where the legal question comes. Okay. Does that constitute open space? Yeah. Let's talk a lot about that. Yeah. Okay. Um and then my other question was resource protection for the town. Yep. Is that on here? Uh yes. So there's um the 100 foot stream setback here for this uh I think it's Mil Brook there. um that is part of the resource protection. And then there's a inland waterfall wingward habitat that just creeps into the site here and that would also be part of the resource protection. This stream here is not a perennial stream. It's an intermittent stream.

Um so that would not be and again with this one over here, that one is an intermittent stream. So that would not be part of the research. Okay. Um and then wetlands. Um just so you've got state wetlands. Yes. These are all state um wetlands. These are majority of the wetlands here are forester wetlands. Okay. Um the um wetlands that would be of significance would be wetlands within 25 ft of stream whether that be the permanent stream or the intermittent stream. Okay. And then the wetlands uh within the water water.

So these wetlands here and those wetlands over there, right? Yep. Okay. And then army core wetlands. You're thinking all of it. Yep. All this will be would be the definition. Y if I may, what's the advantage of having lot 13 own all that open space?

Um the advantage is we run up to some um limits with uh state subdivision law and site location law of the number of lots that you can have. they consider an open space if it's part of its own lot as an as a lot that's um sold quote unquote. So if you had open space as its own individual lot then the number of lots you could have before you meet that threshold for uh site law would be reduced by by one. So and every town's a little bit different. We have had some municipalities that are fine with the open space community because it's protected whether it's on its own property or it's on easement. It's protected. It's deemed protected. You know, it can't be altered without further discussion with with the town. Um, and some towns clearly lay out in their ordinance that no, it has to be separate separate piece. But I guess because we've had 13 lot subdivisions and some others where there has been separate uh deer creek not part of a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong. How do we how do we uh get around that? How did that

you 13 with the open space that would get to 14? So that' be less than 15. But we have I I think in uh Deer Creek, aren't there lots of little splotches of talk to a lawyer? What's that?

Talk to a lawyer. I would say that um there has been a number of subdivisions and I don't know specific one you're talking about that have been approved that would be wouldn't meet the definition of the site law requirements um in terms of like so let's say we had let's say lot one was an open space lot and we had this as an open space DP consider consider that two lots two separate laws that would count towards your 15 lot threshold so um we had a subdivision that um had something like that and um we ended up had having to connect the open spaces by like a sliver a 10 foot sliver that wrapped around the thing. So it would be one lot. It was it's a silly thing but it's it's the way it goes around. So um the other alternative is um or the other reason you may be able to do it if the entire property is 30 acres or less then site law is not into effect for that. So if it's a more compact lot I don't know if that'll be the case. And the other thing is that um if your open space is held by a designated third party like a conservation group um Brunswick top Brunswick land trust if they own it then it gets absolved out of that and it doesn't count as so there's a bunch of exemptions and ways around it um to eliminate the open space from being

but that's per state right? So we also have our own internal cluster open space requirements. Yes, that's what we're going to have to figure out like so he was kind of asking like what's the benefit of it and that's kind of the benefit of it you know from a regardless of the ownership of it the uh I believe has been designed to meet the standards. at least the um 50% of it is non-weapons and it um can't remember the exact number of that is percentage um it's 50

yeah so for the requirement the 50% of the total lot area is 38.4 and we're building 45.4 for um meet that requirement and then more than 50% of the open space is non which is the requirements we were trying to hit if I may with the lack of 150 ft of the continuous legal road frontage that is identified for lot 13 and also the remaining home retaining the 17.44. How can we satisfy that? Can we satisfy it by increasing the distance of the road where the hammerhead is?

We could do that. And it's, you know, another question reading the the definition of frontage. I I don't know what the town's done in the past. Have they used the kind of wraparound of the the dead end turnaround to meet that 150 for an inch? I don't know if that's been current code officer has interpreted that it has to be a straight line.

Okay. Um so also because lot 13 does encompass all the open space. There is some of the open space that fronts on the road that does have frontage that could be accounted for. But alternatively, yes, we could extend that. I mean you probably extend another I don't know 60 70 ft. So it wouldn't be a huge Well, the other question was lock the 17 acres. Yeah.

And then that would be we're proposing to be a back lot. So that would be a 50 foot rideway extended off the end of that road. Um, I do have some questions reading the the ordinance exactly how um if we need to if the length if the back lot needs to have the minimum frontage on the rightway on the 50 foot right out there which if it is we could extend that right away into this lot to make that u meet that requirement whe it's 150 or 300. Um so the intention was to get log 13 the minimum frontage from the road however we had to do that and then lane to be retained would just be a backlog. So couple of issues would be the simple solution for lot 13 is to extend it whatever it takes to get the parent fee there then it's clear not saying you can't do that way just saying easy and then have if again I'm not sure about the back of a back lot in a subdivision may not be permissible legally but if you just extend the rightway to the corner where it turns

u at the end of the box where the writing is just create that road frontage. If it if it's a back lot you under that you have to go 20 currently 20 foot road within the amendments to go down 16 ft. So again your your responsibility is to try to figure out how to meet the ordinance requirements. So I guess the question is would that be a question for the code force or would that be a question that we would provide a legal analysis and that would get reviewed by I think the best thing to do if it's straightforward and it clearly meets it. If it doesn't, if you're doing this kind of questionable stuff, then the best thing to do is get a language attorney to make the case

that it meets the requirements and then the code officer can review that and then I think that is the proper way to do it because we know how the code enforcement officer is going to interpret it. Yeah. But like applying for a building permit or subdivision application, the burden on you is to make the case and how you use that. How does it help you make the case? No, you know, sometimes the town will have kind of precedent of they've had this come before and they're like this is how we interpreted it, but it sounds like in the distance has not been. And I think the other question is can you count the little sections of where the open space comes up to the road like the one you show there's not a lot of that but there is 40 50 feet at least. I would like

code officers interpret it has to be straight continuous. It has to be all continuous. Okay. Then the second is do you have to um for the back lot what you're going to create as a back lot does it need that um easement when you sub when you start working on this when you put in your your plan your final plan does that easement have to exist in the U back area if they if they this is why they got to be careful because it could be creating illegal non-conforming law. You cannot create a lot that doesn't question. Okay, that's really the issue.

Even though they the next guy could just put 150 ft on his property, you know, a lot whatever. I don't I guess you're not calling them a lot, but the 17 acres. Okay. Um George, can I say a couple things? when when you um recommend a legal opinion, are you kind of wrapping the entire open space cluster? Well, those are the legal issues would be does that easement meet the ordinance requirements for open space regardless of what other towns do. Yeah.

Does it meet the definition of open space and and the criteria for open space? And then the 17 acres to be retained does not appear to have road frontage which is required and lot 13 does not appear to have 300 ft of contiguous. Now again they can make a case and say yes here's how it meets the ordinance and that'll be reviewed and if the code officer has a question they'll probably run it by the towns of the book concept to say that was my next question because what you don't want to do is you don't want to create title problems.

Yeah. No 100%. My my next question was so you know for consultants third party review we ask for a um like a a payment in advance and then we pay for them to do it and we somewhat run that process. We don't do that for legal. We do it for that was my Okay. So but it's on the it's on the applicant to do it for the legal and present us with their findings. Yeah. Right. Okay. Is this public comment? No. That's part of the development team. If you want to speak, jump up and introduce yourself, please. He's doing a very good job.

