Planning Board - Regular Meeting

This meeting will come to order. This is a regular meeting of the Planning Board. First item on the agenda, the approval of minutes. I have a motion to approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 7th.

Motion made. Second.

Motion is made and second. Any discussion? I have a comment on page two, Ron. Item seven where it says the general plan for infrastructure water sewer we should add at the end that the town council would consider a draft plan from the planning board i have a motion uh or whoever made the motion do you accept that amendment motion made uh any further discussion All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Those minutes are accepted. We have a motion to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of May 13th.

Motion made. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to approve these minutes. Are there any discussion? I have a comment on page three at the bottom of the page. The motion to approve the waiver, the vote was four to two. with Mr. Peerik and myself voting against it. Does the maker of the motion agree to that amendment?

Motion made. Agreed.

Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Those minutes are approved. Next we have an item of correspondence. It's a letter. From attorney galvin to rest of the landscape. Subject sweet berry farm llc major land development. I have a motion to accept this correspondence. Which news made in seconded. To receive this correspondence any discussion. Those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Correspondence is received. Next, we have some modifications to the agenda. Well, first, I would like to recommend that items 4A and 4B be tabled, not continued, but tabled. So may I have that motion, please?

Motion made. Second.

Motion is made in seconded to table items for a and for B is there any discussion. Any further discussion.

Um, just Matt. Yes. Mr. President, I think it is prudent that, oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think it is president pertinent that when we receive the information that we have been looking for, we bring this back up before the board.

Oh, that's what table means. When we, when we get the input we're waiting for, it'll be put back on the agenda.

Okay. I just want to make sure, because these are important items.

Any further discussion? All those in favor of tabling these two items, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. Motion passes. We will also be continuing item 5A. I have a motion to continue item 5A. Motion made.

Second.

Motion is made and seconded to continue item 5A. Is there any discussion?

This will be continued to the regular meeting on July 8th.

Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. That item is continued to July 8th. Next item on the agenda is item 5B. This is a public hearing, request of Saltwood Farm Development, LLC, the developer of the Saltwood Farm subdivision for approval to modify the approved subdivision plan by further subdividing lot 9, AP 126, lot 409, consisting of 55,573 square feet into two lots. Lot 9A consisting of 34,745 square feet and lot 9B consisting of 20,828 square feet, with each lot containing an existing residential dwelling.

Motion to open the public hearing? Second.

Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. The public hearing is open. Mr. Motley.

Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. David Martin on behalf of Saltwood Farm Development LLC and Peter Gallipo, its principal. So we're here this evening to seek to further subdivide what was originally a lot nine on the approved subdivision plan for the Saltwood Farm development. Presently that property is improved with both a single family home, as well as what was originally a garage, but which also contains an accessory dwelling unit on there. Both of those structures have existed on this property for quite some time. And to take some of the members back in time when they may have not been on the board, Back to 2009, when at the time, Mr. Weber was the chairman. This matter was before the board for a 14-lot major subdivision. approval that was granted by the board back January 22, 2009. And part of that approval was this lot nine was, in fact, two lots, one with the single family home on it and the other lot with the garage on it structure. This is the same configuration that exists on the proposed plan tonight. That lot, according to the maps produced by the state of Rhode Island, they showed a pocket of wetlands or not wetlands, but stissing soil on there. And so it was included as being part of zone one of the Watershed Protection District. We had contended that at the time that those maps were in error, that those soils did not extend into this particular property. PB, Jorge Boone, We had a hearing at the zoning board and the zoning board. PB, Jorge Boone, determine that it would not grant the special use permit for a single family dwelling on on that lot so those two lots that can pray comprised lot nine were. merged together essentially. And so when ultimately the preliminary and final plan approval was done in 2014, it had the configuration with lot nine with what had originally been two lots as one lot. Since then, the state of Rhode Island has updated its maps. not on any particular petition or any input from Mr. Gallipo. They go through and they do this routinely. And they've updated the maps. And they do not show this property as having any of the hydric soils. And so it's no longer in zone one of the Watershed Protection District. So we're here this evening to request the subdivision of this lot into those two lots that were previously on the master plan approval that meets all dimensional requirements. We're not proposing any additional improvements, but it would, it would allow for the single-family home to be on one lot and the conversion of the garage slash ADU to be converted into a single-family dwelling unit. That's sort of it in a nutshell as to what we're looking at. I have with me Mr. Gallipo this evening, who's here to answer any questions, as well as Lynn Small, who's the engineer of record.

