Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

again.

Test one, two, three. Hello. Hello. Hello. Can you hear us? Test. Hello. Blue. Hello. Hey, it's turning blue now. Can you hear me now? We're good. Okay, blue is good. Yeah, it's weird. It lights up when it's So, I guess you can. It's good. Those aren't great, are they? No. Sorry. That's the problem. go in the front cuz I have to probably get out there. That's what Facebook

always say.

So, I'm looking at 6:33 right now. How about two more minutes for Mhm. traffic issues. Mhm. All right. I mean, the dur were perfect. It's the other bottles. Oh, right. So, 635. They're smooth. Very low rolling resistance. I was coming over here. I could feel myself driving. Yeah. Yeah. It was a little slick. Um, the closer I got to here, the further I got the parking lot.

Stop all of our secrets.

No, no sense of humor. used to be speaking to go up there. Yeah, I think we did last time. You can stand on the table if you want. Stand on the table. Yeah. Show her presents right. What kind of meeting is this? What are we doing? This mic supposedly picks up everything. So,

we just sit in our seats. All right, I think we're good to go. Yep.

All right, so welcome to the um December 10th meeting of the town of uh Durham's uh planning board meeting. Um, this is rescheduled from our normally uh first Wednesday of the month because we didn't have a quorum last month. Um, but it looks like we have a quorum now. Everybody's here. Um, if we could just stand for the national anthem. I pledge that short 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.

All right. Thank you for that. Um, just want to run through the agenda. Um, I have one amendment I'd like to make to the agenda tonight and it's the um continuing business. I would uh if if a motion is needed. I'm like to make a motion that we move number six, continuing business to number seven or or swap six and seven so that we can get the applicants out here first and we can have this discussion between us afterwards if that's okay.

Do we need a motion for that? Y second. Approve. Yep.

Thank you. Um any other amendments to the agenda? Perfect. Um, okay. Uh, we did receive the meeting minutes from the November 5th and 12th meetings. Any comments on those? uh on the on the 12th I noticed under under the public uh response one of the spellings of actually Todd Todd Boger is it's B E A U L I EU not L I E R that's the only thing that I noticed.

Nice catch. Yep. Other I would make a motion that we accept them as amended. Y second. Second by Juliet. Mhm. Favor. Thank you. Okay. Um All right. Uh George, informationational exchange on non-aggenda items.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. As I have begun to do, I included my monthly report to the town manager, which he shares with the select board and uh kind of lays out what the work program of our my position is. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have on any any of that content. I have no questions. I' just like to thank George for that thorough, detailed report.

Yep. Yep. I'll second that. Thank you. I don't have any comments. It's official. You're officially recognized. Thank you. I I have no comments or questions on the um information that we received from George. Again, thank you, George. Great work there.

Um okay, new business. Um preliminary subdivision application for Greystone Ridge. Uh no public comment will be taken during this preliminary application process. Um if the applicant or the applicant's um representative would like to step up or you can probably stay where you are. We have great technology here. Um um uh first I'd like to ask um the town planner, Mr. Stard, to go through his summary. Um then we'll go through some questions and comments after George's summary. Um then we would like for you all to present your subdivision. uh preliminary application um at which time we'll go through the completest checklist um and then we'll have some constructive discussion uh during that process. Um again, no public comment during this time, but at the end of the meeting, if we feel like a public meeting is necessary afterward, we'll we'll schedule that. Um and we likely will schedule a sitewalk um a after this night meeting or application.

Okay. Uh this is before you tonight for a preliminary subdivision approval. Uh the board conducted a uh sketch plan review back in August, I believe it was. And um the project proposal is for a 13 lot cluster

subdivision. And um as indicated in my notes, the notices have been sent out to the town of Brunswick because this abuts the town line and uh also notices have been sent to uh to all of the abuing properties and the applicant submitted certified mail receipts for those notices and I asked Devin Garno at the town offices to check to make sure that they were accurate and he confirmed that they were. Uh I did include a staff review uh of the checklist and I identified a couple of items that you should at least look at in terms of uh determining that this is a complete application. The first is the farmland soils. Um the uh commentary by the applicant indicated there were no farmland soils, but in checking the town's resource maps, I discovered that there were in fact uh farmland soils present. Since then, the consultant has sent you uh sent me and I forwarded to you uh their rendition of that farmland map, which indicates that the uh soils that are present are uh so farmland soils of statewide significance as opposed to prime farmland. And regardless of which class it is, uh as I've explained under state law and Durham's ordinances, uh they're required to map it, but there are no standards for preservation. But on the flip side, having the uh knowledge that their open space is going to include uh the prime farmland which will be preserved as open space that can be factored into your decision decision on whether or not the qualif the the qualifications for a cluster subdivision are met partially through that. So um the other issue that I questioned based on my review of the application

was the uh clarity of the intent for clearing restrictions. Uh when they get to the final plan they have to indicate where the limits of clearing are. Typically, you know, the limit uh on the developed lots uh the assumption of the engineer in preparing the storm water calculations is based on how much land is cleared. And so u that is one issue as well as the fact that the ordinance requires wherever buffers are or areas that are intended to be maintained it has to be clearly spelled out on the subdivision plan and in the deed so that people know there are those restrictions. uh the in addition to the uh typical clearing shown on the erosion and control sheet um which was C5 uh they do show a set the setbacks the minimum setbacks for each of the lots which are uh far more than is shown on the clearing diagram in terms of the concept on the erosion control. So, I think that the the board should get some clarity of what the intent is and how that will be represented and I anticipate that the applicant's going to be prepared to address that. Other than that, uh it appears to include all of the requirements for uh submissions and uh once you determine that the application is complete, if you do that tonight, then uh you have 60 days within which to u make a decision. If no public hearing is heard, if you decide to schedule a public hearing, then you need to do that within 30 30 days of the completeness and then the the 60 days would be the same in terms of the time limit for making a decision unless the applicant agrees to an extension of that time.

So uh for the unlike the uh preliminary which will have if you get to that point we'll have approval conditions and the uh final if they when they get to that stage of review uh for completeness just a simple up or down vote is adequate and if there are areas or items that you feel are not complete then if you just note those uh we can send out a letter of incompleteness. over here. Thanks. Are there any questions or comments from the board members on George's summary specific to his summit?

No, I don't. Yeah, nothing beyond what he already said. Like to have the questions that he brought up answered. Sure. All right. I think if um the applicant is ready to um make the presentation, we're ready for you. Mind if I just come up to the table? It feels feels weird talking from the uh from the audience here. So, I'm going to I'm going to come up and join you guys. I think this is what we did last time anyways. It just feels it just feels right. Sorry we didn't have chairs set up for you.

No worries. I can just grab one of those. So, I have a copy of the site plan if you one on this side. Sure. Take a look. It's extra. Is that the same set? Yeah. Set. Uh, it's the it's a it's the same, but it's only a couple sheets. It's only the site plan, but nothing changed. No, no, nothing changed.

All right. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, this is Matt Pitum with Terodine Consultants. um presenting Greystone Ridge on behalf of Greystone Ridge LLC um to submit the preliminary subdivision plan uh which is proposed um Greystone Ridge 13 lot subdivision located between uh 966 and 980 Pinkham Road. Um project site is approximately 37.88 acres and includes lot 35 and lot 42 on Seth's tap tax map 2. The site is located in the rural residential and agricultural zoning district and is currently mostly undeveloped for us, but there are two existing house lots with some developed area um on lot uh 35. Um no part of the site in any floodprone areas and there's no resource protection overlay or aquitecture overlay on this site at all. uh wetlands and streams are discovered uh based on a wetland delineation and vernopole survey performed by Eric Lima Basswood environmental. Um he there are no vernoples discovered on site and no wetlands are considered wetlands of special significance although the there is a mica pit towards the northeast of the site which is right in this area up here. um that is uh not considered a it's considered a vernal pool but it's not considered a significant vernal pool by main D standards. Um so a significant vernal pool there would be a 250 ft setback if it's just a regular vernal pool. It's treated on the D side just as a regular wetland area. So there would be a setback based on your ordinance but there wouldn't be any additional setbacks from that. Uh we notified state agencies including main natural areas program, mainland and wildlife and main historic preservation. Uh we provided those in uh the application. Um there were no significant concerns that we were aware of on historic properties

near the site. Um lot 35 is a 50-foot rightaway to access Pinkham Road um between the before mentioned 966 and 980 um and as well as Blue J Way which is a private way um to have access to those lots. Lot 42 is in the back. Lot 35 is the one that's closest to the road. Um and uh as far as I know actually as as you've mentioned the town of Brunswick has been notified of this and then and then we sent uh abunders notices which have also been verified uh that those are sent out. Uh the topography generally from the Mica pit uh there's some steep slopes which we've included that was a comment from sketch that we didn't have the steep slopes on the um the residential area calculations. We've included those in those calculations. Uh so generally the topography slopes where most of the front lot will kind of drain towards Pictton Brook Road. Um and then most of the back lot uh will drain towards the some of those wetlands in the back as well as a stream and then kind of exit to the south. Um there's overhead electrical uh along Pinkbrook Road that we're going to tap into and there are no existing septic um or there's no um uh sewer or water to connect to inbrook road. So we probably we do septic systems and and wells. The proposed development includes the construction of a 2,432 ft linear foot road uh that's going to terminate in a hammerhead turnaround and then the 13 created lots. Uh the two of those lots um are going to accommodate the two existing houses um in the front uh at lot 35 and then we'll have frontage on the proposed road, but we're not at this time um proposing that they have access to the to the road. We want to keep it

with Blue J Way. Um there was discussion um that blue J way is not uh does not meet the current ordinance uh for a backlot. Uh so there's been discussion on that. Uh we believe it's grandfathered because it's been there for over 20 years. Um this we we think it's been in there over 20 years. So we would like some discussion with the board on you know how that we would like to approach this. What is the correct choice? Like I said, we'd like to to keep Blue J Way as is and not touch it um and have those two lots access those and have the 11 lots have frontage um along our proposed road. The road is designed to meet the private road standards and will include 10ft travel lanes and twoft gravel shoulders um along the 50ft rightway. We're also proposing a access right of way in the middle here uh that will you know to have some connectivity if there's any future development on a on a side on a side lot uh so they can uh make that uh connection. There are also some areas where we're we're um suggesting a 10-ft travel way with a curb and that's mainly to um bot to facilitate storm water runoff to specific areas that we want u per D standards because we need to treat um and to mitigate any wetland impacts because we're going to have a wetland crossing uh around 17 station 1725 to 1825. It's about 100t crossing for wetlands. Um that will be designed with two 36 in uh open bottom culverts that are 12 in embedded which is uh pretty standard for DP crossings. Um so we have curb there in order so we're you know we're not grading too far into those wetlands that will result in about 4200 square feet of impacts uh which is a NERPA PBR which we plan to submit uh to D. Um we also have storm water