Clarifying question. I want to make sure we get answered. Go ahead. Um, thank you. Um, I love this creative part of the process. Um, and and I don't think any of us here will approve anything that's a nonconforming walk at all. Um, one of the questions I have regarding George's comments about a paper street. Do you have a plan where you looked at connecting? I know you said that people love living at the dead end, but we have a requirement for connecting. Do you have a plan where you looked at connecting um your proposed road to the Collins Way?

I didn't. I I kind of looked at because the road was kind of hanging off here. I looked at all right, you know, crossing this. This is a pretty good stream wetland complex. Kind of looked at areas over here. Didn't seem like it was high likely that there'd be a future connection there. They didn't even look at this because of that break on the end there. And I saw that and I said, "Well, that was intention that was created intentionally uh to prevent extension in the future."

Well, the wetlands kind of gets cut off property line there, but um certainly you can find a way somebody could find a way to get around it. It nice to see what it would look like to see if there was a connection there because it is something that it's in our ordinance um to at least look at and explore. I'm just wondering if there was an option to look at that because obviously block 13's got all these weird things happening with it and you're kind of parsing out parts in a weird way of open space. I think it'd be good to look at. Part part of the theory for doing these this analysis is to say a hundred years from now and if this subdivision all develops out and the rest of the town all develops out and becomes much more of a suburb like Brunswick and Freeport and other towns doing an eminent domain for 100 feet to connect the subdivisions is a whole different matter than trying to lay out a whole new road system. So that's why the ordinance kind of most ordinances call for these at least paper street connections so that in the future you know there is a little block there and like Bill was saying people do that but town has an eminent domain power at some point in the distant future that if it if but if you if you don't make those provisions it's much harder

and don't tell anybody we're thinking about using eminent domain connect those two streets. One thing you have to be That's why I said 100 years from now. One thing you have to be concerned with that is Collins Way is a town. You would be connecting a town road with a non town road and I that could create a lot of issues

on the on the path of being creative. if I could jump on his comment. The access road in um is relatively like straight, which I can understand and appreciate, but I wonder if you like somewhat redesigned it a bit more if you could avoid impacting the wetlands. You know what I mean? Instead of just going straight through like if we just made, you know what I'm saying? Like your leg kind of ears like that. We had we had looked at that. It kind of gets a little funky with the minimum horizontal curves. I know it impacts your lots, right?

And the lots as well. Uh but you know, you run across too. You got the 100 foot minimum horizontal curve for the roads. So come back there. It was getting a little funky and trying to get the number of blocks we wanted and um not extending the road that that much. But we could definitely evaluate that and see if there's an a way we could do it to minimize the weather impact as much as we can. Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be that would be good to see. Yeah. Although it's a kind of a solid line of of I don't think you're going to say much is what we prior

and right there like if you could come up you're going to lose a lot but like impact less. Uh did one of you two have something you want to say? I had a question about the road frontage on lot 13. So, if lot 13 is part of the lots for the cluster subdivision, George, you keep saying 300 feet. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly. Yeah. Yeah. Theoretically, you could reduce it down to 150 ft.

Okay. And um you know I think the logically if you're if you're going to connect to columns away I think the most logical thing would be to extend off the end end of here and just impact those web which is not ideal but trying to connect back in here coming to the side it's going to really be kind of a difficult transition. Um, and it does look like, and we don't know what comes off site here, but I think this is kind of starting to be the end of this wetland fender. So, you're kind of impacting the very end of those wetlands, which is, um, I'll call it the least functional part of those wetlands. I guess if you're thinking about doing something for 100 years from now, you would you could create an easement now

that would extend from whatever you're going to call your new road up to the area you just described as the So that would just be an easement, but it will have an impact on lot 13. you know, so just I guess something to consider. You know, you wouldn't have to do it today. You wouldn't have to get the neighbors all riled up. You know, sometimes it's necessary, but it's with the paper streets, you'd have that the front set back would have to maintain off the paper street along 13. So, you have a 50 foot setback So

because theoretically in 100 years if this was developed you wouldn't want a house that was built. The current the current ordinance does not require double fronts. So okay. So do we have a definition for paper street? It only shows on paper. I guess you're talking about something I see as an ement final plan. Well, you know, we haven't seen the HOA, but to your point, it's a town road to a private road, but in the future, the HOA could say, "We don't want this to be a private anymore. We want the town to be accepted."

Currently, we must have somewhere in town where private roads run into town. I mean, so it it is something that, you know, is fairly all private loads come off towns. Well, that's okay. We'll say the other way around, but they when they connect, it gets into a maintenance expense and it gets into an increase in busing. It's there's been down this excuse road many times. I like it. Um

well I think the yeah the easy answer is uh an easement in my mind if we if we if we want to have some kind of future connection which you know I until I saw that they didn't there was no way to connect I was I'm because I do believe we need to connect our neighborhoods. I mean, I just think it's by because I'd hate to think that a kid on lot 14 or lot eight has to go all the way back out to Quaker meeting to come all the way over to 125 to to do that. If we could somehow figure out a way to connect them historically, you can look at Palm Mill Road, which never went through Mill Road did not go through. The old Brunswick road did not go through. wasn't passable quite a while and it was it was a uh great enhancement for when they did connect those for bus travel

and emergency vehicle versus having to go in halfway go all the way around town and come back the other end. I mean that there's there are pluses. Yeah. which probably neither at the end of the day neither neighborhood like the fact is the big the big negative the connectedness is that does become a highspeed avenue approach out to 125 and back you know it could be but I would certainly think that the people that live on Collins way the HOA would probably have a lot of say in that

yeah at this point I don't see the town taking it by imminent domain in my lifetime you know, so I I really think it's you have it there. We did that with Deer Creek. We just, you know, we come off the end of Deer Creek Road and it's just a paper easement or whatever to get out to the next property so that that can then eventually, you know, go through the next property. I'd like to see that. I'm a big supporter of that. It'd be nice to be able to connect these neighborhoods. Um but any you know exploring the easement with being proactive to see the future that may be an option.

How wide is your road? The rightway or the actual road? Um the right way is 50 50. Yeah. The road is I believe 20 ft with two foot shoulders

ground shoulders. And then you know the intention is for the most part the you'll have roadside ditches that pick up the water then send it to whatever collection system we have have there. Um there will be some cross connection culverts where we have these wetlands. That's one of the requirements that the army guard has is they really want to maintain the what they call the hydraulic connect connectivity between these. So there'll be a culvert embedded here. So usually it's better like six inches below the ground or allows kind of the water to flow between. In this instance it's not a huge deal yet because this there is some decent soap across here that's really made for like flat areas but we'll meet that requirement anyways but so you'll have one over here one over here to connect these wetlands together as well. And then depending on what happens over here, if this is a driveway, there will also be have to be a cross connection there as well as maintain if and I'm sure you will when you talk to the U road commissioner, public works guy, he has concerns about the quality of the driveway entrances, the cover culverts underneath driveways. So please when you're doing that and you get into that detail,

you might want to touch base and you need to talk to about a whole bunch of stuff, not the least of which is your line of sight on your meeting. Yep. Yep. I have I have looked at that preliminarily. Um it looks fine. I I I need to grab another engineer from there. Really need two people to measure it. So um but we'll measure that before as well. We actually have an entrance permit already for that road. That's true. He did the sidelines for that and it's there. Yeah, I just put it on the drawing then. Thank you. Um I did have well few more things to discuss.