So I've got a question.

Yes.

My life is fairly orderly. When I divide things in two, they're the same size. Here you've got a significant difference. You've got a 55,000 square foot lot in one case and one almost 20,000 feet less. Is that just the way it works or was that by design?

I think I would like Lynn Small, who's the engineer of record, who laid out the subdivision originally even.

He was back here in 2009, huh? That's right. Wow. Okay. It's like old times. Lynn?

Do you need this one? Yes. Okay.

We recognize you as an expert.

Oh, thank you. And I promise to tell the truth. Yeah, I did work on this project since the very beginning. I remember this actual meeting when we got the final approval. Actually, you guys agreed to extend the time clock so that we actually testified past like midnight on that night.

So it's historic. Yeah.

But anyway, yes, so we kept the lots of the same as we had originally. I'm sorry, I have Invisalign, so it's making me slur a little bit. When we had the original 14 lots done for the project, and two of them were in the hydric soils, this one and one at the very bottom of the site that's closer to the wetland, we merged those lots into the development, and we never changed any of the site's designs so the utilities the stormwater designs everything stayed in place for 14 lots so you'll see there's no changes proposed um to the civil on this particular petition because it was always over designed by two lots um so when we cut this one we'll be um just taking you know back one of them Um, and we were making a petition, um, to the special use to the zoning board at the time that it wasn't hydro hydric soils. Uh, we had done soil testing, but we were unsuccessful in making that testimony clear enough for the board to, um, vote in our favor. Um, but now we have the Rhode Island soils are, are redefined and they, they don't think it's Mansfield muck anymore as well. Um, so as far as the lots and the way that there are cut, we. there's an existing house and there's an existing garage on the property. So the line is put down where it makes sense for those existing developments. We kind of halved it between the two buildings. So it's not half of the lot, but it's kind of half of where the existing developments are. But we also made sure each of the lots has the minimum required frontage and area. I believe the minimum size of these lots is supposed to be about 15,000 square feet. So both of them are higher than they need to be. Smaller one that we're proposing right now is 20,000. Okay.

Thank you.

The comments? I have a comment. Have you seen the comments from the Roads and Utilities Committee?

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Yes, we have. And I believe that Lynn has spoken to Mr mellow

Yes, so after we received the comment from the Roads and Utility Commission, I reached out to John Mello for some clarity on it. And he agreed that, so the access that we have, that angled access that goes to the common spaces for pedestrians, so that everybody has the right to walk directly to there. It's not a stormwater path per se. You have the right to control stormwater on your property and then discharge across so that it goes to the drainage basins. runoff goes across neighbors' properties always. That's how you get from one point to the next. You don't always have a big area of open space. This property is unique like that. But I did talk through it with John, and he agrees that the details of the stormwater um if that building is demolished and rebuilt into a single family house we'll have to go through that process with him as part of the building permit process they have a storm water um design submission that we have to make and he reviews it and we make sure everything um that we're proposing meets all the codes of the town so you will go through that with the town engineer then absolutely yes okay any other comments

um so at this point we can take comments from the public is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak

My name is Martha Cosiera. I live at 8 Miller Street, and I'm one of Peter and the two Kathy's neighbors. He's done a beautiful job so far developing that large parcel. I've owned my house 52 years, and what Peter is developing now used to be part of St. George's old nine-hole golf course. It is wet. That's why it wasn't developed a long time ago. And I am somewhat familiar with what he's doing. And I just wanted to ask Peter, since we can't really see that from back there, is the garage you're talking about the existing garage that's got the little apartment?

Actually, you have to direct your comment.

Oh, I didn't know that. I'm sorry. So asking you, and you have to ask Peter. Okay. I'm wondering if the garage in question that David is talking about tearing down and then rebuilding into a single family home rather than the existing garage with an apartment above, is that the piece of property in question?