management infrastructure due to the nature of how much um impervious area have which is about 1.33 acres of imperous area. Um we're going to need to do a full storm water permit through the DP. So that's something we're going to do as well. So both a NERPA PBR and then a full storm water permit. So there's a couple of different permit applications we'll have to submit on this project. Sorry, is that the site law? Not site law storm water. Just storm water. So kind of the the middle the middle one because there's a storm water PBR there's the storm water and then there's the silog. So we don't need to do silo but we need to do the the storm water

as you said uh there'll be storm water management infrastructure which is a combination of under drain soil filter which is towards the front to help redirect generally storm water. There's some offsite that's kind of flowing across. We're trying to direct that to the appropriate places. Um, and there's a house lot here that's pretty close to the edge of our property line. We have an underdrained soil filter in this area that's kind of directing it around so it's not going into their house, which is I think they would be very appreciative of. Um, plus we have a series of roadside buffers. We have a on level lip spreaders and then ditch turnout buffers. So, ditch turnout buffers you can kind of see in the back. Um, they kind of jut out. So, we're or those will be deed restricted. So there won't be any clearing in those buffers. Um same thing with the roadside buffers minus a driveway because they need to have access which is generally accepted by DP. We've had that come up in other projects before the driveway through side buffer and generally it's accepted as long as it's the rest of it deed restricted. Um so that series will you know will meet all the D standards and I'm sure you'll have your third party engineer review those when it's when it's submitted. Each lot will be served by indiv individual wells and septic systems. Uh we had test pits done. Uh we have shown on the site plan the 100 foot well exclusion zone to show that uh wells and septics can fit on the site um under go under electrical will serve um these areas. And we're also proposing a fire pond um which we need to understand from the fire department if what they would accept for that

and talk with you guys you know kind of understand what that would look like. Our desire is there's actually an existing pond on this lot and we would like to use that potentially as the fire pond. Um again we'd have to fire department to make sure that it meets the requirements that they want. that might be have to be dug deeper or made bigger in order to meet the requirements for fire suppression. Um, and then an access route for them to get to with a hydrant. Um, so we we we want to talk with them to make sure that that's designed properly. Otherwise, we have to put it somewhere else on the on the site, but our desire is that pond that's already existing. Um, as explained before, this is a cluster subdivision. Um, so it follows the dimension of standards in your ordinance. Um and as part of this uh we meet the 50% open space requirement and um about 20% of that is wetland. So we meet that requirement as well as being less than 50% in the open space being wetlands. Um most of these are 50,000 ft. Um so a little bit bigger than what is required. Um except for one that's like 49500 49,500. That's the smallest one. And they all have at least 150 foot frontage with many of them having a little bit more especially kind of in the in the middle here of a little bit more than 150 ft. Uh yeah. So I think that's I think that's all I have to present. Okay. Thank you very much.

Yeah. You're welcome. Um all right. So we go through the completeness checklist. Yeah. Yeah, they're asking questions. I think questions will come up. Yeah. Is that okay with everybody? Yes. Seems like a good way to do it here.

Yeah. I can too provide some explanation ahead of time of the two items that weren't initially in the in the package if that is helpful or unless you just kind of want to go through the list and tackle it. Yeah, thank you.

Um All right. So, um I am looking at page 49 of the PDF. You own that stuff. The subdivision the plan subdivision plan review checklist. Are we on the same page? Y dated December 1st. Yep. Okay. completed application form location map with required information. Looks like we have that.

Yep. Yeah. I'm sorry. Feel free to jump in. I'm just going to go through these. I have a comment. I'm going to jump in. So, please jump in if you have any comments as we go through here. Um preliminary preliminary plan at re readable scale. You receive that proposed subdivision name, town map, and lot numbers. Yep. Documentation of legal rights to develop. Have we seen I think I saw a deed interest. The one one thing I noticed on the deed was rather and that's attachment two. When you get into the deed, it actually says the 32nd day of June, which

it does. I don't know if you ever get into pedal searching, someone catches that, they're going to say, "What happened here?" But yet there's it appears that it was transposed, but there is June 23rd signed by the uh notary. Whether that would be a intention at some point, I don't know. I think that's just a typo. I think it's a transformation, but I think it should be noted. Well, then it says July 23rd, 2025 at the bottom. So, I don't know if they meant I'm quite sure they meant the 23rd because I don't know if they mean July 23rd or did they do it June 23rd and then a month later,

you know? I I would have to I'm not familiar. I assume that it's probably a a typo, but I think so, too. Maybe a leap day. Yeah, that's weird. Like, I two different ones. Title companies can get extremely specific sometimes, but you need to clarify that. Yes. So, I think in everybody's best interest that should be clarified for sure.

Yeah. And one question I had was about um the yes remaining portion of Robert Libby and Victor Keith and is that who owns this lot? So, I will I think we're still working on that. I will refer to Michelle on this piece. I think there's some issues with that, but I will

um Michelle Harrison um part owner in Grey Greystone Ridge. Um the attorney currently is working on it and the individual that we purchased it from feels like it's free and clear in his name. Unfortunately, there was some foreclosure deeds. That's why as I was paring through deeds, I have all the deeds back to like 19 something and um so the they have dece they are deceased and so now their heirs are being contacted and certified letters have already been sent out. So prior to this um prior to D being able to approve this, we have to have that all cleared up any house. So it's in the works.

Yeah, the D want that piece of property. No, I don't think we can say that. Um, we feel we currently own that and we have um our deed states we own that the person we bought it from who has been there for 20 plus years. So, there's a prescription of property um value in that as well. So, um it's just going to take some legal work to clean up the deed. Okay. So, but we feel we bought that. Okay. Um Yeah. And just on that is none of this project is on that right. There is one lot. Oh, there is a lot on there is a lot under drain filter storm water. Oh wow.

Oh, I see now. Yep. Yep. We are very confident that it is I mean just with the 20-year rule of the prescription that he was going to take care of, but it's going to take some. So the attorney is very confident. Good question. Uh Mr. the barge. What do we need to make sure that this is legal? Well, the applicant has a burden of demonstrating right title interest. Yeah.

And right title interest can be constituted by a deed which they have or a purchase and sale agreement or an easement. So if there is a title issue, which that's what it sounds like, and I think the other issue with the date can be a corrective deed if I'm not mistaken. Correct. So I I think you can move forward. They have demonstrated uh you don't have to resolve the title question in order to be able to review their application, but they will need to resolve it before you give your final approval. Okay. So that's helpful. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

And we do have just, you know, we have like I see the deed problem right here and we do have all of the um title work. The title things are here. So I will contact the attorney tomorrow. I didn't catch that. It's a great catch. Yeah. Okay. So just as George stated that final um application, we'll need to make sure that that's straightened out. Yep. Good. Um, I don't know if now is the time to bring up the trees as we talk about the site plan a bit. The tree limits, tree clearing limits. I think we'll get I think I didn't know which. Okay. Yeah. Go through each checklist. 23

23. Yep. C3 or C23. Oh, yeah. I see George, you highlighted it. Yep. Standard boundary survey. We received that. Any questions there? Copy of most recent deed with any encumbrances. Oh, we've just read it. Okay. Um, list of proposed deed restrictions. Do you plan on having any deed restrictions to with the homeowners?

So, there'll be deed restrictions for all the buffers. Um so the storm motor buffers that are required by DP to have a certain amount of distance and width um those all be deeed restricted. Okay. Um septic system test pits. We received those with the logs as well as they've they've indicated those on the map plan site plan. Um proposed water supplies. We know that they're going to be wells.

Yep. um and firefighting purposes. So, in your I have a question on this one. In your um uh first plan, um you showed a proposed area for a a a fire pond. Um but it sounds like you're moving that from where you originally thought it might go. I I don't recall where that was in the original plan. I believe it was uh towards the end or Yeah. Yeah, we might have shown the potential area where we were thinking. Um, but we weren't we were thinking of Well, it was a storm water pond. Okay. Yeah. So, I don't think we where the road comes down around maybe 30 ft down.

I I think I think that was a storm water pond that we were potentially going to put over there. We weren't entirely sure at the time where we were going to put storm water ponds, uh, which would be on a drain soil filter or gravel a wetland of that nature, but I think we're still pond is what I'm referring to. Okay. Yeah. So I don't think we had an idea of where we would have fire suppression at sketch. I think we were still kind of mulling it over. So I don't think that was meant to be on the if I don't think it was I think it was shot in sto but I don't think he had a fire shot.

So what I heard you say earlier is you're planning to meet with the chief. Yes. We'd like to have a discussion with the fire department. you want and you're hoping to use an existing manmade pond. Yes. On lot two. It's this guy right there. That's not the Micah one. No mic's there. Yep. Micah's there. This is an ex existing pond here. So, we'd like to speak with the fire chief. Uh your ordinances allows a fire pond.

Um that's the preferred method we'd like to use. Um, and since we already have infra, you know, there's already something there, maybe we can use that instead of trying to dig somewhere else to create that pond. Maybe we can expand that or meet their requirements. Uh, we would have to talk check with them to see what they would need. So, the fire pond is proposed to be on a a lot.

Well, it it would be there would be an easement um for that to happen. And we have we have a couple different easements on here. So, there's some deed restricted buffers, but there's also easements. So anytime we have storm water infrastructure, we have an area of easement that is for that structure. So it might be like a ditch turnout buffer, which is just some grading where the water comes in and then is able to then kind of spread out to create that buffer. Um, but we have a couple areas like that and that's um pretty typical of other uh plans. We've done subdivisions where if we have infrastructure on a lot, we can create a a drainage easement um in order to make that work. So we would do something similar with the with the pond um to make sure that was uh correct that was able to happen.