So um just to make a point about that though is that an avenue we're going to go down. We're not going to go down that one for time. Which connection because they be talking about moving home everything shift right I think I think the the I don't speak for well I think you guys need to talk about it we're not

okay so that that may and I don't think we're going to ask you to connect them I think the question is do you put an easement there so yeah I mean come back in and say you don't want to do it and the board can tell you to pound sand or they'll agree with you one or the other Okay. Um, so this is the the site development plan. It's tough to see at this scale, but um, this is kind of the high point here. And then all of these grades kind of sloped down away from Durham Heights. Yes, Durham Heights. The views actually from here are pretty good.

So, um, these little boxes here, it's kind of a typical house with a garage next to it. Obviously, the shape and size may change depending on who buys it. Um, the majority of the the house lay layouts are relatively close to the roadway. There are a couple lots, this one here and this one here where the houses are set back a little bit further away and that's primarily due to the setbacks from the the wetlands. Um, so especially this one here because this wetland kind of tails away and we don't really have enough buildable area until that wetland starts to snake off. So that's why the house is set back so far. Um this um building here again that is avoiding those steep slopes um there as well. Um and I was looking at some of the notes from the last subdivision the sketch one that was presented here and there was discussion about could those steep slopes be modified during construction of the the house law. I don't know if there was a conclusion to that.

I think we just left it up to whoever whoever the developer come in and tell us, you know, what they wanted because that was the sketch plan, right? So, I think that's we have not done their their sitewalk yet. So, but there I don't I think it's fair to say there was no determination determination requirement one way or the other. Is there a question kind of like after the fact um to potentially um cut some too out? Yeah, like ideally, you know, if this house wants a more of a backyard, you know, can they come back in here and level this out? I I think it would be advantageous to to eliminate the steep slope. But

yeah, I one thing I would think of is storm water, your storm water plan. So, if you're changing the slopes of anything, but you're not including it in storm water plan, I don't know. Okay. I'm not well our comment was um the building envelope should not include slopes greater than 20%. And so you have several sites, several lots here that include a slope greater than 20%. We didn't talk about whether or not you can cut it down. Our ordinance says the building envelope

should not include slopes greater than 20%. So lots five, seven, 12 and I forget the other one include that.

So the the way the way I've interpreted that is the the building envelope itself is the areas within the property that can be built on and um we need to have a minimum of 40,000 square feet of contiguous building envelope. So when we've like for this one we've calculated you know this area is contiguous there's a break in those steep slopes there. So we did not include any of those steep slopes in that calculation for that 40,000 ft of building and that's the same here. Um, so when we look at this, you know, let's say the the wall here is 50,000 square ft. Well, we have to take up this area and make sure we still meet that 40,000 foot particular building envelope.

The building envelope shown here like inside these, right? Is that your building envelope? This that the setbacks are there. The building envelope is not everything within the setbacks because it can be include other stuff besides just the building the driveway the uh other things that I guess good point from Brian like so yeah the 20% requirement so you're saying you did not read it that way so the the calculation for the building envelope does not include any of the steep slopes okay nothing nothing 20% 25% or whatever it is yeah okay

so there's a table on the the site plan that has kind of the the total lot size for those and then subtracts out the um areas that are not part of the net sorry the building envelope which is wetlands and steep slopes. Um so and then you get the kind of a net building envelope. Okay. So then back to your question I think then your plan is to not cut the steep slopes. No, I'm just thinking in the future, you know, not meeting town requirements that just in the future when these lots are developed, can those steep slopes be touched? I guess I would say not with the the permit the permit didn't include those, right? Like that's my thought right now just

what we've done on other like um Dear Creek crossing some of the lots were kind of constrained by that limits. So if there's a question like that for that whatever that lot number is uh you could prepare a grading plan

that could be approved by the planning board and typically what you do is say long as they follow that grading plan which the planning board reviews determines that it meets all the requirements and it's not going to cause storm water or other problems. And then if the when you're creating construction you want to make changes to that as long as you get a revised grading plan submitted to the town then the idea is that you know make sure lot's going to work and we saw that up on Holy Hill that came in because they didn't anticipate the grades they pushed the house violated the setback had to come back change law lines all that good stuff don't want to do that well do you I mean I've not seen it made are there not such things as walkout basement.

Yep. Which you would put on a very steep, relatively steep slope. Yep. So, just be, you know, you don't necessarily I'm not telling you you have to, but you could put a house on a steep slope. Just have a walk out basement. Yep. Retaining walls and all that stuff. Can also angle the house on that lot.

Yeah. Plus curve field, but that's okay. I question a lot of fire as well. That looks like those. And if you got questions about any one particular lot or whatever, how to do it, I think a good play codes guy would be a good, you know, can this is what we want to do on this lot, those lots before you get too far down. And I I will make that a general statement that I would talk to the fire chief about fire safety. I would talk to the public course guys. We've already started that with the road cut. And I would talk to the codes guys who uh you know any any questions you have now is a good time to do it before we get in you get into design and then say oh he's not going to let me build that there or I could have built that there or y

you know whatever it may have been did you just have a concern about five I don't see anything on five did you just say something about law five yeah it's not shown here but it looks like there's greater than 20% talking about and that's up to your engineer to figure out but from the top it looks like

no it was a little bit less than the the 25% requirement. So the the we use software we create a surface tin uh for based on the the contours uh two contours and then we can say all right show us all areas that are um more than 25%. you know, map them all here. And sometimes it maps like, you know, ones that are the size of a poster stamp, you know, I'm not going to include that one because it's it's literally just a glitch in the in the software. But, uh, these were the major areas that were identified. Interesting. Thank you.

Y just visually to line and sometimes the difference between five feet and six feet is, you know, so close it's kind of difficult to tell how long drawing. Um, and then the last slide here I have, so the farmland soils. Um, this was not in your packet, but when I received those staff notes, I did, uh, go do through the the state GIS and got their shape file for their mapping of the soils and I put it on here. So, you can see obviously the red patching area is is those. I looked at the ordinance as well. I don't see any specific requirement associated with that. Uh, I did look at the state websites. It looks like it's mostly used as just a mapping tool for for the state and the the federal USDA. Um I did see some stuff about uh did come into discussion when a lot of the solar farms are being developed u first go round and there was concerns about them taking up all the farmland in the state. So, I don't know if the rules ever went in effect, but there was rules discussed that um restricted how much solar uh could be located on these type of soils. And again, I don't know if those rules ever actually went to effect, but that's the only regulation I saw associated with them.

No, thank you for adding this. Our comp plan does say that our subdivision should indicate where prime Yeah.

agricultural soils may exist. And I I mean just kind of think about it. I mean what makes I was reading what makes the definition of prime farmland soils. It's they're dry uh they're non rocky um deep um seasonal high ground water typically. Um what makes perfect residential development sites? So it's kind of you read everything in the list for prime farmland like yeah it's a prime house lot as well. Um so it's just kind of interesting. I had a question about storm water and Durham standards. Basically, we go by the D standards or DMPS. Uh the language in there is talking about you don't have to do a storm water if you need certain but this would not meet those exemptions. So,

so would it be required to provide um treatment or just attendant? Because I was reading looking ahead like the 10% rule. No, I think that was for determining that you're not required to do a storm water management plan. Okay. This is going to have a storm storm storm water management plan and whatever the state does that's what you do here. So, and that was kind of so the state this doesn't require any state storm water permitting other than the peri rule which is just a erosion control uh implementation. So if it doesn't there's no more than an acre of disturbance on that entire site.