So could... David and Mr. Gallipo respond, please.

At the microphone, we have to get... Peter Gallipo, 135 Bailey Avenue. Affirmative, that's the... That is it. Can I... We're not proposing to demolish it at this time.

Oh, I thought... If we were to... Oh, so how is this going to work? I can't quite visualize.

So the...

The microphone, David.

So what's being proposed is to run a line down the between the garage and the existing single family house and convert the garage into a single family dwelling unit. Could you show us?

Use the microphone that's on the table, David.

So this is the existing garage here. And there would be a lot line right here between these two. And this is the existing lot line separating this lot. So this would remain Peter's. And this is the original house.

Peter's not going to be able to see the sunrise in the morning the way he used to, I guess, if that house is there, but he's done a beautiful job so far developing that large parcel. So good luck and hope we don't drown.

Thank you. Other comments from the public? Any other comments from the public?

You have a motion to close the public hearing? Second.

Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any discussion? Those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. The public hearing is closed. May I have a motion to approve this subdivision subject to the findings?

So it's a request to modify the prior subdivision. So it's the approval of the modification subject to the findings.

So we are approving a modification to the subdivision subject to findings. May I have that motion, please?

So moved. Motion made. Second. I have two motions and no second. Second.

A motion is made and seconded to modify the approval subject to the findings. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Okay, votes aye. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is item 5C. Public hearing application of the collection on Honeyman LLC for preliminary plan approval of a four lot minus subdivision, including creation of a new public street. A waiver is requested from Section 603 of the Middletown Rules and Regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land to allow a street with pavement of width I have a question on this coming up 22 feet where 26 feet is required. Property is fronting on Honeyman Avenue and further identified as tax assessors plat 114 lot 139.

The memo says 24 says 22, which is so it's actually 24. So it was four feet is the request 24 feet is a request. So it's a two foot reduction in the pavement with Okay, thank you.

You have a motion to open the public hearing.

Motion to open the public hearing.

Second. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The public hearing is open.

Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris Duhamel. I'm a professional engineer and land surveyor with Duprete Engineering. I'm also here with the owner of Lewis Kalkagny, and we're here to present the four-lot minor subdivision of Assessors Platt 114, lot 139. This is a three-acre parcel with 173 feet of frontage on Honeyman Avenue. If we could scroll to the existing conditions.

So I'd like to interrupt just for a minute. I'm going to recommend at the end of this that the planning board do a site visit. I think it's an interesting and it's got some little wrinkles we don't see very often. But if you want to go ahead and make your presentation, I think that's fine.

Well, we should probably decide whether we want the site visit before we go through the whole presentation. Other members feel you only need a site visit. It's an empty lot No, but he can walk us through the plans.

I'm sure was worried I Could quickly go through it and then the board could decide okay So we have an existing three acre parcel of land. It's a Existing conditions were surveyed by Dupuit Engineering to a class one standard. We have provided for administrative subdivision plan for the portion of 2,000 square foot portion parcel to the east of the site to rectify a potential adverse possession claim. So that's all been satisfied with the abutter. And it's presented tonight as a one parcel that's again three acres in size the site is has no freshwater wetlands on it the soils are a silt loom soil with groundwater perched at 18 to 22 inches the utilities that service the area are public water and public sewer there's a public sewer on honeyman road public sewer service on honeyman road on this public water on Honeyman Road. On Turner Road there's a sewer easement that leads to the parcel that was extended when the subdivision of the parcel was made two months ago. So there's sewer on Turner Road that can be accessed by Gravity Sewer. The site is zoned Single family, our 20, 20,000 square foot minimum, 120 foot of frontage, 50 foot of width on the cul-de-sacs. If we could jump to the next plan. in the following plan that's the southern erosion control plan so this shows the subdivision overall plan that shows the four lots uh the minimum of 20 000 square foot is provided for all lots 20 000 square foot outside of any easement areas the lots range from 23 000 to 34 000 square foot There's a public right-of-way that's being proposed. It's 267 feet to the center of the cul-de-sac, 300 feet total. The slope of the road at 1%, the site is pretty flat. We are proposing 24 feet of pavement. Honeyman Road, the access has 22 feet of pavement. We're asking for a waiver variance for two feet of pavement. There'll be two 11-foot travel lanes and one-foot Cape Cod berms for the road construction.