Okay. So it needs to be straightened out before final um application for sure. Yes. Um based on what I've seen um the existing pond is going to need some work. Um and we we definitely need to touch base. Uh Mr. Devarge and what's the process? Do do they need to contact Chief Pritz for for a meeting? Yep. And and discuss the details there, right? And he has to approve that. And there are specifications in the ordinance for uh fire ponds in terms of the volume and the clearance and factoring in ice maintenance.

Yeah. Yep. There'll be an access drive. there'll be a hydrant that we need to specify. Like I said, that it needs to be a certain depth for ice. Um, so there's a number of different things. We just we haven't had time to speak with them, but it's something that after this, you know, we would we would get on right away so we can get that on the plans and have it ready for final. Okay. Um, if it's okay, can I go back to C5? You may. Um, so you verbally discussed the list of potential deed restrictions. Yes. And I believe we have some of those restrictions outlined on the on the subdivision plan as well. Okay. So, are we good with C5? I think we're good with that one.

Yeah. Um, is there So, we've seen all everything we need for the deeds like for C4, C5. There's nothing additional right now. Like we can check check. Yes. feel confident there? I believe so. Yeah. Okay. I just want to confirm. Okay. Thank you. Anything else before we move on? All right. Um I'm on C8 here. Yep.

Um well, exclusion zones. Um I believe those are shown on the plans. Um maybe not so much for lots. Is it six, seven, and eight or six? Um you have do you have your well? It's on the site plan utility. Site utility. I don't think I have this on this one.

Okay. 6,000. Yep. Okay. Yeah. I sorry we didn't print out that one. This is just the the grading in the subdivision names of owner applicant preparers and abutters. I think we've already seen that with the um notices wetlands mapped. We have that topography five and twoft contours. We see that on the plans.

Um actually the contours don't show up for a lot six on one of your drawings. I don't know if it's a a layer that lives. It can sometimes be um where it's cut off with um the different sheets because we kind of cut off in order to do that. Um but sometimes, frankly, it's a printing. Which one is it? Well, the topo is only on the existing, isn't it? We have We have too on the existing and there's too on for the grading grading plan. Oh, this is Yes, this is the one.

Yeah, it looked like it was the cut off something. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, this too. Oh, yeah. So, that's usually sometimes it's a surface in in CAD so they are there. Sometimes we have to make sure next time when we especially when we submit for final that that shows up properly. Um, but it Yes. So, it is there. It is there. on this one, but it's not on. Yeah. So, we'll we'll make sure that that prints properly. Sometimes when surfaces are pretty big, uh they can have printing issues. Make sure that's good.

Okay. T12 um farmlands and and soil. So, um did you all receive the um extra? Mhm. Okay. So, we're good with that. No. Okay. Um number of acres, location of existing and property lines and site features, stone walls, large ops. Um any questions on that? No, I think we received that.

This is right. This is the symbol for rock Alcross. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. location of water features. We received that that has streams located there. Um zoning district and then district boundaries. I believe that's also part of this. No resource protection on this site. No resource protection. No aquifer. Um no not prone to flooding. Yeah. No flood plane. Yep. Yep. location of existing and proposed coververts and drainage ways are shown. I believe we've seen that.

Yep. It's on the the grading and drainage plan. Um has the the culverts and those drainage areas. Some it should be on that one as well. Yeah. Existing streets, easements, buildings, parks, and open spaces. So, we see where the open spaces are supposed to be. We just talked about that, right?

Yeah. Um, yeah. And there's also easements that are identified um I believe. Yeah. So, existing right away. So, not easements in the beginning, but yes, we do have um the other easements that we're um proposing for um for this project on here as well. For your features. Yes. That Okay. Yep. All right. Traffic entrances. We've seen where that is for um active pink.

Yep. So on the you can kind of see here but also on the grading and drainage plan we have that access um shown as well. see that will that will and I will point out that will require a main DOT entrance permit.

Um so that's something that we're going to do after this. Um, and there's no issues with sight distance. It's quite it's like a thousand plus feet in each direction. It's pretty pretty open to see. So, but we will need to go through that process and submit that permit as well. Location width of existing and proposed streets. We'll just uh kind of ties into C18, I believe, right? same proposed lot lines with dimensions and area.

Yeah. So on that one um lot 13 the the road frontage is that what this one 16184 ft is? Yep. Okay. So it's over 150. Cool. Yep. The actual furniture of this would be these added up here be those guys. Just be aware we're not sure that that meets the definition of buntage. Typically, you have to have the full length of it. So, be prepared to look at that. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Yeah. The whole issue of ending uh the turnaround and counting all the sides of the turnaround, the code officer has pretty much interpreted that that doesn't meet the definition of law within street frontage. So, uh, if you just extend it, so that discount the you need 150 ft. So, discount the turnaround and just have a straight line. So, that clearly meets it. But again, on the issue of the Blue J Way, if you want to submit a legal opinion saying in our opinion, it meets the ordinance, we'll review it. What about the very end of the road? So, I So, I understand you're talking about Yeah, it has to be a straight line up. So

straight line really this around is not a straight line. That's the issue. Or a curve I mean. Yeah. Or a curve. Yeah. Is that a DM ordinance or it really goes to the definition of road road frontage in? And it's it's not as clear as it should be. But that's been the issue. The code officer has pretty much said it has to be a straight line. Okay. Okay. We'll take a look at that. Continuous line as opposed to a combination of lines. And if you think about it, someone could take pieces of lines on a large lot and say, "Oh, we meet the road frontage." Okay. So, if we go from basically a straight line, like pretend the hammerhead's not there, and then just extend the road to what it needs to be.

Yeah. Or extend it. Extend the right away. That piece and just have that encompass here and just make that deed restricted for the wetlands. That could also work. Yeah. Yeah, that law like all the others has to be big. Yeah. Okay. Um think that can be workable.

Can I just ask a question? Um yes. What is this symbol? So that there this is the easement, right? These are the easements. That's easement and those are the buffers for the storm water. Storm water buffer. Okay. Yeah. So, the easements are going to show up if there's a lot. Uh, since this is open space, they don't need the easement. But, um, the ditch turnout buffers will essentially there'll be a ditch and then part of the road will get into like a a little piece here and then y flow that way. And it needs to be a certain length basically. Is that in the legend? Yes. Uh, that is that guy. Well, hey, there it is. Buffer area. So, water buffer area. Yep. That's what that is. Okay. Yep. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Is that the same as up here? Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Yep. It's a different buffer. That's a road the edge of a roadside buffer. Um so it can you know you can't have a a ditch there. It has to just essentially just sheet into that buffer and there can't be anything um obstructing that except for you can have a driveway. That was something we've confirmed with D in the past. Mhm. Sorry. One more thing about the easement. So if you do go ahead with this fire pond. Yep. Your easement will come in here, right? Yes. Okay. So you'll just change that. to add in. Yep.

Okay. Okay. Um, we move on. Um, I think we're up to C20, proposed lot line with dimensions and area which is shown. There's the one we just talked about. Yep. Okay. Sorry for that. It's okay. So then see 21 and 22 proposed common open spaces and proposed uses. So they show the common spaces.

Mhm. Um and the uses are for I mean they'll be for mostly for preserve the natural area and some recreational opportunities. um if they you know whoever the homer association if they want to build a trail potentially um but they'll most be for in order to preserve um and keep it so so that will be detailed in the HOA documents that I think we require at finals but yes we will that will be all in the HOA to make sure that's spelled out properly there's also various strong art within space. Yeah. Yeah.

Um proposed building envelopes in cleared areas. Yeah, I think this is the question that um that was not included in the original or wasn't spelled out um clearly in the original application. So I'm happy to give just a our explanation for it. So uh typically especially with these these are being uh sold to developers. Um so typically sort of that building envelope is within those setback lines. So gives them the opportunity whoever comes and buys one of these lots to kind of build it um somewhere on there that fits their need. Um when we do the stormwater report we typically assume a certain um developed area which is usually 25,000 ft. 20,000 of it is lawn. 5,000 of it is impervious. It allows for driveway house patio whatever. um that will be in the storm water report that's that's approved by DP. Um so typically we we just lay it out this way. So we don't necessarily put those clearing limits on the lots, but for the road it's typically the edgrading uh anywhere there's a storm water pond or um level lip spreader or turnout buffer. Um that's something we just didn't include the line type to show that. But that's where it's going to be. We're not going to clear beyond where we're grating for the road. We're not going to clear in the buffers, which should that'll be deed restricted. Um that's something that we will um clarify, make sure that's on the plan for final, but that's generally um how it will be spelled out.

Um I would I would like to see where I would like to see that line type on here. Um, I don't know what others think too, but I also did see a comment from I think it was uh Inland Fish and Wildlife. Um, they reference the tree clearing, but something like they weren't sure of the tree clearing area due to the bats. That's why they looking at that. So, um, that that would be with Army Corps as well. It's something that they they take seriously. And so they'll be clearing time frames that we'll potentially have to adhere to depending on what they say. I mean, this is a forced area, so there are bats everywhere. Every project we come encounter is their bats are a concern. So I think it would be great to see that on here.

Yeah, that's something that we can certainly make it a I would hope we make it a condition of preliminary approval that um because it's generally if you look at it's something we wouldn't include on the subdivision plan. It's something that would be on the site plan and the grading plan.

Um and you can generally see I mean, you can generally see where essentially it's going to follow as close as possible to any of these areas that have um the these cuffers. So, it will follow pretty close to the edge of riding way around here. There'll be no clearing obviously in these buffers. There'll be clearing up around this in order to build this pond. And then there will be clearing where there's like these uh the culverts that get across the road. So, um this this this is a pretty good representation. I mean they wouldn't um go beyond what is required but shown on the grave. Do you want to include it the lots?

The lots will be sold individually. So that'll be up to the individual who bought they don't add that I guess like for your storm water impacts and things like that the clearing of those trees. Uh so we when we do the storm water we assume that clearing. Okay. So you do include that. So the storm water when we do the analysis we make sure we include all of that the lot. Okay. So when you say that, sorry I just want to clarify. So when you say your storm water, you've included this whole entire building envelope cleared. We we've No, we've 20,000 ft. Yeah. 25,000 25,000 ft of it. Okay. Yes. Not the whole thing. Not the whole thing. Not the whole thing. Oh, no. I'm like clarify. No, no, not the whole thing. Good. Okay.