There's an acre of disturbance which has triggered the PBR. There's not an acre of new purpose. So I think we're at like point with all the driveways and the roofs and the road. So because the lots are going to be sold and developed by a separate entity. Those are not included as part of the purpose area. So the only perks here we be looking at is any driveways uh sorry any um uh roads any um you know access paths if there's a access road to like a storm water pond or a fire pond that would be included but the development of the individual lots that purpose there would not be included towards the one acre threshold

that include the footprint of the house they're saying the house I mean we went through with Deer Creek Crossing and after peer review I looked at it said yeah so in any case the we have the same storm water standards for performance as thresholds might be different but if what we're saying is you don't we don't have special storm water okay performance standards you go whatever D does but I would take another look at that because we will George mention a good point which is when you get into your design, there will be a peer review

and that comes after the preliminary is when you submit your final plans and we do require the storm water plan unless the waiver is requested and that actually brings up the question do you know of any waivers you're thinking of yet? Um I don't think so. Okay. At this point, um, we had looked at potentially a couple of the laws we might requesting a waiver for reduction in that 50 foot wetland setback. I don't I don't have that and we will we will have a storm major plan. I my main question is what was included in that plan, but we'll I'll review that further.

Just go by. Any other questions? Yes. Okay. the presentation. Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes.

Um, can you talk about the existing driveway to the existing house and there's you say in your um summary that you're going to have underground utilities, but anyway, that existing driveway looks like it has existing toilets to lot seven. Um, is there going to be a right away granted to CMP or whomever owns those poles through lots, three and five to lot seven? So those those holes will be abandoned. Um, and the the um driveway will be abandoned will be probably, you know, scuffed up and receded. So lot seven access is going to be from the new road.

Yes. So Okay. All right. Um, so, so that rightway is going to be abandoned or just the driveway. It's not a rightway driveway. Yeah. And I would say too, you know, if you've ever driven by the the the site, it's not a, you know, it's a pretty narrow driveway. It's kind of I won't call it a go path, but it's a, you know, it's a pretty narrow driveway to be up there. thinking creativity creativity

like if there's a way to connect you know that existing driveway to the paper street to columns but anyway so food for thought um and then the um the cemetery can you tell me a little bit about that

sure so it's located right here this little wedge of the open space that comes up there um we didn't want to have that included as part of antid lots just with uh concerns about over the years. If you own a piece of property, people forget there's a cemetery there and it gets disturbed. So, that's located right in this triangle here. I believe there's one or two gravestones there. It's pretty clear where it's located. Our surveyor is located corners of it. Um there's no disturbance allowed within 25 ft of those markers. So, that will be projected. There's already a deed um for the cemetery, but um it probably makes sense for something in the HOA dos as well to include that service within that 25 step back as well.

And again, this is preliminary. Yep. Your your boundaries show that into what 10 the 25 foot setback. Yeah. Yes. Yep. So that's it's located if you look at those two lots the setback is located within the side setbacks of those properties. Um so you know there could be no building there. So really the only thing that we would u be concerned about is any disturbance within the area. So I think that's where kind of the loss would come in effect and there's no delineation. There's no walls fences. It's just it's just headston right now.

I believe there are some I think two rocks. Yeah, it rocks. It's kind of just an old family subject. Um the setbacks on on site 12 the um call it the um southwestern setback looks like go right to the property line. I saw that too and I think that was um just an error. It should be there should be a side step back there. Um those laws got reconfigured prior to submission. I think I just need to edit added. So there would be a point that said there and you are going to propose a fire pond these houses.

No, the plan right now is to have um some sort of fire pond location. we were kind of looking at was over here type of maybe a saltwater basin over there but then also be a good spot for a fire pond uh as well. There are some wet soils there that would help feed into that. Um we would just design that. There's some specs in the the ordinance as well that we'll also reach out to the fire department to make sure it's designed to their specs as well. And it's okay to impact wetlands to build like storm water facilities and and fire ponds. It doesn't count towards your tenth of an acre. It does count towards that. Or it does count towards that. Yep. Okay.

So, um, yeah. So, when we impact those wetlands, that will be part of the the impacts associated with. So, I guess I could say, you know, I understand why it's a good spot to build one, right? Because it's wet. But could you do it elsewhere where there's not a wetland? Yeah, I think we would try to minimize the impacts. I don't think we're trying to wipe out that wetland at all. Um, and there's what I'm saying is that the soils in that area are generally wet, right? But I think we would try to minimize what I think like entire like this is wet, right? And although it's like it is got some topo, so y over 100 acres, too.

Right. Right. Yeah. It's a big area and it's steep in some areas, but I mean there's a lot of wetlands here, so it's going to be wet, right? Yep. And I think, you know, we we had kind of looked at the uh before we had the weather delineation, we had looked at the slopes here. I think we were pretty surprised by the amount of wetlands that came back from this. Yeah. Um yeah, I was actually looking um I think the mapped wetlands was a lot less than this like the national. Yeah. Yeah. I mean those are they don't really capture these fingers ever, right?

Um you know they'll they'll capture the larger wetlands but the kind of fingers that they're never showing those maps. Um but you know there's some upland in between those wetland areas and again this is somewhat deceptive of how big that area is. So there might be opportunity to locate fires. We got to be careful because the chief's got to be able to get to it. Yep. You know in the middle of the night and all that other stuff

one more question the vernal pools. Um so Alex he did the report and the delineation. Uh he did note that the vernal pool review was done out of season. So just a thought and maybe not firm but from my standpoint that we might I would want to have him to go out and look for hol breeding habitat.

Yeah, I I understand where you're coming from. It's it's pretty common practice to to delineate or to try to determine vernal pools outside of the season. What they can't determine is the significance uh out of season. they can't determine if they're not studying it. But generally they can determine if there is a vertical pool in those areas and just do the depression. Um you know if there is any standing water there when they when they look at it um if you want some further documentation from from house I think we can yeah maybe yeah I'd have to talk to the board about it for sure but that's just my thought.

Anything else? I think this is my last comment. You said you weren't you don't think you're going to ask for neighbors. Um, and we don't really like surprises and we don't want to make non-conforming lots. But after to the norththeast of lot 14, it looks like you've set some setbacks as if 15, 16, and 17 might be in the future. Um, is there a future proposal to develop those as lots?

I would say there the applicant wants to maintain the ability to do that in the future. I don't think there's any plans at this point to do it. Um, and there are some triggering thresholds that if they did do that, they could trigger site law from D or strong law from D. Um so is there potential for future development of law 13? Definitely. Um but it's not included as part of this proposal. They have to come back for any would still be a cluster. It would have to well I mean it depends on what is in the ordinance when they come back to to do it. you know

the 50 I'm assuming 50% open space is within the easement. So if they subdivide the area that's not in the easement that's not open space, right? That's correct. So wouldn't be any I don't think it' be any impact on the net residential area calculations. Well, at the end of the day they have to come back in and if you screwed it up then you can't do it. So not that you would screw it up. Any other questions? Yeah. So well I think we work with Okay, we have more questions.

Yes. Yes. Uh for cluster for open space um we talked about it being a lot potentially. So would that would that fit our definition of open space? Like is an open space supposed to be like this area that is being almost preserved? If it's a lot, is it not open space in perpetuity? Like like almost like an easement, right? Like a conservation easement or something, right? Yeah. Yeah. And that's what the whether whether it's a lot or it's a tourism or it's an easement, it's still going to be derotected from development. Okay. I think it's the word lot that I'm like

and the lot is just if it's if it's open space is its own lot meaning its own property lines up then the DP considers that a lot. Got it. Got it. Got it. Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you. That's typically the open space is a separate lot. Yeah. Great. Thank um one more question I think uh your timeline. What's your thoughts on timeline? I know it's so early but

yeah there is some um additional stuff we have to get completed for preliminary one is set test fits and you know ideally we'll be back for you in December I don't know how feasible it is but I mean definitely we want to get this before you December January for preliminary and then we'll have to we're going to have some DP comments we're waiting on but ideally I mean this is a spring project next year. Yes. So, you've already submitted your permit applications for both DP and Army Corps.