What is the roadway with?

It's going to be 24 feet from back of berm to back of berm. Sewer is provided on site. The lot one will have access to the existing sewer lateral on Honeyman Road. Lots two, three, and four will have a private sewer extension that leads to the sewer easement that leads to Turner Road. I'm emphasizing private. The TRC committee had asked that that be provided. uh main owned and maintained by the entire four lot subdivision as a private system water is provided on site we have newport water approval we have fire approval of the hydrant and of the access electric will be underground telephone and electric Stonewater management system has the road in Lots 1 and 2 draining to an extended dry detention basin. Water quality is maintained or improved with a jellyfish sewer manhole leading to the stormwater management system. We're mitigating the runoff from the site to present conditions for the 1 to 100-year storm. Discharge out of the drainage basin is through the drainage easement, a 12-inch culvert in a six-foot easement that is over the land of the cellar. That was negotiated through the lot sale to have access to Turner Road and the drainage system in Turner Road. Again, there's no increase in runoff from pre to post development conditions. The entire watershed area that drains to Turner Road is reduced in volume by the stormwater system.

I've got a question. Sure. You've got three other homes in this area, correct? Yes. And they all have sewer? Yes. And you're going to have to take a line from a long distance away to get to this house?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Well, it seemed to me that you were going to have a hook into a hook, the sewer line, but it was not one that's already existing for the other three houses. Is that right or I missed the boat here? And what does private mean exactly?

Private is simply who owns it, who maintains it. If there's any issues, it does not go to the town. It goes to a homeowners association. And the four lots, not just the three that will utilize that sewer easement, the four lots in total will fund that escrow.

Is that the usual way a homeowners association works with sewer lines?

Homeowners association, yeah, they typically maintain the drainage system. In town and Middletown, all the drainage structures, outside of the right-of-way, that is, would be maintained by a homeowners association. The water, Newport water, the sewer, if there was a private pumping station, if there was grinder pumps,

certainly the the town would not maintain those well i ask you that question because i live in a home in a homeowners association and it's not private it's maintained by the town I live on Island Drive, you know, 32 houses. So as far as I know, the town takes care of it. It's not private.

It can be either. The town, the DPW in this case, wanted the easement to be maintained by the three houses, and I don't see any hardship.

Is that unusual that All of a sudden, they don't like the three little houses and they want to have you guys do the burden. I mean, what the heck? Why? I don't understand that, but that's okay.

Sure. There's not a lot of maintenance that's anticipated.

Ron, do you want to make a comment? Yeah, just to add on to that conversation. What's different about this is that the sewer line is contained within a private easement. So the concern was having proper access for the town to maintain it. So that's how it differs from something like your subdivision.

Thank you. Okay. Fine.

Thanks. Okay. So the... Back to maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the drainage system would conform to all RIDM requirements. We have RIPTI's approval for the site construction of the stormwater management system. All maintenance required for the sewer system would be specified to be by the homeowners association. you know, potential routing or jetting of the sewer. In the case of a backup, it's not anticipated any regular period of time. It's not required once a year, twice a year, more than once a year. So there's there's none of that requirement so it's it's minimally minimal maintenance for the sewer system it's all gravity services there's no pumps to monitor or no generators that are that are required so it's a very simple system. The road the roadway if we can go on to the next we have. Have landscaping if we could keep going. The last page, I believe, is a subdivision page. That's the landscape. We have landscaping that's provided with three trees, six trees along the right-of-way. And we have shrubbery bushes to hide the drainage system as best possible from the abutters. So it's a very simple minor subdivision this the first time that we've been in front of the planning board with this we've been in front of the planning staff with with pre application review. But we in a minor subdivision there wasn't a master plan, this is the preliminary plan where we come in with all the state approvals. uh there's some conditions of the of the trc that are outstanding pending and the our roads and utilities memo that was received this week so i anticipate meeting with the town engineer john mellow and and uh answering all these questions in written form at the next next level

I have a few questions.