Yeah. 25,000 is a typical one that we use. um depends on the so some luxury ones like like more but then we tell them okay well that's harder to to balance if you have you know 10,000 impervious and things like that um 5,000 is usually good um for for projects like these and uh that will be in the the D permit um and that is assumed in that analysis

you have comments on 8.23. Um I think you've done a great job with the building envelope depiction uh regarding wetlands. Yes. But um going back to lot six, seven, and eight. Is it not like is it something wrong with the printing or uh No, I believe the rock out crop and the 20% slopes. Yep. Should not be within the building envelope.

Okay. So, we can cut it off where we have that assumed cuz it's kind of kind of ties into both of these things right here. So, we can we can cut it off um to make sure that it's it matches properly. Yeah. I think the 20% slopes are somewhere in here. Yep. Yes. And then the Rockco crop. Again, this gets into the the cluster subdivision, right? It's like maintain as much of the natural properties of the lot as possible. Absolutely.

And those um you know, although that they're in your calculations, you know, you you you've stated here how the percentage of of that area that should be taken out of the calcs, but um it should be pulled out of the building on the road or our for our ranks. Absolutely. We will we can certainly do that. And um Mr. Tabarge, so when these um limits of disturbance are shown on the subdivision plan, is it up to the CEO to confirm that those limits are not pushed outside of their limits?

Well, that's the point that I've been raising is that it's not completely clear what those limits are. Um I've heard the setbacks, everything within the setbacks. I've heard 25,000 square feet of clearing on each lot, but it sounds like that can move anywhere on the lot. That Yeah, it's up to whoever the individual person who buys it and has a builder um when they buy that they, you know, they'll have certain parameters based on HOA documents and where and obviously where the setbacks are, um wetlands and such. And then, you know, we don't want to necessarily dictate exactly where they can put a house. We just kind of want to give them a general idea. It's like, okay, you can't go over this amount of purpose.

That's all understandable. I think the key is for the code officer to have clear measurable standards to say on this law, it either meets it or it doesn't. If it's just the net uh total clearing cannot exceed 25%, that should be stated somewhere. Okay? If the intent is to allow it to be somewhere on the law within the building setbacks, can that just be defined in the HOA? I I think it's just clear needs to be clear on the plans and in the in in the uh association declaration so that everybody's on the same page and we don't have somebody saying, "Oh, they weren't supposed to clear that much." Yeah.

So, the code officer, he goes out, he has to have something he can measure. You know, it's something we've done in other plans too is we can show roughly what a 25,000 clearing limit would look like and just put a note that they need to meet the 25,000 but that that you know it can it's it's for interpret you know it's for um visual purposes only. So just like hey if you just have a clear measurement limit on each lot no more than 25% probably D is going to be looking at that as well. So again, it just needs to be something the code officer can measure

as to a conceptual. It's like on the erosion control plan, conceptual, you can't measure that to determine whether it's in compliance or not. And again, the worst case scenario, somebody clearcuts the law, their lot, and how do how do you determine if that's either in violation or not? Just needs to be clear. Correct. I'm just getting back to the to the objective of

um a cluster subdivision and maintaining the natural characteristics as much as possible. So I mean just to say that you can clear a thousand square feet I think it needs to be clear where that thousand square feet needs to be. Yeah. and and in the in the sketch plan he talked about identifying the optimum building sites. So part of the cluster concept is that you you do set where those house house locations going to be as opposed to a conventional subdivision with two acres then you put it in. That's that's the concept of cluster. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. Todd Harrison. Um, wouldn't that couldn't that be I've done in other towns we that's been when you put your application in for a building permit at that point you've sketched out where you're going to clear where you're going to put the house. Yep. So the the code wasn't officer guy knows okay this 20,000 ft that that's the 20,000 ft. It's drawn out on your plot plan. Yeah. So it started here cluster goes beyond the normal requirements. So we're going to dictate where these people build their houses all over it. That's part of the planning wood process. If you want to do a cluster subdivision, if you if you don't want to do a cluster, you want to do twoacre lots with 300 ft per furnish, you put them where I see. Okay. Now, we're defining the building envelope right here today.

Mhm. Uh during this Well, this is preliminary and final will be final. But yeah, that dictates where any clearing should happen. So, let me ask a question. So, how I mean I think I don't there may be more than one cluster subdivision in Durham. I'm not sure, but I don't have one cluster subdivision. How was it defined and then how is it enforced? We're talking about this one. Okay. I just I mean I'm just curious like what what have others do so they can use that as like a guideline. Um

I'm going with what our standards are today. I'm looking at this particular subdivision subdivisions. But yeah, I think I think we can which we've done. We did a pro we did a project separately in in Bifford and we did that exactly that. We did 25,000. We just showed there's a line style that that's like a tree outcrop and we just we show where 25,000 roughly is that we can define exactly where that is. And I think that's probably the crux of that comment for not having that on the plan. Um that's something that we can we can do um pretty easily. So I you know something that that I hope that we can include as like a part of the preliminary approval that it has to be included in final and we still have to go through um the third party engineer as well and so they'll look at that. So um I think that's that's something that we can easily do.

And going back to Brian your comments certain lots are going to be more sensitive than the others. Yeah. So it may well be that you know for some of these lots any any 25,000 square feet is fine but up near the steep slopes outcrops then that may be an area where it's more restricted. Mhm. Yeah. So I have a question about about that is you know some of these lots obviously there are wetland setbacks steep slopes in addition to the side and the front and the rear setbacks.

So that 25,000 will be more restricted to where it kind of hones in where it needs to be. Um, but on some of the lots it only has, you know, like the side and the rear and the front step back. So someone could say, "I want my house really close to the road. I don't want to build long driveway." Some of them could say, "Oh, I want a long driveway. I want to be more private out like farther from the road and have more forested area still between my house and the road." So, if we put that tree line of 25,000 on the plan of like what we're saying is the ideal building site, can there be like a subject to change with a building permit reviewed by the code enforcement officer? So, someone doesn't have to put their house like right next to the road if they want to pay for a long driveway when they buy the lot. as long as it meets all you know other setbacks from obviously these things you're talking about steep slopes wetlands things like that

impervious area requirement and things like that

so in a in a conventional subdivision yeah you can you know you get a setbacks and you have to build with setbacks this is similar to that but the intent from my understand from a cluster subdivision is to provide you with the opportunity to put smaller watts and in in this case you get more bots out of that but it's also to maintain the natural car characteristics of the property. Um so so this our rags here kind of constrain you to where that building envelope is going to be. And again, it's to meet the intent of a cluster subdivision.

Any other comments, questions? George, any No, you're almost to the checklist. Full on checklist. Okay. C24, any floodprone areas per FEMA maps? No,

we have that. Um C25, any state identified significant habitats or unique natural areas? Um, so on this one, um, I mentioned before it does look like the inland fish and wildlife because then, um, they confirmed um, your survey for Verna pools um, but said that they need to still review and verify in order to determine the significance. I don't know. Have you heard back from him on that?

Um, I don't recall if we've heard back, but it's likely based on Eric Lima, who is has done this many times, that it's man-made. Manmade does not meet the the definition for certificate vernal pool. It's likely going to do that. I don't expect anything different, but Yes. Okay. This is the Micah pond we're talking about. Okay. All right. So, that's still pending. Yes. That usually takes a little bit longer. Um, yeah, that's just the nature of it. Yeah. Everything going on, it's not very fast right now. No, it is not. No. Okay. Um, did anything else on that?

And this is kind of related. So, you need a a a state permit. Couple of them, right? Um, do you need USACE federal wetland? Uh, the Army Corps. Yeah. Yes. You need that. We'll we'll file an Army Corps permit because we are impacting. We have the wetland crossing. Um, so we will do the Army Corp as well. Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. Doing almost all the agencies. Yeah.

Um I guess just one more thing on that same um department um regarding the trees. So, it says a concept plan dated August 11th was sent. Um, was there a tree clearing limits shown on that concept plan?

No, that was a pretty basic concept site plan and we showed like what we're thinking about for a lot. So, that's usually just give them a sense of where we're where we're going to be. Um, but we generally don't put uh the clearing limits at that time because we haven't really flushed out the details at that point. says it's assumed no clearing will occur in the designated open space as shown in the concept site plan. Um so I just I I wonder if they need to update it. They need to see where the tree plan is going to take place due to the bats.

I mean we I mean that will be part of Army Corps as well. Um so that's something we can certainly send to them especially since we do have a storm water pond in that clearing area. So that will change their view on that. But that's usually a simple updated letter like, "Hey, we've got this information and we can send that." So I I don't see an issue with that. Just something we we would have to update. Thank you. Y and that was IFNW, correct? Sure. Y of course. Um C26, any identified historic resources listed or eligible for list for listing? And we did receive a letter from the CHPC.

Um, note on plan regarding prohibiting Doug Wells. Is that on your plan? I saw that in the summary, but um I believe it is. I think it's on the subdivision on the subdivision plan. Yeah. I'd have to dig read through those. Oh. No. 13. No. 13. Yeah, that goes right. Yeah, it's right there. It says in there.

Um, wells and septic in accordance with main rules. You've seen your um are you now moving? I think you are. We need to put make a decision on C26 should be the last one. Yeah. Um before the studies

it is okay. All right. So since we've gone through all of that um we do have some notes and some takeaways but do you feel that we need checklist for preliminary subdivision? The C23 is the only uh sticky one right now having that building envelope clearly defined. Yeah, requirement for cluster. Um I would be comfortable with seeing it the next round. Um you can make it a condition of approval. Okay. Y

but depending on what y'all think too, but I would be okay with that. You verbally explain what it's going to be. Yep. Um we talked about um updating the plan um and updating the agencies as needed, updating any storm water calcs you need to do. Yep. So I'm okay with that, but you can fine. No, I think we're pretty clear about what again this gets into the intent of the cluster subdivision. I mean certainly if you wanted to go with a conventional subdivision and reduce the amount of lots that goes away. That changes everything. Um, but we've been clear about what the envelope needs to be, right? So, if you guys are okay with um accepting that.