Have not yet. The the DP, I believe that's a 60-day review period for DV and the Army Corps with their new regional general permits. I have not even take so could be 60 days, could be I mean it's they're completely unknown right now and and unfortunately with the shutdown right now, they are minimal staff as well. So, their projects are just stacking up right now. So, um hopefully when that gets shut down goes away, they'll be able to catch back up, but it could be a lengthy delay. Um that's

I think reference to doing this again in December, you have to have it submitted next week, right? Or week after. The 19th, I think. Is that the So, if you can if you can make it, good for you. But I'm just saying it's It's tight. It's tight to get it

and we're going to want to see, you know, permits and some other stuff before we get too uh too far along there. So, anything else for the gentlemen? I I have a couple things that we haven't uh talked about or maybe I'm down to just one thing which is and I'm going to sit back on this one um because I'm not going but sitewalk while they're here scheduling a sitewalk. So I will not be on the board at that time. So I'll defer. You can still come if you want. I retired from the army. I do not walk in mud and all that other crap unless I absolutely have to. And if I'm out of

I will say this one is a little bit different than Deer Creek. Remember how that one was cut in before? This is just I think and you know my report's different on how much they want to walk. I think it would make some sense to to take that existing driveway up to the you know the kind of the top point and kind of see the layout and if there's any specific areas we want to look at then we can do that but I think starting with that house and going from there would make the most sense. So seven seven

another option is to go to Holland's way and get down in the end of that and come across that help that helps get to that high point you know of the lot also. touch across private property that I know those people talk as I think in the past we've asked stakes in strategic areas. That's my other question of of um do you want the road completely staked out or just a couple stakes every couple hundred feet or what would you It's good seeing where the road's going in for sure. And then I think we've lived with you know something not not the whole 50 foot ement for the length of the road.

We have we have some straight segments there where you could do a couple everyund and you can see between the exactly when do we need to do a site visit says it says add the sketch plane phase. So okay so that would be the next right that's the next phase. Well, yeah. Before I guess do, if I say, do you guys want to do it before they do the preliminary or give them the feedback before then? You know, recognizing it's dark at 4

in the afternoon. And so, um, I have the luxury of just sitting back and do you guys do weekend sidewalks or We really haven't before, but I'm not against it. everybody's face like I'm not against it. I don't know what else I could do it. So, right. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, you're not gonna you're not going to see anything and I'd rather see it sooner than later. Yes. Honestly. So, what is what I'm just going to get serious, but what works for the four folks and the applicants? I I would say within the next couple of weeks. So, either what is this week? The 9th. What is I'm sorry. This Saturday is

the 8th. So the 8th or the 15th. Oh, you do need to post you're going to be doing it. Oh, that's because it's open to the public. So the 15th would be the only of those two days. The only one that works. Notice I'm going to look at these days but not put them in my calendar. Oh, we should. Can I just make a suggestion that we should go on Sunday because it's hunting season. Oh, that's an excellent point. So if we go on Sunday, we don't have to worry about that. Is everybody okay with my calendar that day? 60. Hold up. I guess I think I'm going to give our survey enough time to get somebody out there.

Well, I think I mean if if not I mean if you need So you're you're participating in the answers. So if anyone kick it out to the 23rd, which is still not Thanksgiving. So it seemed to be the 16th or the 23rd. How much public notice do we need to get? Just a week. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, we're good there. I'm good on the 16th. Yep. I like the idea of Sunday. Sunday at one 30 or whatever. Sure. Again, you will notice I'm not taking notes or put assuming you're going to meet at the driveway in the house.

Yeah. Where are we meeting? It's pretty tight that driveway going up to the current homeowner. Like you couldn't get two cars and get by. No. So you can park on Quaker meeting road. Walk up through. Yeah. Just watch that ditch right there. What do you guys think is the power? Park by the power lines. That's right there. Okay. Metal road is right there too. All right. So what time one? one work for everybody on a Sunday. Yeah, the 16th is what we're I think that seems to be the day.

Can I ask whatever reason if my survey guys don't think they get out there with them? Don't think they will. I'll let George know tomorrow. You don't think they'll be able to do it? I think they will be able to. Okay. If for whatever reason they can't, um I'll let George know like tomorrow and then we can discuss. Sure. Can we just say that if it if it's not doable the 23rd, same time, same place? That way there's some flexibility because we won't have another guess we have a meeting on the 12th but that's kind of get close. Yep. Would you rather push it to the 23rd just to give time? Well 23rd I'll be in Disney World. Yeah. Probably good to have you there.

I would be in Disney World on the 16th but it's more important. So the 16th if family you'll let George know and George will let everybody know the 23rd. No, I I was maybe the 30th. That's how Thanksgiving weekend. Okay. Sorry. I just I feel like it would be really good to have you there. Yeah. I mean there's a there's somebody else in our office who who's familiar with the project. Okay. So I just real

I have a question. So, I just want to make sure that I understand the timeline correctly because we're trying to get documents into you by the 19th to be able to come back to the December meeting and I want to make sure that I understand the process correctly. The sitewalk happens to determine whether or not a cluster subdivision is appropriate. Is that Well, it says that it has to be done at sitewalk. Doesn't say that that that ting hinges on it. Okay. So at the last not at the other project that would came for sketch plan,

there was a conversation about whether or not cluster was appropriate for that project among this board. And so obviously going into preliminary review we kind of need to know if cluster if the board feels cluster is appropriate because if that's not the way that the board feels it's going to substantially change the documents instead of going on the 19th I would say that we need the legal opinion then right like or we don't need it but that's going to drive well it's just a on that those issues are not going to determine whether it's cluster or not. Yeah. So, they're going to have to that open space is going to have to meet the open space requirements one way or the other.

Yeah. So, if they say, "No, it can't be easement has to be a separate lot," we do a separate lot. It's not going to be it's not going to change the cluster. Do we feel that every every application is very different? Every site is very different. And if I recall correctly, um the the subdivision you're referring to, which we did not schedule a site walk for, um the question was whether or not they had made the right calculations for buildable area and I had seen it since then. It looked like they were missing some and they were like right there.

It couldn't might not meet the definition of cluster. So it looked like sounded to me like the engineer stuck on my throat if I'm talking out of place here. Sound like the engineer needed to do some more homework to figure if it needed to be if it could meet the cluster requirements. Right. And obviously this one's designed the way that it is in this cluster because we I mean obviously that entire parcel had no wetlands on it. This would be a very different conversation that we would be having right now. But we're proposing cluster because we don't want to impact all of those wetlands that are on this site and you're protecting them in a way too. Exactly. Future which I appreciate. Exactly.

That's a lot of open space as well. Like that's the benefit to this. Like I forget what's the acreage on it. 45 acres of open space. That's quite a bit of land, right? I feel like comparable to other southern my last did right. I feel like this is literally the reason to do cluster right here. is like a poster child for it personally. Yeah. So, I don't really have any concerns with the cluster piece. Um, Alan, are you good with them proceeding with the obviously approvals to follow at some, you know, down the road, but are you good with moving on with Yes. Okay. I do have the answer is yes at this point. Thank you.