Certainly.

So my first one, and I know this is just the high level. And I am not a designer. So take that into account. Why four houses that are four bedroom dwellings? You know, why not five? Why not three? Why not 10? Why not two bedroom or six bedroom? Why is this the plan before us with four houses?

I could let the owners speak to the specifics, but different alternatives were certainly evaluated. Given comprehensive permits, you could have a greater density. Given a larger-sized lot, up to 30,000, I believe, you could have a duplex. But given the neighborhood and the value of the neighborhood, single-family lots were preferred.

Okay, yeah, I know our 20 is 20,000 feet minimum, and you guys have 32 extra 1000 square feet, I just did some quick math of a lot of these lots are oversized, like even above the requirement. So it's if I were a developer out at another house, you know, make more return on investment, personal opinion, but thank you. And my final question is, what determines the size of the detention pond?

It's analyzed based on the existing runoff of the site before any development. This is a grass farm field that has a high runoff coefficient. Building the impervious roofs, the roads, creates a higher runoff. And that higher runoff has to be captured and mitigated within that drainage basin. And that's for the one year to the 100-year storm. So we're retaining that storm flow on site within that area and discharging at the rate below the existing level.

And then where does that runoff go once it discharges? Is that to the west?

Yeah, the natural slope of the site is to the east. To the east. North being up and east being to the right. Okay. And that watershed is being maintained. What existing conditions are, we're discharging less than that runoff.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Comments?

I have some comments. On the impact statement, do you have a copy in front of you? No. Copy available for him to look at?

I could answer the question. Well, okay.

On page four, it says that the is a significant grade towards the southeast boundary, and yet the detention pond is put in the northeast corner. What's the rationale for that?

We captured as much of the watershed as we could within the area where that detention basin is located. The southeast boundary, has an area that cannot drain to that that area so that we compensated the increase in runoff with dry wells for lots three and four and we're retaining infiltrating the 100 year storm for dry walls and that but we needed an outlet for the for the for the roadway And locating the drainage within the southeast corner, we could not secure a drainage outlet at that location, given the abutters. We did try. If the water flows to the southeast, how does it get to the detention pond? Well, it's captured. The roadway is built and pitched to the detention pond. Lots one and two are naturally above the detention pond. So anywhere from that detention pond going west, that whole area is captured. 100% of it is captured and drained to the detention pond, held, mitigated, then let out. And the areas east of that cul-de-sac drop off, and the impervious areas are captured and infiltrated into the proposed dry wells. The grass areas, they will discharge without mitigation, but the cumulative impact is less than what the existing runoff is.

Thank you. On page five, it says that this site had previous agricultural use. Is there any issue with pollutants in the soil?

There is some planting beds that are on the existing conditions plan. We did not do any analysis of the soils. That's the question.

On page seven, you make the statement that the amount of water used is roughly equal to the amount of sewer quantity, sewage quantity. Other engineering firms usually say that the sewage flow is about 80% to 85% of the total water demand. You're all reputable engineering companies. Why do you differ on this point?

I don't feel that's significant, 80% versus 100%. It's conservative to design for 100%.

But it does increase the water demand, and so you're using a non-conservative value.

Water demand would be what? Typical RIDM requirements are 115 gallons per bedroom.

I know the number is not large. I'm just curious about the way the analysis is done. Reputable engineering firms differ on this. I don't understand why.

I would not discount 80%. 80% is defendable. But I would think you'd use the more conservative value. A more conservative value would be 100% of the water use.

The issue is, you make the statement that the water demand is equal to the sewage demand, and other companies say it's greater than the sewage demand. The water, the sewer demand comes from- I mean, some water is used for watering the lawn. That does not go into the sewer.

Right, we're not accounting for any irrigation within these calculations.

Yeah, but I think that's why other companies say that the sewage is usually 80 to 85 percent of the total water demand.

We can get more into this, but irrigation demands could be doubled four times. I know it's not a big deal.