Well, no, no. So, I'm saying I I want to see it. Yeah, sure. I want to see it, but not like we I'm okay approving their their application is complete. We'll see it next time. Yeah. Condition of approval, right? Yeah. Okay. You're saying the same thing? Yep. We're on the same page. Great. Um, so then make a motion to accept it. I'll second. All in favor? Okay. Do we get into the studies that may be required or is that is that next time or uh well you can

yeah uh question is do are there any highintensity soil surveys, traffic studies or any other specialized studies? Um, you know, if during the process you determine that you want to see something like that, typically if you have really wet soil areas and you're doing much tighter cluster lots, then uh and the septic systems and the lot grading is pushing and you're not sure exactly the, you know, hydric soils, then you may want to have high intensity. But I don't, this site doesn't seem to have any of those problematic areas. But

as you go forward with the substantive review, you can consider, you know, whether or not any But there's nothing here that would say, "Oh, yes, do a hydraological study or highintensity soil survey." Yeah. And you said site distances wasn't a concern. Sight is a concern and we're we'll be submitting um that information to DOT and then they do their own as well. Um that's something they put on the permit. Um so I I don't see an issue with this with this area. There's plenty of sight distance. What can you tell me about the Micah pits?

Um, so that that's more of Eric Lima's wheelhouse. Um, I'm not 100% sure. I just know that it was a man-made Doug mine and then it was abandoned and eventually it got filled up and it just turned into it turned into a vernal pool. There are they did find egg masses and that is something that was in her report. Um, but again DP especially of man-made don't consider it significant. Um, but it still is vernipul. Um, so obviously we're not touching it. We can I mean it's steep slopes, can't even get to it. Um, so you know, we're we're showing lots outside of that trying to avoid that. Um, as you mentioned, I think we need to extend a little bit of that setback area um to not include the steep slopes and make sure that's completely out of the picture, but I don't I don't imagine there's any um any impact.

So is there an issue with depth of those and safety concerns with children? Uh, I don't think uh I don't think there's safety concerns that I know of. I mean, they would have to climb up some really steep areas to do that. Um, no children. Um, I I guess I don't know. I I haven't I haven't thought about in this context. Well, it'd be something that we could certainly uh look at when we do site, which I think we should do. Yep. Yep. Good point. Next. Next.

All right. Sorry. I think we'll get into more conversation next step. Absolutely. Um All right. So, now to review the standards. Yep. Standards. All right. So, I'm on page 52 of our PDF here. Um, normal plan prohibiting Doug wells. We talked about that. Wells and septic in accordance with main rules. Um, we've seen seen test kits. Actually, I'm sorry. Um, Mr. Barge, was there something? Do we want to talk about your your notes that we had under this section first or um was that more like

Yeah, I could just There were a couple of notes that I've made as you've been discussing some of the submissions. I just wanted to make one. Okay. But beyond that and maybe for tonight, uh, it's approaching 8:00. I'm not sure you're going to make it all the way through reviewing all of the standards. So, and I also hearing you want to do a sitewalk. So, yeah. Um, I think it' be probably most productive to focus on whatever the substantive issues are that you anticipate. Yeah. Uh, the rest of it pretty much, I think, just going to be uh house checking for a lot of the stuff. So the blue J way issue, I think I've outlined four options for addressing that. Y

um the um we've talked about the uh road front on that last lot.

They are proposing a 50 m 50 access to the uh property to the north for future paper street. Um, and uh, in in the discussion so far tonight, one thing I did pick up on is the I think it's sheet C5.2 has a wetland stream crossing detail which Mr. Palanteer did address. And just to clarify, if they are not going to meet the typical uh, requirements for the road because they are narrowing it for this D permitting process, that's okay. but it doesn't meet Durham's street standards. So they would need to request a waiver. Okay.

And the justification for the waiver would be the arguments that they make in terms of the DB. So technically they would need a waiver to go without a you would need to because it doesn't meet the standards in terms of um the shoulder width. So again, this is typical when you do a stream crossing, D makes you narrow it as much as possible, but at the same time, you they will need to get a waiver and you're probably going to want the uh the town engineer to peer review that along with the rest of the engineering. Well, what was that again? Uh it's at stream crossing or excuse me, it's easier to see on the

wetland. Okay, the grading plans easier to see because there's actually a couple areas where we have part partial curve and that's help with storm water as well and that will be required for DP. So the the spring profit plus um of the road there is um essentially what this section like we're just taking the shoulders away and adding a curve instead but the actual paved driving surface is the same. It's still 25. So be one this area and the stream is shown

there. So it it effectively it's a wetland crossing. So it's not a stream crossing. It's a wetland crossing. So there's no is there any stream? Uh not not not here. No, the streams are these guys. And I didn't think you're not impacting any streams or it's just wetland. Okay. Yeah, just wetland. Okay. Okay. Can I can I ask you a question on that, George? Sure. So often when we have a curved road section, there is no shoulder. It's just the driving lanes and then the curve, which is what we're doing there. Mhm. Um but we still need a waiver to remove the shoulder.

Yeah. Durham doesn't really do curbs except in these one. So standard is a two foot shoulder. Uh and again it's it is for a special condition and the you know this has labor authority but they have behind us. Yeah. Which is easy to do. So if just as an example if someone came in and said we want to have a curved road because that's what we want the feel and the look to be. Yeah. Uh no shoulders. The curb will be you know how it typically is right along the driving edge. That would need a waiver for everything. make the case that you either meet or exceed the standards. Yeah. Okay. Interesting.

So, there are a couple areas of curb. Um, so this'll be part of the process to request the waiver, but again, it's for D permitting. Um, I think that's something you can make case for. Didn't you earlier state that there would be two pipes in that detail? Yep. the um based on the length um it's an army corps and a DP um I think it's like every 50 ft um you need a need that so um there'll be two 36-in embedded culverts side by side or yeah they they'll they'll be there'll be one and they'll be 50 ft apart and the other one and they'll be placed in the the middle and actually you can see that

your detail shows one 50t away would be the same detail. Yes, you're saying yes. So, it's it's a meant to be a typical detail, but um the make sure we're saying

two is a missing 5.3. Yeah, it's in the back right there. That guy I'm showing off right there. Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay. And then there's one over here, too. Yeah. So, there's a couple of culverts um that we have. Um

Yeah. This will be a 36 embedded and this will be a 36 embedded. And that's to There's a lot of storm water that comes this way. Um so, we want to make sure that we're not causing that to back up and create a pressurized situation. Um, so that's why they're a little larger than than typical. Usually you'd be like a 15 in, maybe an 18 in um 36 embedded is gives you that same amount of surface area that you would a 24 in, but allows you to kind of put a little deeper. So we need 2 ft of cover to make these work well. So um that's why we've done it that way and and make sure there's not pressurized pipes and creating flow issues.

We would love it done a different way. Um, I'd like to go back to George's summary. Um, if we can start this film, is it J Way?

Yes. Um, I'm I'm in my opinion, um, if if we can improve access to lots, now's the time to do it. And I would prefer to see driveway accesses to lots one and two off of the new roadway rather than um from the J way if if possible. But let's let's orient ourselves here. So this is Blue J Way.

This is Blue J. Yeah. And then it doesn't it from what I understand it currently does not meet our roadway standards for backlogs to get back there. Right. So you're saying you want it off this main road. George has pointed out several options. Mhm. Mhm. Um to to fix this. And I'm just saying I don't want to be in a position where we create a bad situation or continue with a bad situation and and and to relieve some frontage issues. I would prefer to see the driveways off of the Greystone Ridge Road. Yeah.

What would be the concern of doing that? Um, I guess the concern would be, you know, that you're those are existing houses that now were forced to join an HOA and and and be put into that, like, hey, by the way, you live here, but now you have to you have to pay this amount of money um to do that. Um, so that would be a concern on a on a private homeowners standpoint. Um, you're asking for a 13 lot subdivision. Yeah. Okay. where um so they and I guess I guess the the thought is because it's already existing and it's it's been there for so long that we we prefer not to touch it. Um that's that's our position. Um yeah, I'm sure I'm sure she has some

well in and prior to us purchasing this land in June um because I did look that up is um the previous owner came to the planning board specifically about this. So, we did get a ruling on this on April 3rd, 2025 to leave Blue J the Where are Wait, sorry, I have to orientate myself. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So, to leave Blue J, I think when you guys come out and do the sidewalk because it does look like you guys are moving in that direction.

I think the natural characteristics of how, you know, mind you, I approach this from a realistic standpoint. So the natural characteristics of the value of this house, it doesn't gain any value from Greystone rich. I do believe that, you know, this got brought up by George and so we kind of circled the table and we would be open to compromising a bit and doing the driveway for this one because I think it could help this property as well as if this becomes the fire pond, we could then do a road into here and then a driveway. So, I'm just looking I mean I do think from a legal standpoint that this should be grandfathered, but I do agree with trying to make things better, which is why prior to us buying this, the previous owner came and went through this process so that we knew what we were up against because I feel very strongly about leaving. And and let me be clear, I don't have any intention of bringing I I how this road was ever approved is beyond me because it's it's less than a driveway. I will tell you we will improve the standards of the driveway because our team is now plowing this and it's a nightmare.

So, um but I think if we could compromise and look at potentially looking at lot two, leave lot one alone as a driveway in it create it helps the value of everything. And I don't know why. And so you bring up this 13 lot subdivision

and I'll be very clear and I've questioned it multiple times to the engineers. To me, this is an 11 lot subdivision. And why these two got dragged into this, I'm not clear. And so, and the answers that we've been given is because this road is a rightaway and it goes over this land. Well, I could just make this road an easement over these lots. And to me, this shouldn't even be an 11 lot. I mean, it shouldn't even be a 13 lot subdivision. So, that's very unclear to me. And I'm paying a lot I'm paying a significant amount of extra fees making this a 13 lot on houses that already exist. So, but I have not got clarity on that.

If it was just 11, what would you do?

I would leave So, honestly, if it was just 11, I would leave Blue Jay alone because it pre-exists and it's been there for 20 plus years. I would leave it alone. Honestly, when I go to sell this house to somebody, I would ask them, "Do you want to join this association, and I will get you a better driveway in here so you don't have to come up this ridiculous road? But I as to why this is really an 11 lot subdivision and you know I don't DM doesn't have impact fees right. Okay. So in my other world everything is all about impact fees. So this would be like there's no additional impact fees on this. There's I'm not taking anything away from these lots. So why are they even in discussion?