That's a question. I do have two questions in terms of what the uh board will expect for preliminary final. There's uh a couple items in the ordinance that the board has the authority to ask for or not ask for. Uh one is a high intensity soil survey for the project. Um I don't think we've done that in unless there's a real that there is a problem. What is what is the reason for high intensity? If you're scattering your septic systems within a lot lot of wetland areas, not with the kind of topography you have here, but say a low, let's say they were down in those lower elevations, then there's they're putting that's where you want to have the high intensity to be able to precisely determine where it was going to be.

And the other one is a hydrogeeological assessment, which typically what that includes is um it kind of uh maps out the nitrate in septic systems. Um along I was reading the the language that you have in the ordinance. Some of it talks about them discussing like uh um like looking for potential contamination of adjacent wells and kind of seem to go outside the scope of the typical hydro hydro assessment. And I don't think we'd require that.

Yeah. And that comes in where you have an area that wells are going dry. You want to make sure that the wells of this subdivision have water and you want to make sure they don't take water away from other people. So typically that can be like on uh down day road. They basically looked at the recharge rates of the area, how much was being developed and I think maybe on uh Buy Hill as well. I can't remember but it's just a general if there was an issue with people not getting wells, you know, that's that's where you really get into more intense analysis about

Well, so how would you know people are having issues with wells? Well, they look at the wells well data and if people like you're going to have notifying neighbors and if they say wait a minute. So they they provide a a a plan a report to us. Yeah. Yes. So that's where that would come in is what and again this this subdivision ordinance is based on you know it could be a 300 lot subdivision being proposed with high density whatever it be. So it's there if you need it, but it's not typically Sure. I was going to say we haven't done it in the past. You're going to drill wells. Go deep enough.

Yeah, there's actually there's a I got to add this to the wall. We have to add a note. Doug wells are allowed. Okay. Oh, was there any other questions you had? Okay. So, are we done with the gent the gentleman the lady? I guess so. In that case, I guess they will see you on I mean I suspect John will not be there. He won't be able to stay. Thank you. Hey, thank you very much.

Okay. Um, we've knocked through those two things and then I think the next thing George uh other business planning board discussion ling ordinance amendments public comment will not be taken. I think the intent on this was for George to bring us up to up to snuff on some of the stuff next week. You all will be looking at um items that that need to change that haven't discussed to this point. Um so George if you want to do that the agricultural committee will not be here. They did provide I think some definitions but George can I don't think my opinion the board is not ready to get into some detail on those without input from the agricultural committee what they're doing and what their goal is. So George you want to kick us off with staff nose codification update?

Sure. Um, and just to bring us all up to speed, we did do a public information meeting on the seven minor policy issues a couple weeks ago and I did include uh the in the minutes of that meeting. I think probably the big issue that was discussed and made and the board indicated they need to further discuss was noise. The other issues seem to not generate a lot of concern, controversy. So, um, on that one issue, I think you'd have to kind of make a decision. And what came up was, you know, maybe some tweaking if you want to do that, like the hours that you can do construction. This had proposed to go to 7 a.m. instead of 6:30. There was some comments about concerns for what that would do to people in the summer doing construction on roofs. Uh, but I think adjusting that would be one thing, but to more get into quite a bit of discussion about blasting, firing ranges, and fireworks. And I think if you start delving into those areas, um, then you're probably pushing this out of the minor policy realm because those are fairly big policy issues. So if you want to stick with just clarifying how some studies are done and tweaking some of the parameters for it like we've discussed in the initial drafts. Now, part of what woke those in was adding the definitions because the current draft talked in just the tweaking talked about intermittent noise and John had brought up, well, we need to define those when we brought the definitions in. One of the definitions of intermittent included gunshots and blasting. So, that's what got us rolling in that direction. So, I think as I said, if you want to get into either exempting blasting fire ranges and uh fireworks or including them with

standards, then I think you're probably going to have to separate this issue out from the other minor policies and either deal with it separately right now or push it off until after the codification, which either way is fine. I'd like to make a motion. Thank you. Sorry to Yeah. push noise out and actually not not talk about it right now. Let's wait until next time around next year. That's my motion. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

We have a motion and a second. Um any further discussion? The only thing I would say is I have no problem what you're proposing. Um, I've also have no problem if we put the new um limits on noise, but we the take out of I won't go into that. I'm fine with just, you know, picking it up down the road and um not bring not doing it for this particular meeting, putting on the the list. I don't think we have that much that many people issuing. you know, when we did the the uh C sand big quarry, whatever gravel pit, it came up uh and I think they went out and did kind of a homemade test or whatever, but I I have not heard of any.

It does warrant further look, but not as a minor. Well, as the town grows, there's going to be more, you know, more uh people moving in next to. So, we have any other discussion? We have a motion and a second. All in favor of not doing noise at this year, this coming time, please raise a hand. And this unanimous. Okay. So then uh next week we move into what we've described as an administrative changes. And so these are things like uh giving an extra week for planning board reviews of applications. Um what were some of the others to get here? That's on driveway standard.

It's on your

well the codification as a whole which are all technical grammar. Then uh subdivision road standards update the driveway standards update. Again those are just updating the standards. It's not changing policy. Uh zoning district boundaries having you folks review those instead of the board of appeals which meets once every other year at this point. uh the subdivision solid waste giving their readiness to serve. So those are all just administrative changes to try to make the system work better. Uh so that'll be uh next week's public information meeting and so pretty much we're ready to roll on that. You have actually all seen those before. They're all posted on website. I prepared that in pretty much the presentation will be just like last time where I've got the slides that take from the summaries that are on the website puts it on the scri screen we go through it take comments you have discussion if there is any comment and then we move on so giving the opportunity to the public to really look at these and give input before it goes to the next stage

and and the attorney oh yes said we could not something on the board John did mention the U agriculture committee which we can talk about uh if we can step back just talking step back to the town attorney and not the agriculture but the appeals. Is that what you're getting to? Well, okay. So, the town attorney had five different areas that she she responded. I'll hold for it.

No, we can do that now and then hold off on the agriculture. Uh first was she didn't she said you cannot change the board appeal notice process spread in the state law. So that I've pulled that already. Uh she says you need to drop any design requirements on accessory grow limits. We had tried to keep some in there based on the earlier town meeting process but she does not feel comfortable with having any design standard apply to accessory dwelling units that does not apply to all single family dwellings. And so that uh is something we you should consider. I've pretty much prepared a draft that drops the requirement that you can't have an outside stairway or um you know that could go either way if it were ever challenged, but she feels more comfortable not having that in the state law talks about not putting design issues on accessory blowing. aesthetic design.

Yeah, site plans, right? Yeah. She's saying you can't do that unless you do it for all single family drawings. Okay. Uh marijuana. So, you're going to put that out in a here's what I've deleted based on. It's off the website now. Okay.

Uh the marijuana she had uh sent me uh referred me to Vasselboroough's ordinance on marijuana and they did not opt in. But to close the loophole, they adopt an an entire ordinance and it basically grandfathers in any of these personal cooperative growth areas, growth facilities, and requires them to go through site plan review. Uh, and it prohibits all new ones, but for the ones that do exist, they have to go through site plan review. They have to meet all the standards of regular facilities and they have to have annual inspections by the code officer. I think that's really overkill for what we're trying to deal with. And so what I've asked her, I've sent her a definition that I think covers it and just asked her if it's okay to just prohibit it in all districts and be done with it. not get into trying to permit the one the ones that may or may not exist and have an entire set of ordinance provisions to regulate something that is not going to really happen.