I'm just curious why you use the less conservative value rather than the more conservative value.

It's not less conservative, Mr. Croce. Chairman Croce, it's conservative because the amount of water that's going through the meter discounting any irrigation is 100% analyzed to go into the sewer system.

Well, that's true, but there's water... I mean, this relates to the requirement of water supplied by the water company, not what goes into the sewer.

Yeah, so we have approval from Newport Water for the water demand.

But the demand you gave them is equal to sewage flow, not the larger flow that other companies use. That's... I just don't understand why you do that.

I could just add the calculation is actually flipped the other way. You start with the water demand.

Yeah, but he didn't do that. He started with the sewage calculation. That's why I'm asking the question.

He started with the sewage calculation.

But anyway, it's not a big deal. I'm just curious, that's all. Also, on the last page, It's not clear who's going to maintain the stormwater system. Is it the town or the homeowners association?

It's the homeowners association.

The homeowners association. I also have some questions on your drawings. Okay. I'm looking at the site plan. You have no sidewalk shown, and I would think it would be wise to put a sidewalk in. You don't have to put it on both sides of the road. You could put it on one side and around the circle, but it would be a good idea. I know Honeyman has no sidewalks, but you never know in the future. It could have. So I would suggest you add a sidewalk to your plan.

If I could just make one point, three or four lots with frontage on Honeyman, 24-foot wide of pavement. Each lot owner is going to know their neighbor. 260 feet of straight right-of-way with site distance over that whole area. There's no chance to accelerate. at 25, 30 miles an hour in a cul-de-sac, so I would ask for consideration of no sidewalk.

Personally, I would like to see a sidewalk there. Also, this point, have you seen the comments from the Roads and Utilities Committee? Yes. Did you see the comment about the slope in lot four on the, well, the comments say the eastern boundary, but it should say the southern boundary.

Yeah, we specify that out as close to 2.8 to 1, almost 3 to 1, and that's a maintainable, mowable slope.

But according to Mr. Mello, the town engineer, the slope should not be brought down to the property line. It should be at least 5 feet from the property line so a swale could be put in there.

We do have it offset five feet, not by design, by chance, and it's still at three to one. So I can work with Mr. Mello on that if he thinks a retaining wall.

I would like you to work with Mr. Mello on that point. Okay. Okay. Have you seen the comments from the the tree Commission? They suggested adding another street sleep Hey, we would we would inform of that it's a lot to Have you seen that comment I Guess I have not They were looking at the street trees that you have running along the roadway and felt that you could add another street tree on the east of the trees that you're putting in, that there's room there for another street tree.

I'm sure we could fit one in. You can see there's one on the lot one, lot two, lot line.

Yes, and right beside that one, they're saying you could add another street tree.

We had utilities in that area, but we'll fit one in. There's the hydrant in that area. There's the services to lot two.

Would you check to see if, I mean, do you agree that you can put a sidewalk in?

I agree one would fit, I just didn't think it was warranted given. I think it would be wise to put it in.

Better to have it than to not have it. I would like to add that as a condition for approval. That's all the comments I have. Anybody else have comments?

That's good.

Thank you. At this point, we can open it up to the public. Comments from the public? Sorry.

Thank you, Chairman. I'm one of the abutters to this proposed subject.

State your name and address for the record.

Kathleen Mitchell, 447 Turner Road.

Thank you.

My question has to do with the proposed drainage easement from the detention pond. It's different on some of the drawings that I've looked at, the main site map and then the one on page seven from the Duprete Engineering packet. There's no exact dimension, so it's hard to tell exactly the dimensions of where it is. I have a survey. Three quarters of that driveway belongs to me, so I would request that there's something in writing against, plotted against my survey showing that it's not encroaching at all.

Could you show us on the drawing what your concern is? You can use the microphone that's on the table. Use the microphone that's on the table, please.

Yeah. Here's the detention pond and here's the proposed six foot drainage.

Yes, sure.