What do you think George? Well, there's only one lot of lots one lot need to be split to create two new lots. Yeah. So, and the reason for that like we could do that separately because these are two separate deeds and so those two lots that is to make that more conforming like how that ever became one lot is beyond me. The bottom line is you're creating new lots. They're not the existing lots. Okay. So, but why can't those two new lots have nothing to do with the subdivision? Those are just I'm creating two new lots from one lot of one existing deed.

Again, if you want to get a lawyer to explain that and say how it conforms to the subdivision regulations, we'll look at it. Yeah. So, but either way, so the long and short, that's why we're here at 13 lots. And to answer your question, we could look at it at sitewalk, but again, it's pre-existing for 20 plus years. You're presenting a 13 lot subdivision, and they all need to conform is my opinion. Um, and what what makes it not conform?

The existing drive. We've heard the in and the frontage. If you if you want to leave it the way it is, these lots don't meet the firm's requirements and the driveway does not meet our standards for a back lots. If it's just a driveway for one lot. Yeah. If you want to leave Blue J and its lot completely out of this one and and just leave it as one lot, then it's a whole different situation potentially. Yeah. But you're proposing to create two new lots like the owner was before so you could sell the back lot back house. So you're creating new laws and that's part of the subdivision I think right but again a legal opinion might say no.

So is there not based on them? Well and that that's the thing that's a little unclear to me is that as it exists today there's two houses with access from Blue J Way

which is a right of way to the road. There's no frontage on the road. There's only frontage on Blue J Way. So that must have been granted to allow those houses frontage, but they're there's no lot line like defining an actual 300 ft of frontage. And so the whole thing feels very grandfathered because it's been this way forever and it's been allowed to be this way including in the approval from April. Um the technical term is nonconforming.

Yeah. And there are legally non-conforming situations that either pre-existed the current regulations or uh otherwise and then there are illegally non-conforming that were created in violation and we don't know what exactly the story is here. But in any case, you are proposing two completely new laws. If you want to leave that lot completely alone and have an easement across it to get to the your subdivision with 11 lots that that's an option. So you're proposing to split that into two new lots. So that's a whole different and so my

you can't claim grandfathered on something you're creating. Why why wouldn't we why would the request be for 11 versus 13 and exclude those two? Well, because this has been the the conversation from the beginning that because we were drawing the law lines, it had to be equitative. So, correct. They wanted to sell these separately. You want to create two separate lots, you have to meet the current requirements.

And those two new laws are not grandfathered. And so back to my driveway question, which is if we have if we like Michelle was saying had a compromise where lot two gets a new driveway to the proposed roadway. Also, you know, we're talking about potentially using the pond that's on that lot. So, there would be access over there anyway that's more integrated with the subdivision. It has a driveway to the lot. has frontage along the new garage. Lot one will then be a a lot that has a driveway that has existed for 20 plus years and it's a driveway to one house to one lot, but it's a new lot one, right? That's that's the problem.

Yeah. Well, you're still creating two. Well, but but if they have their legal frontage on the new road and you want to give a waiver to allow that current nonconforming driveway to be used for driveway access to lot one, they can apply for a waiver and you can you can grant it with whatever justification they want to give, but they have to convince you. Does lot one have frontage on Pinkham Brook? No, but it will it will have lot frontage on the new road. Yeah, the these all conform to I would just use that existing driveway upgrade it and that that you know that's workable. It's mainly only the question of the driveway location, right? Yeah. Because I feel like

unless I'm missing something. You're referring to lot two. Lot one and two. Yeah. Both. Unless I'm missing something like what we're trying to achieve is salailable lots without having problemmed deeds. Yeah. And so I felt like this whole thing was making them all conform almost which it does. Yeah. Very close. But then the question about the driveway is the issue. You know, I mean, in my experience, you don't necessarily have to have a driveway to the same road that you have frontage on.

But maybe that is something that's defined differently in your ordinances that I'm not aware of. But um you know, I've seen many lots that are on a corner. they have frontage on one road, their driveway goes to a different road, even though they don't have technically enough length on that other road. And if that's something we need to request a waiver from because of the way your ordinances are written, then you know, that's what we want to find out.

Yeah, sounds pretty straightforward in terms of doing that where we're lot one keeps Blue J Way, we have frontage, it meets the meets the dimensional standards, and then lot two, we connect and that gives access to the fire pond as well. And I think it all works seamlessly like that. But we just we now that we know that a waiver is requested, I think we can make that argument um pretty easily. So if you if you had a driveway on lot two Yep. to your existing new road. Okay. Would we discontinue the length of Blue J Way across lot one? Only only on lot one, not two two lot one, not across lot one. Correct. Correct. Yeah,

it's a reasonable compromise. I would think so. I mean, we'd want to discontinue it anyhow from an aesthetic standpoint and the pond is going to have to be increased. And so when you see the site, you'll see that kind of increasing the pond is going to naturally diminish the driveway that's there. Oh, okay. No, that's going to be a very important conversation to have with the chief because right now you you you're hogging the property line and who knows what's going to happen to this pond. It obviously is going to need to be expanded

and and whether or not this is the best location. Again, the chief is going to have to weigh in on this. He he may prefer that it's back to where we were originally shorted in your concept plan, which was down here, I believe. Um but and we can make adjustments to this line. I mean, this is larger than it needs to be and the frontage is larger. So, if we need to move that line to kind of make room for something like that, we can. Yeah. No, that's that's step I don't know what where the steps, but it's an important step to have, but it's leading us more to the importance of having a sitewalk. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, without a doubt. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's where we're going, Matthew. Right. Yes.

Um, what is that? It's a That is a shed of some kind, I think. Okay. or some sort of small small building. Okay. I believe uh that lot too is owned. You're Yeah, we own that. Yeah. Yeah. And that's and that's family. Yes, we Yeah, I think it might go actually cuz that person's moving. So, I think it might actually go. It's pretty small when the road comes in.

Yeah. And I think you'd bring like a road to this after talking with the fire chief. And then we there's like some pretty actually once you see it, you'll see there's some pretty easy ways to put a nice looking driveway. And then this pond can continue to expand this way, which this area over here is a little bit wet, so it actually helps. Yeah. Well, we plan to get with the fire chief pretty soon to Sure. to flush out these details because that's important. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I haven't seen the I haven't seen the existing pond, but I'm sure there's a lot of work that's going to need to happen there. Yeah. um to make it an actual fire. Yes, we

George, what was the Sorry, got off on the driveway part. What was the next one that you had? Um, no. I think that was the one that I had. So, we have you've talked quite a bit about the clearing limits and I think they have some pretty good direction for moving forward on that and some of the gaps that you mentioned, Brian showed on lots six, seven, and eight. More detail there. Um, and the the wetland crossing, the need for a waiver on that road design for that, I think, and J way. Those are kind of the substantive issues that I've seen. I have some questions, but you want me to go?

Go for it. Um, let's do it. Uh, US Fish and Wildlife Service consultation. I think you'll have to do that with your your USACE permit application, right? Yep. There'll be a there'll be a process online where we begin that and then bats will show up because they always do. Um, and then whatever, you know, whatever shows up, you know, looking at the site, I mean, there's nothing I mean, we've done projects in this similar area, you know, it's usually bats. Um, so that will be part of the process. What's your timeline on on uh construction for this? Um, as soon as possible.

Yeah, as soon as possible. So, and there's actually a piece that I would love to talk about about the final approval process if this is an appropriate time to discuss it unless you have more if you want to get your question. My question is um I just know the permitting is really backed up. So, that's what that that was that was Yeah. So it says uh 6 months from preliminary approval.

Um DP is not uh doing that 6 months time period. Uh so we wanted to get clarification from the board. What does that look like? Can we get like a like an extension? Can we make it a a um condition of a final approval? Um because we can submit within that six months, but we won't have the D permanent in hand. And that seemed to be a a a piece in your ordinance that is required. But um we can't, you know, DP should be getting these out, but they're not because it just they're backed up and it's something that we've had a lot. I think you're going to see this also with the Army Corps. It's not just DP. So, I would I would Yes, I think an extension definitely. I would I would suggest an extension versus a condition.

Okay. I would like to see it back. That's what the ordinance specifies that before expiration of the six months you come back and ask for an extension and explain document that you've made progress in your permitting. Yeah. Yeah. If necessary. So that shouldn't be a problem. Okay. Get an extension of the 6 months to like 8 months today or do we have to come back to do that? Probably you get an six-month extension. Okay. Yeah. Because we don't, you know, we could get it. We could maybe they'll surprise us. Maybe we'll get it in six months. on here. Um, another point to that question is, um, for the clearing for trees, um, are you hoping to wrap that up by end of March?

Uh, back clearing window. Uh, yeah, whatever the the window is. I mean, I don't think we're going to have anything in hand to do that by March. I just I don't think it's feasible based on Army Corps timeline as well, but we'll see. Uh, so we have to get all the approvals, too, before we do any any of the clearing, right? we have to get at the final approval before we start clearing. So, it really depends on when that is done. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's something to consider. Um, and then let's see. Um, actually might be Oh, wait. No. Setbacks from the vernal pool. Yep. It's treated like a wetland. Is that correct? Okay. So,

as long as it's not found to be significant. Um, and right now you're assuming it's not significant. Yes. And we're and we're pretty pretty confident uh that it is not going to be significant because it's man-made. Yeah. But still waiting to hear back on that. Yes, I believe we're still waiting to hear back. I don't think that's something we No, no, no. I think I was that was that okay. My apologies. That didn't say to stay away from No, that's good. I I I couldn't I could remember that. Thank you for saying that. Can you bring that in next time? I think it's in the It is in the pet. So, we have that, but they said they're still reviewing it in the letter. They're reviewing the microp. Yeah, the rental pool.

To me, that just something that didn't didn't make it into the the final package, but um Yeah, they say you don't need it. Yeah, I know it was submitted to them. So, it was submitted, but we'll double check. But yeah, they talk about it and they say they they confirmed the survey, but then they say our department will need to review and verify this vernal pool data prior to final determination of significance. Yeah. So sounds like they're still considering whether it's significant or not, but they are showing back. Yeah. Yeah. This is but this is not it is significant. Okay. Oh, I see.

Yeah. And yeah, so I we'll we'll double check that and we can confirm with them, but yeah. Okay. Um and so yeah, this this setback is I think we talk a little bit about that when you get into the clearing limits. Yep. Like looking more at the wet areas, the rock outcrops and Yep. Yeah. We we'll make sure we we update the plan to to take those out. Great. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you. Anything else?