Is that a would you call that a minor policy like we have the marijuana? Yeah, the minor policy would just be to add the prohibition because the town opted out, right? So, it would just be adding to the number six, right? It'll be adding a definition of what a one of these potential loophole facilities is and saying not allowed. Right. I guess I'm saying we already had the the marijuana small policy change discussion. Yes. Right. You guys talked about that meeting last time. There was a little bit of discussion. Yeah. Yeah.

What you're saying is that there's more information from our our legal person that we might want to add to

Okay. So, how this all came about was back in April, the staff all met with the town attorney and went over these policy issues. And she added because with the best project, there was question about whether or not there was a facility in that area that had several green houses and we were told they were leasing out space for marijuana. We never confirmed that. But based on that, the town attorney said there is a loophole in the in the state law. And so she advised because they had done it in Vasselboro, which they apparently she apparently serves her firm. And so they adopted an ordinance to close that loophole. And as I said, what it did was it grandfathered in the the existing because you can't do a post once they're in, they're in uh and so and it set up site plan review process for them and annual inspections and permiting and we don't even know if we have one in Durham. So it's a whole it's kind of a different situation and I think you can there's prevents any future ones from coming. Their whole ordinance is to deal with existing ones. We don't know if we have any existing ones. And it just seems to me that if the town ever got ever get into an enforcement, and this is what I've asked her, if the town ever did get into an enforcement since marijuana was legalized in Maine, Durham has always had conditional use requirements for any non-residential. So they didn't come for if it's operating as a business, they didn't come for conditional use review. And so the town could basically if it did an enforcement action say you need a conditional use review permit for this existing facility because it never went before planning board and then use the

conditional use criteria to deal with whatever you want to deal as opposed to adopting the entire ordinance with everything that's in the Bassel Burough one. So, I've I sent that email to her uh Monday, I think it was, and waiting for a response. So, I just want to give you that update. We're still trying to figure out the easiest way to do that. And on those, it it's up to you guys, but I wouldn't recommend having that discussion in public. So, you've had it internally about marijuana if there's other things here that uh because I think marijuana, you know, may seem minor, but it could be major. Uh, and all we're dealing with is that loophole.

Yeah. And I I just think you're better off discussing and then doing the public information meeting down the road and, you know, at the end of one of your regular meetings. Well, it'll there'll be more in the spring. There'll be more public meetings. Yeah. And I mean, kind of on the um the previous um thing that we were just talking about, noise like I I would be okay pushing this too, this one as well if we if we wanted to. I understand, you know, like why we're talking about it. Um, but, you know, I could go either way there. So, yeah. And it's an option you can be considered. Does she think that Let's wait. Let's wait and see what she said. It's just a matter of adding a definition and putting it as a bridge and used through the tables. Yeah,

that's easy. What do we know if there's an existing facility to Well, that's what they need permit. So for this this is personal use personal traditional use less than whatever has five plants and all that greenhouse everyone put their plants in my greenhouse your plants your okay George kind of two ways to go that I think

uh let me just see if I get all of hers also you remember currently you have a set of instructions for conditional use permit applicants you did the planning board did that in 2020 because it was concerned that you weren't getting detailed information submitted by applicants and it was real frustration on everybody's part. So former chair Antor Rosa wrote out basically a 10page set of instructions very detailed. Here's what we want from site plan. Here's what you know you have to submit for this that and the other. Uh this is all the information the planning board needs to make a decision informed decision on whether you meet the conditional use criteria. Problem is it's questionable if the board can do that by just voting outside of the ordinance. So the town attorney has suggested you need after consulting with her about this issue. You need to take what's in the instructions which is just an information sheet and putting it into the ordinance. So what you see posted on the website is basically taking what's on in those instructions and putting the the site plan statements of information needed into the ordinance just like you have for site plan review and subdivision. So that's kind of that's where how that came. Well, first we started with a legal opinion on does the planning board can it require this legally of applicants and the answer is no

unless it's in the ordinance. Got it. Got it. So that was that one. And then finally we've already you've already decided so that doesn't we don't need that one. That one is plent. Yep. So last thing is agriculture. Yep. Sorry. Wasn't there one about um Butters and notify any Butters? I thought there was something in there about

Yeah. Yeah. In her comments on the additional use permit. She's suggesting the town has historically put that on applicants. She thinks that it really should be placed on the town with the applicants doing two things. Providing a list of others to be notified, which the town can check for accuracy and paying for the cost of mails, which they have to do anyway. So, she recommended that that be added as well. So, we can do that, but we would have to do it for across the board basically, not just conditional use permits. and you're advocating for that.

Uh I'm not advocating for it. Okay. She's recommending it. It's a better practice than and you know Durham has limited staff and I think that's probably the basis on which they put it on applicants before. Yeah. Has Jerry or weighed in on the staff's ability to uh to do it?

It's a concern. I mean, once we're up to three in the morning, we know filling out 200 plus certified mailing envelopes because we didn't have a secretary. So, it is a we don't have that kind of neighborhoods, but it is a very painful, you know, process. So, I guess if if Jerry thinks the staff can

Yeah, I think her concerns are twofold. is you know is it the ordinance and the law typically say town shall notify. So if the town requires the applicant to do it and then the other issue is do they really get them all and that's there's usually better reliability if the town is doing versus applicants. So those are the reasons why most towns have the staff do it we'd still be doing pay for it. We'd still be doing it because they would just be um submitting the list. Yeah, they're but they're doing it now. They're submitting the list and doing the mail. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

Yeah, but but there's a back check there as well, right? Like when they come back, somebody's got to confirm that the appropriate butters were actually notified. Again, our limited staff, it's hard to do everything we need to do within a twoe time frame. So in a recent case it didn't get checked whereas I think it's whereas if if we add three weeks or extend it to three weeks give you know staff has a clear responsibility to do it.

Yeah. No I think a lot of onus on that needs to be on the develop the owner of the property. I I agree with him providing the town with the list of the buyers and putting out the mailings, but somebody in the town's got to confirm that they're appropriate buyers who are actually

So, what are we re what are we recommending? It's up to you. Do you want to pursue that in addition to the checklist? You don't have to do that. checklist you do have to do if you're going to require it. You could leave it for now that still have to do it. She's recommending not. When do we require I guess the issue really comes down to certified mailing is a major effort. Yeah.

I mean I haven't seen anybody as a town gets bigger and there's more subdivisions that'll be you know a bigger issue. Uh, I guess my feeling is if Jerry what is does Jerry thinks that the staff can handle it because I think it's a whole lot easier to you know check have that guy got this green card I can because the only thing they need is the is the actual post office stamp green card. They don't have to have mail in the right time frame which is a whole lot easier than but really what happens is developers like those folks it'll be submitted

check all the butters they will bring the green cards it'll be part of the submission. Yeah. individual small mechanic homebased business, you know, conditional use. Probably not because they, you know, they're just not used to doing that. Those professional consultants are used to doing it. We should Yeah. require the applicants to do it and put it in their ordinance. It's already It's already in the ordinance. Well, then specifically the only change is that the she's advocating shifting the responsibility from the applicants to the town staff just to to notify the adviserss. Yes. Yes. But the list of

make them get the list they submit the list you charge them. Does that help you any with accuracy? because I don't think our GIS does it, but a lot of the, you know, the more sophisticated GIS, you give it an address, you tell anyone within 250 ft. This one can do it, but again, we don't have staff trained to do it and geared to do it. I I mean I'm good with having the developer do it, but I think they need to submit a list based upon that rather than

Yeah, I don't think he's there anymore. You know, he sold it to the other guy, which is kind of somewhat what we're getting. And the other thing is even the little guy, the mechanic, the the the container waste container guy, that can be as ownorous to neighbors as uh you know, a subdivision. So, yeah. No. I don't want to have I don't want to put the town in a position where they missed. It's got to be down. Is that the consensus? So, leave it for now.