Whatever they're calling it. And so I'm plot 141. Lot 141, excuse me, which is right here. So my driveway or my land, I should say, is about three quarters of this driveway. So it appears as though they're running it along. the part that doesn't belong to me. But there's no dimensions or anything. I don't know if it's been plotted against my survey, if they looked it up with the town of Middletown or anything. So I would receive clarification on exactly where this is so that there's no encroachment onto my part of the property.

Is that a town easement?

You have to ask the applicant. I'm not sure.

Do you know if that is a town easement?

It's an easement granted by the seller, and it's on the seller's property. It's shown on the last sheet, the record plan sheet, if you want to bring that up.

So are you saying it doesn't impact her property?

Yes, it doesn't show. It does not impact her property. I would

respectfully request something in lighting in writing with just showing that it an overlay for my is that something you could provide to her Chris if you got that would that be okay yes I just want to make sure that it's not crossing over into my property if they could provide that um how would that happen to you do I need to contact them directly or write it to you and I would submit it through the planning so he will say he will send it to Ron and Ron will get it to you Okay, and will there be more public hearings or it seems like it's preliminary as you mentioned so there seems there's other conditions so I would just ask that I received that before there's any sort of vote on this so that I have clarification.

One of the condition to it. I was just going to say one of the proposed conditions is that they supply or provide the easement documents, existing easements and proposed easements to be reviewed prior to final approval. There would be no further board action. Final approval would be done administratively, but they would have to provide all that information.

Okay, so I would have an opportunity, though, after receiving something in writing with an overlay on my survey to then contact the planning board if I'm not happy with the result.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. Are you the prior owner who granted the easement?

No.

They're saying the easement's not on your property.

The easement is a narrow strip.

Yeah, they're saying the easement is not on your property.

Right, that's what they're saying, but I would like something in writing

We have the survey plan.

Well, that's what I'm saying. So I don't have that. So if I could have something in writing with an overlay of my survey so that I know for sure, because after they start digging, it's oops, so we're on your property.

So Ron, the way I understand it, Chris will provide a document. They'll send it to you. You can get it to her. And that will be done before final approval is given. Is that right? We can act tonight on this.

If you choose to, sure.

If we choose to, yeah. But before final approval, you'll have the document.

Great, okay, thank you. So that will come from you, sent to me after you receive it from him. Thank you.

Thank you.

Certainly provide that sheet seven plan.

Chris, microphone.

Oh, you mean the main document. I don't have that.

location of the easement off of property lines.

Right.

Chris, will you provide a document for her? Yes. Okay.

That site as well.

Right, I would just like it with an overlay of my survey, just so I'm clear that there's no encroachment.

Very good, thank you.

All my information's in here, thank you.

Thank you for recognizing me.

Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? Lady.

My name's Kathleen Kroger. I live at 215 Honeyman, which is directly north of the house that they're building now. And I have issues regarding, first of all, the road, the water runoff, the soil quality, and the air related to the soil quality as they're digging. The road, when we purchased our house 30 years ago, there's a paper road in between our property and the house that's being built now. So that paper road seems to have totally disappeared because they're building right through it. issue is not a major one at this point, but I just wanted to point that out that that's the first discrepancy. The second discrepancy is the water and the fact that they're saying there is no wetland. There was absolutely wetland. I have met with an engineer. I met with Warren Hall in the years past. We have a water runoff problem, a very serious water runoff problem. We hired our own civil engineer. to come and help us grade the property and put drains in. And Warren Hall came and cut a berm that had been put in place when they did the new road. He made a cut in it so that the water would run off that paper road area. directly south of our land, adjacent to the house that's being built now, so that the water would run on. Our neighbor across the street, Ed Sylvia, has lived there since he was a very young man, and he tells us there's a pond there, and they've built a house on it, and they have brought in so much soil that they've changed the water runoff. They've changed everything. It's this high. in comparison to our land now. It's so much higher than our land that it's a real concern. We're going to be flooded. And I really disagree and contest the fact there is no wetland. Two years ago, there were ducks living in it, and children were coming by to see the ducks that were living in this little pond. It's not that it's a deep pond, but when it rains, the water piles up and it doesn't perk. And our land notoriously does not park properly. And that's the whole area. It's all shale. In addition to that, my concern is the soil. Hugendorn owns this or rented this property from the Shavs. And he grew commercial plants there. And he told me personally he was using malathion. In addition to that, there's arsenic in the soil. There's arsenic everywhere in our soil. And they're not using proper procedures in their construction of this initial home. They're not wetting the soil. It's dusty and dirty. The excavator is having it fly around, particularly now that it's drier. You know, like in the beginning of the construction, it was rainy, so that there was not dust. But I mean, we are breathing in this dust with malathion and arsenic in it, and they haven't done any soil testing at all to determine what is in the soil. And Hugendorn told me personally he was using malathion. The property itself drains from the middle of the lot to the west, and they're putting a drainage pond in the northeast corner, I believe it is. It doesn't make sense. And the fact that they're saying that they're gonna do privately owned sewerage doesn't make sense either, because this sewerage is gonna be a serious problem. We've always had water problems. We put in drains on our property for that very reason. It was the Mills Engineering Company.