Yeah. So on the topic of road frontage, looking at the ordinance here, there's some confusion on whether it matter which road counter towards road frontage states that the linear distance between the sidelines of a lot measured from along the lot that borders upon whichever right ofway serves as legal access to the lot. So the way I interpret that, unless there's a driveway from this road to the lot, that doesn't count as a road frontage. So is that something that's taken care of with the waiver though? Is that something that can be waved as part of that? Um, so I think that's something that we'll when we look at that and we submit for the waiver, something we'll we'll make sure we address.

Okay. Are there any other waiverss you're looking for? Uh, no, I don't think so. No, that was good clarity about what we need to do for this. And then the road for the curb uh was clarity on that. I think those are the only two that we'd be looking at. Thought there was something about a hydraologic study. No, you were asking about when you would need uh those specialized studies. And I was explaining that you know if you had a project where there were questions about well water availability or those sorts of things. So um second comment I had um

uh for when we're doing this lot here he the definition of a frontage and he he interpreted as that because this isn't have access that it wouldn't meet the frontage. Uh but that would be part of the waiver because it doesn't have access would be a waiver. Yeah. Y got it. Yeah. um this shoot seen-10. Yep. Um you know, we're we're pretty tight on the math here again for a cluster subdivision. We're very tight. Um you've got two different total areas of acreage listed on the sheet.

I I did notice it was 0.02 difference like 19.05 and 19.03. Is that what you're referring to? I see. Um note number general note number six 35.370 acres but then in your table you listed as 37.88 acres so a little bit more than that. Yeah we'll make sure that that's cleaned up. Is that the acreage of the total project area? Yeah. 37 subject parcel. Subject parcel is 35.27.

Yeah. So, we'll we'll have to make sure to understand what that was a an error on our part. But, um we'll double we'll double check that and make sure that uh it's all cleaned up. But that's a good that's a good catch. I I think that has to do with the remaining land. Okay. In question. Okay. Thank you. That the 37.8 8 is 88 is the actual boundary of the parcel including that remaining length that we discussed earlier. Yeah. So that chunk here that uh that wasn't clear in the deed lot three. Yes. Yeah. That over that open space and lot three area. Yeah. Yeah. And your survey um the page prior to that is dating 35.37.

Yeah. That Yeah. So that so that because we haven't had clarity yet, uh we took that out of the survey. So it's going to be a little bit less and that's something that we'll need to I think we've discussed need to clarify in the deed to make sure that chunk um is included and cleaned up in the deed. Um and then once that is and we've got confirmation, legal confirmation that will go into the survey and it will be updated to be 37.88. Yeah, that's that's quite important there. Clear that you all own that. Yes. Um, okay. What's next here?

Schedule a sidewalk. Thank you. Yes. And do you want to hold a public hearing? Um, yeah. Yes. Public hearing as I walk. Yep. I agree. I mean I got those. All right. Okay. Let's um calendar public hearing would be on the next at the next meeting. The next meeting which will be January where that first Wednesday is um

7th. Well, I'm not going to be able to make it up, but that's okay. You all, as long as the rest of you can make it. Is the sidewalk in between or is the sidewalk after? I think we should do it before. Before. Yeah. Ellen, are you okay on the 7th of January? I am. All right. So, we'll have a quum. um sidewalk. It's probably going to need to be a Saturday because there's daylight and yeah, we have Christmas

working on it on Christmas. I'm I'm around. I'm down the street. I can come out there. Wait, what do we need to give? Try to go on the 20th. You meet the Yeah. Yeah. I got to go for a sidewalk for a few hours. 20th. Actually, that would work out fine for me. the 20th Saturday. I have to see or the 21st is Sunday. Can you make That's the Saturday. Um I probably can. I was Yeah, I don't technically have any plans. My plans are skiing, but I can 27th or what day is it?

Um I would prefer I don't know if I could do it. I could we do it the 20th that weekend first? Works for me. Yeah. time for I got something on the calendar, but I can talk more about it. We just need to post it as we have. So, yeah, put me down. I'll be there. Yeah. And should we ask about um surveying out things? Yeah. It'd be good to have the satellite of the road marked marked out. Yeah. So, we'll we'll talk to our survey crew um and see if we can get them out there to make that markings. Yeah. We've done that in the past. It works well. We get to see where all the lots are proposed to be. Um, I mean there's a 40 foot drop there. Yeah, we should be able to land

lot 21 blue J way. It's vacant right now. All mix is all plowed out on that. We're going to be parking all over the side of 125. Okay. So, if you go up Blue J Way, just keep going the whole way to the last house and there be plenty of parking up there. Okay. Yep. Good to know. All right. Yeah. And our serve are used to they've done that before for us, marking out the center line. So, we'll we'll talk to them first thing and make sure they have availability to go out there. Timeline. Yeah. There's no map. They will go out there. They will go out there. We'll yell at them to go out there. They'll probably go out there like literally tomorrow. Yeah. They will go out there. They will go out there. What's What time works for best for everybody? Sometime between 1 and 3 probably.

Want to meet at one? Sounds good to me. Two. Yep. Sure. Let's do it. All right. Let's start. Okay. Um, and then yeah, address is the uh, yeah, the second lot on in the blue J way. Yeah. Yeah. Keep driving until you hit the house. Not literally. Not literally at the house, but close enough to the house. Yep. Perfect. All right. So, George, next meeting we're able to get enough notice out for the public hearing. Yeah. Okay. And the sidewalk. And the sidewalk. Yep. Um um I will not forget this again, but should I contact the conservation commission or is it it's really up to you. They're monitoring

Yeah. your agendas supposedly. So no, I told them I would be more transparent at that last meeting. So I'll definitely reach out to them. Okay. And do you do the noticing for those or do we We will. Okay. They really have to show up. Yeah. Okay. So, sidewalk on the 20th at 1 and then the next planning board meeting will be the 7th of January. Yep. At 6:30. Yep. Um, quick housekeeping question. So, I have another um there's another subdivision coming up that will come through here. Yes. Town of Derm. Yes, town of Durm. Um,

what is the general rule? because we had we had requested at the preliminary um to do the sitewalk. Is there a is there a general rule of thumb like you do the sitewalk after the preliminary or after the not preliminary sketch excuse me yes thanks for the question at sketch we had asked for the sitewalk and so is there a rule of thumb because some are going after sketch some are going after preliminary is there one way or other should be done at sketch if it's a cluster subdivision this to my debt okay

yeah and I can recall why we I feel like there were some questions in the sketch where we didn't as to why we didn't schedule a sitewalk. I can't recall why we calculations including cliffs and might have been it. That might have been it. Yeah. Yeah. I think Yeah, I think that we didn't have that on there and I think you wanted to see that. I think that was initially I don't know if that was the reason why it wasn't but Yeah. No. Yep. George, thank you. Yeah, you're right. That sketch is when we typically do it. Yeah. We like to get this ironed out or or see the site before this stage typically. Yeah. thing. We too,

right? I think we're good. Is that anything else? Well, so do is there no voting on the preliminary or anything? No. No, we already you voted. They voted on complet. All right, drive safely. Yeah,

I saw the saw the ice the salt trucks out. I was supposed um yeah, George said template. Um, well, I'll just meet him often. And I took a stab at filling it out. I think I captured everybody who was there. There was one gentleman, another Brian. Um, no way. I didn't,

but um I don't remember his last name. I couldn't I looked at the lots on the tax map and his name didn't show up on any of the lots. So, um, I think I captured everybody that was there. Um, good evening perhaps as well. Um, does anybody have any questions, comments, additions, edits to this? No, I would just like to say Brian. This is amazing. Um, I think this is the first time I've ever seen a uh review response from Sidewalk and it was it was great.

Well, I mean, thank George you someone but you did the notes like you actually did the work. Yeah, I think I captured like we didn't have any I don't think we broke any rules while we're that's part of the making sure just a reminder no substantive discussions. Yeah, there weren't. No, Brian had some good comments about the existing um septic tank stuff which is important. I mean I I wouldn't have thought about that for sure. And um it'd be nice to see where that actually is and I don't even know how you would deal with that. I don't know. You have to abandon it and make I don't know what you if you abandon it, you have to know where it is because you can't put the well within 100 feet of it and Yeah. Right. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. No, it's important to have that located on the next submission if if they come back. They'll be back. Um so if you want to just vote to accept that report, that'll go into the record and that's all you need to do. Okay. I'll make a motion to um approve the Durham Planning Board sitewalk record for the uh Durham Heights subdivision. Second. All in favor? Unanimous. All right. Lu ordinance amendments.

Okay. So, uh pretty much I think you're all up to speed with where we are at this point in the process. We've spent all summer and developing the minor the six now six minor policies. You drop noise um and the 10 administrative changes and those are pretty much ready to go if you're satisfied with recommending those to the select board. As I pointed out in my notes, the town manager um and fire chief have come with some additional requests. Uh, one is for modification of the uh the fire in uh chief's inspection of back lot road accesses driveway, excuse me, driveway access. Um, and if he does not do it, then it falls on the code officer. Uh, but somebody has to inspect it. Um, and then the codification of the town planner position. Uh I've been working with the planning board going on six years now

and uh technically the code officer is still listed as the officer of the town that processes planning board applications. So the town manager really wants to see that clarified. So I have provided him with a set of amendments that just simply says wherever it says code officer reviewing and processing planning board application just crosses that out and puts the town planner in that position. but clarifying that the code officer is going to need to refer people to the town planner because the code officer is the person they typically will ask about running a business or doing a commercial building. And so that will be their role. They would just inform the applicant. You have to go to the planning board. Here's the contact information for the town planner. And then the other aspect of it is that once you make your decision on a subdivision or a site plan or conditional use, the code officer is responsible for enforcement by if the town planner has no enforcement role or authority. So the select board last night reviewed that proposal from the town manager and they're on board with it. So it's pretty simple amendment and I'll uh just like I said on those same it can be part of the same set with extending the time limit or time frame for applying to 3 weeks from two weeks and reducing the copies. We can just put that straight through language and new language of town plan right there. Don't even have to make it another issue. Okay. So those two uh you probably did see an email from the code officer today with a bunch of issues that we felt like we already addressed.