And I don't know if we give them better instructions on how to get the list or Well, leave it for now. But what about the check? Weren't we talking about where town checks? Yeah. Yeah, we can we can just do that, right? Don't we all agree that that's important to make sure that Okay. Yep. Right. Agriculture.

Okay. Yeah. So, they the agriculture committee has been working on this for a couple years now. They were working with the main farmland trust. They're concerned that and it's true Durham's definitions of agriculture are 40 years behind contemporary agricultural practices. So they've have working with the main farmland trust submitted a list of uh one two three four five six seven eight nine definitions currently I think there's three or four at most related to agriculture and so they are saying they would like these added to the ordinance I pointed out to them well if you just add those to the ordinance that doesn't really fully change anything because the definitions are the definitions. But then you have where are those different uses going to be allowed in what districts?

Are they going to be a permitted use, conditional use, uh and then what standards are going to apply to them? Because the current standards basically control manure manure storage and spreading and those sorts of things. This is getting into agurism events like pineand and other things like that. Yeah. So we just asked them where where what about the rest of it because we can't just do the definitions without the rest of it. So they're processing that. Okay.

I would agree that it's very important to get everyone on the same page regarding these definitions including myself but it's almost a little premature maybe to publish these. There's a need. There is a definitely need for change updating, but there's more work to it than to just adding.

Yeah, I think we've got way more questions than we would answers right now. Yeah, but I would I would and I would caution us you to take a look at what they're saying in there because they basically for agricultural residential units, they don't have to be you they have to be building code and OSHA standards, but it doesn't count as as living areas for density and a whole bunch of other things. And that that question is is that what the town wants? Yeah, I agree, John. That last definition there was like wait a minute.

Yep. what are you doing there? And so that's I think that's and you know if anchor tourism sounds good but is it a huge fair is it you know celebration has music and other things that that we the planning board said okay you can do that but here's your limits on time and noise and and human manure and some of these other things that could be ownorous I I think driving by it all the time I think they've done a good job of it but who's next you know so that's why I think they need us they need to come in and I think they may come in next Wednesday to to participate in the public information meeting. I think that's good. And tonight I think

I would say hey we're not ready there to really these are not the same as some of these other things that we're looking at that we've already that we you all spent a lot of time looking at to now come in with here's a whole bunch of new rules. I think that needs to be beat over% and checked. So, anything else on agriculture? I'm glad they're doing it though. I just got to say I'm really glad they're looking at this. But on that note, so our next meeting is the Sorry, you just said 12 the week from Well, the Oh, yeah.

public meeting is next Wednesday, right? 12. I keep getting that day wrong, but 6:30 right here at the fire station. So, all done with that stuff. George, anything else? Nope. Then the last thing on the agenda is uh election of um chair. Is there are you all ready to to do that? Should we hear from um members like is anyone interested in being a chair? Anyone? I remind you that at 3:30 tomorrow I can't be the chair. So, well, what if we don't have a chair?

Well, then the deputy chair has to step to the plate and hold the meeting on the 12th. But I I would like you, you know, you're all qualified. I mean, you're all and and u it is a little bit more work. U for those of you who do get a stipen, it is it is a pay raise. It's an extra $50 a month. Uh, so is anyone interested in being a chair? I would be interested. However, I nominate You would be interested. Alan, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. But you're interested?

Yeah. Is Alan We're gonna kind of let you guys argue this. I have been a I have been a chair on the budget committee. I was probably for 20 years and things have totally changed. And when I was doing that, I organized everything and it was just coordinated everything with the town office. That's all changed now. Thank thank goodness George is here and and both Brian and I have been on this committee and Juliet has too when we did not have the support of a plan like we do today and it was it's a difficult

challenging as the Dickens I came in large as Ann was as George was moving into that role and I will I will say uh at the risk of doing a small head it is he is super superb as you guys know superb to work with and it is well prepared. So, uh, it would be a whole what Ann did was above and beyond a call of duty, but she did not have somebody. So, and she was a lot of stuff was done,

right? While we were, you know, the whole thing behind this, I I've done that been there and from what Brian and I had some discussion and but he was just he just said that he would be interested in that because he's I think he is more interested in it than I am. Uh, can I make a do I say motion or nominate? Nominate. Can I nominate Brian? I know, but like Yeah, we have to we have to like like I feel like he has to withdraw his motion or we have to take it to a vote.

I feel like Alan, you might be like you, you know, you're going to do it. You would do it. you know, someone needs to do it in a way, but maybe Brian wants more to do it. Is that kind of what you're thinking, too?

It It is. You know, I've been thinking about it and certainly that Brian certainly has the demeanor to do it. I think I have to. Uh I don't have a passion for it. I used to have a passion for when I was on budget committee for all those years. I had a very passionate part because I controlled meetings. They had to be controlled because people would come in and they were not prepared and nothing was and that's totally different than this. Totally different. Okay. So, with that being said, um you want to you want to take away your

motion? Yeah. Withdrawing motion. We take nomination and just talk about I know you just told me you had an interest in it. So you have more of an interest than I do. Well, we have to do something with the motion. I mean I don't I will withdraw my motion to nominate um and I will nominate Brian. This is Glenn Wall. We have uh to be chair a motion and do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? It will take three and I feel comfortable voting on this. So, uh, and then that'll be my last vote. No, I'm Would you vote for yourself? You want this?

Yeah. Well, he said he had an interest. Yeah, I'm gonna vote for it. All right. Ready? And it t it it does. And as Jon has said, and it takes more efforts and you're coordinating things and you're you're prepared for a meeting when you come in and you have you've certainly worked with you will work with the planner more closely and you'll be you're just directing you're coordinating the meeting. It's basically what it is.

Now general and I had a conversation earlier today. I I think I understand what the uh added duties would be um unwilling to give it a shot and as you getting back to your earlier comments there's a lot of support there is key with George and then the you know the four of you and there's always the opportunity to run for select board and and not be able to serve. So I I'm saying that's the reason I ran So are you saying we drove you out?

No, no, no. I tell you I'm missing. I mean, you guys have Well, let's get the vote done before Brian changes his mind. So I have I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor of Brian becoming the um the chair, please raise a hand. And it is unan. You want to vote no or just stay? Raises hand. So five George and congratulations and thank you for doing you guys. It's gonna be a good I'm so glad

it'll be a good tough year. I mean there's lots you know eight months from now there's a comp plan or potentially a comp plan to work on. So um I will be there if you have any questions but I will not interfere. So I'll get sitting in the audience but I will be saying well hold on. Can we just say I want to say thank you to John for for leading us for what two uh to be let's see 21 to be just short of three years. Okay. Almost three years.

Yeah. Four four and a half I think or whatever three and a half whatever it is. I joined I think June of 21. So and then uh Allan and uh Ann came out said you know this is easy you why don't you do it? And uh and it was it was because of you folks and the folks at 33 in and George has been easy and fun. Thank you, John. Good luck. It's a whole lot. Well, thank you. And I'm always there whole lot better than solid waste. I'll make a motion to I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. Let's move second. Well, wait. You know, it's up to you now. I am no longer the chair. All in favor?

All favor. There we go. Thank you, George. Thank you. [Music] Have you done four? No. You know, there's just two. I did tell you.