Uh so I guess one of the issues other staff members feel pretty strongly about not requiring maintenance agreements on private roads. Uh and pointed out, you know, that's been the policy for 20 years or more. And for that to change would be maybe more than a minor policy issue that you've been the track you've been on. So you did discuss it at the came up at the public meeting information meeting. You said probably not able to be handled as a minor policy issue. So

uh but it came today. I did clarify asked him for clarification about tiny homes. um do they need a foundation or can they can the town require it? So I asked him for that clarification. Uh and I think uh those were oh and they also feel like the having multiple road classifications is not suitable for a town like Durham. But I've made points to the town manager to say all you're doing is adding one classification in case the town gets a big subdivision or the interconnection of subdivisions would potentially bump up to a subcolctor. Um and how when you go for your next round of uh comprehensive plan updates, you have to address transportation. And if you just say, "Oh, we're going to keep all our roads narrow so you can't have sidewalks or bike lanes." Um, this will help the town strategize for convincing Augusta that you do meet the alternative modes because you're making provision for future expansion of those roads within a large rightway. So anyway, for all those reasons, I still feel pretty strongly that the town should have more than just a simple one road classification, even though that's mostly all you get built. I think you need more than that. So, but if the planning board wants to and I did encourage the other staff members to make a proposal um so if that comes forward and they feel adamantly that get rid of uh private road maintenance agreements. I think you do have to discuss whether that does that apply to subdivisions as well as private ways. I think you have to answer that question. Why not? Why' you do one and not the other? So, it's it's a bigger issue than just simply

it is a bigger issue. Just just fix it. Yeah. And this is a major overhaul we're already doing to streamline and get rid of all the confusion. So, that that was I'm not sure if you want to go there or regarding the maintenance agreements. Couldn't that just be rolled into a HOA requirement? Well, with a private way, you don't have an HOA. outside subdivision

and I think like you said what we said at the meeting is is I think true like we we heard them and we want to address this but now is not I don't think is the time to do this right now I mean you've got we've got six minor policy issues 10 administrative changes codification of the entire ordinance with 139 changes we've trying to keep this manageable and avoid any potential that people say well what about this what about that policy policy policy I say we just added to the

that was a strategy that we've taken and but again the this is the process you take input and if you want to consider that and do something different that's fine I think if people understood better it wouldn't be an issue but I I fear that they might not understand and that's what leads to the confusion and they just shut down So, education is important. So, at the very least, you've got the uh fire chief inspections of back lot. I'm assuming you're going to take that recommendation and eliminate that and classification of the town. Yes. Yes. I think definitely

classification of the town planner as the person that handles your I'll make those changes and post it on the website. Yes. But I think we could repeat ourselves. I would like to say that we can repeat ourselves on the maintenance agreement that it is an important topic, but we don't want to cover it right now. We'll cover it next round. Yeah. Similar to the um noise ordinance, um the other thing I want to add to that is um at our last public hearing, we heard from the A committee. Yeah. Well, there was a member of the ad committee that was here, but he made a comment about campgrounds.

Campgrounds. I wrote that down. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think that needs to be on our radar as well. So, what he was saying, I think, is that the definition of the campground is our definition of a campground is different than what the states call a campground. The definition of a campground, not sure if the def was a definition issue was more about the quantity of five or more. Right. Right. This Yeah, that's what five or more. Yeah. So, yeah, something to look into for sure. Um, next round. Yeah, next round. Yeah.

Yeah, I wrote that down, too. And also, another thing that we talked about was the um trash trucks um someone recommended that they should not be going down into subdivisions um and only allow smaller trucks down those subdivisions. And what we just I think discussed and and said is that that should be something between the subdivisions and you know HOA that was a public comment. So was that that came through public comment? Yes it did. Just a trash management proposal has to be one. Doesn't matter what it is but it has to be one.

Yes. Every subdivision needs to say yes. Exactly. But but something that I think at the time we said, you know, we deal with that, you know, folks that live there with the trash, like it's I don't know if that's a town I mean, like a plane board thing. I mean, I think it almost falls into the same category as a road maintenance agreement. It should be part of the HOA, right? Like you all need to figure out how um you're going to deal with refues. Yeah. But I think in this case, they were just talking about subdivisions. They weren't talking about private waves. Yeah. The point of contention was that exactly. Yeah. That's the difference with the the maintenance room is that you do have the private way.

Subdivision roads are built the same as any other road in town. Yes. Supposed to be supposed to be. Correct.

But um so George Yeah. Uh did we kind of answer everything there?

Yeah. And then the last thing is I did give you an update on those. Oh, and I included a schedule, the calendar to tell you when this goes. So if you want to take one more crack at this, you can do that at the January meeting. Otherwise, if you're good to make these recommendations with those last two and ship it off to the select board with that cover letter updated. Uh and the other issue is and get your feedback on this. Town manager and I were discussing it. We had thought minor policies and administrative changes as one warrant article, codification as a separate water warrant article. Still would look at that. But should we break into three warrant articles, minor policy changes, administrative changes, and then codification? The reasoning for that is that it it is less overwhelming.

Even breaking it into the three pieces u just makes it more manageable in terms of and each one can get totally gets bigger as you go. But the last one is really it's just codification. Yeah. Also, if there's issues with one, we can identify those, work through it possibly next time if needed, right? Instead of lumping everything into one, right? Like, yeah, absolutely. I'm for breaking up. Okay. If others are that schedule because we based our schedule off of just two. Now, if we break it up into three, how does that affect schedule?

No. Um, you did the public uh information meetings. Uh we haven't done the codification because we haven't received it yet and we'll probably be doing one. But in the schedule uh in the past you kind of didn't have an extra public hearing because you do such an extensive process. But with the cotification coming in, what I've put into the schedule is a planning uh is a public hearing in um uh public hearing number one on March 18th and that will be where changes can still be made. Okay.

To the part one which is the minor policies, part two which is the administrative changes and part three which is the codification. So you will have a couple of chances to review the codification before then uh and then present it and then have the select board finalize based on if you want to make changes after that first public hearing. Give them the final version. They vote on that and then you have the legally required public hearing on May 20th and that is just simply to tell people here's what's on the ballot but you cannot make changes at that point because it's already been sent out.

Okay, I'm not opposed to breaking it up into three. I just want to see how that affected the schedule. Okay. So again, at this point, if you're good to go, we I can repackage it with those couple of last changes and give it to the send it to the select board under your cover and uh and then they'll give you more time, especially in case that subdivision comes in for the next January meeting. Will the um email that you sent out today from Jerry and Allan, will they will that be attached to the information that goes out to the select board?

If they want to give it to the select board, they can uh that was to the planning board. Yeah, that should go. I mean, you can process that and we're already making those changes unless there's any others in there with the code officer. I do need to look at that issue of tiny homes. Uh I explained that accessory dwelling accessory apartments going to change to accessory dwelling unit in part three. So, it's a non-issue I think. Um, and then unless you feel strongly that they, you know, and you could send it to the select board, say staff is recommending getting rid of maintenance agreements.

No, I think I think that what Ellen and and Jerry were doing were sending it to us to you for our consideration. We're considering it. Yeah. And they're still they're still free and they're they're in the board. Exactly. Right. Exactly. Right. So, I don't think it's necessary to include it specifically. They just got it today. So, yeah. Yeah.

But I do have one more thing to add uh from the hearing uh remember how we had um discussed requiring all land owners to have their taxes paid. Um someone asked the question, well what if someone else is buying their property to develop a subdivision? Do we still require those land owners to have all of their taxes paid? What we have to pay them? Yeah. What we at the time is that they have to have clear right title or interest.

So if there are tax leans on the property, that's that's a title issue, right? Right. So they have to deal with it themselves. Yeah. They can negotiate it and come in and say here's where it is and say, "Yeah, that's okay." Okay. But if if someone cannot pay their taxes, then by definition, they don't meet financial capacity. Yeah. Exactly right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I think at least by putting it in the ordinance, it brings the whole subject up. Yeah. Right. And then we can dig deeper into it. Okay. It hasn't been flagged in the past and it was an issue in the past. Yeah. It's kind of like the solid waste that putting it into the organs just make sure it gets addressed.

Yeah. And then the last thing is the agriculture. And I I did include uh the email that I sent. So they're looking at it and they're either going to do a full package or they're going to do a simple what Jonah called lowhanging fruit for this round and continue uh and they're processing, you know, going to the select board with their proposal. But they had originally submitted the definition saying, "What do we do now?" I think we've responded to that and it's in their court.

Okay. Yeah. I think we had some comments on some things there. Yeah. Some of the definitions. Yeah. We need to clarify a little bit more. I think that was all documented in that meeting. Good. And the last part is the last slide here. Yeah. Um but regarding the comp plan, I think that's big news, I think. Yeah. Just so you know.

Uh okay. So, we've been operating under the assumption that all of those uh projects that are underway, energy, which we didn't get the grant for, economic development, which we're going to find out in January. Mhm. Uh the agriculture, the uh housing which is going to be put off until after codification. All of those issues really are probably going to be the framework of the next comprehensive plan. Uh we were operating under the premise that we had until June of 2029 to have it adopted and certified.

Yeah. In June of 2025, the legislature changed it to 12 years. So, we get two more years to deal with this. Oh, I thought you were going to go the other way around. Yeah. No way. No, it's it's a breathing. Okay. Yeah. So, and and the other thing they clarified is that your or your comprehensive plan continues even if you don't get that certification within that 10 years or now 12 years. It's just that you don't qualify for certain grants from the state if you don't have a certified point. So, it's important. Yeah. But you have now until 2031 to get that done. Okay.

But we should still, you know, keep I still like this visual that you put together. Yeah. And and this this stuff is, you know, probably more important than updating the comprehensive plan. Yeah. because these are real policies that are going to be put into place ASAP compared to a 20-year plan. Yeah. So, every 12 years, huh? Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. I think that covers our agenda for tonight. Does anybody else have anything else they'd like to discuss? Good job. I move to ajourn. I'll second. I I favor. All in favor? I unanimous. All right.

Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Many sirens. No truck out there.

Truck building. playing in my pile. Can't imagine you have your home lumpus.

Oh, she can't find it. You don't You don't want You don't want to know. You really don't want to know. Uhhuh.

She has them all filed alphabetically. Yeah. Everything's really organized at my house. I'm like here like how many years left for that? Well, they're much better.