Mike, who decides whether wetlands exist or not?

That's the state. Makes that determination.

Determined by the state? Excuse me? It's determined by the state?

Yes.

And has the state said that there are or there are not wetlands there?

We have an approval that there are no wetlands and the drainage system as presented to the planning board is... From DEM?

I disagree entirely, and I would like to contest that. Just from the fact of what our neighbors see and what we have lived with for over 30 years, I could have people come and dispute that fact. Because if they test in a dry season when it's not raining, it is dry. It's not a wetland. But if it rains at all and not a 100-year storm, I'm not talking about a 100-year storm.

I personally don't know the requirements that DEM uses to determine whether or not wetlands exist, but I'm sure they have expertise on their staff.

My concern is what's going to happen to our property with this being built. I mean, they can build their houses, it's fine, but they're going to affect our property.

First, on the question of wetlands on the property, it sounds as though DEM feels there are no wetlands on the property. The question of runoff is another one. And I would like, Chris, do you have any comments on the runoff onto her property?

Yes. Your property is to the north. And in between the boundary of your property and the south and the north of this property is a stone wall. Stonewall on the north property.

Could you show us where your property is on?

OK. So there is a swale that's just south of the property line that exists today. Chris, could you show us? Use the mic, please. So when we analyzed the stormwater management system, we couldn't just look at what our property generates. We had to look at what other properties generate that is captured by the stormwater system. So we had analyzed the watershed to go north of our property line to include the areas that are mapped as higher than our property that would drain through this area. Even though there's a heavy vegetative line that might have it channelized along the property line, the shared property line, but we considered it going through the heavy vegetative area and getting within the property system, the drainage system. And then we captured that and routed that overland flow to the drainage pond.

Chris, you're saying that the water from that lot flows from the lot to the south?

It does. This lot is not higher than the northerly lots. The northerly lot is higher, so it drains south. That's absolutely not true.

Okay, absolutely not true. Come and do a site visit, because the house that they're building, they have brought in so much fill, and they have dug up the foundation, you know, so they have a lot of fill, it is higher than our property. It's visually significantly higher.

Is that a temporary, if I could finish. If I could finish. During construction and excavation, the foundation is required to be four foot below the frost line, to have it 42 inches, which is below the frost line. So that excavation has to continue, and it's piled around that. But along the northerly boundary, that's going to be a swale that's not going to change. Whatever water gets... from your property to this property will continue to go to this property. And then it's going to be routed to the detention basin in this area. This land here is lower than the detention basin This will flow to this area. I know you don't care, but I'm just explaining for the board that there's a watershed that ends at the cul-de-sac leading up to the detention basin. So this entire area, whatever drains to it today is going to continue to drain, be captured in this drainage pond, mitigated, and then discharged by the 12-inch culvert into Turner Road. So this flow, if you have flow going onto this land today, it's going to continue to go on that land today. The mounding around the foundation, it's going to be limited. There's going to be a swale that's going to be provided to continue the flow away from your property.

Chris, are you saying that the mounds of dirt that she sees now are just temporary for construction?

Yes, yes. The landscaping hasn't.

Does that sound reasonable to you? microphone.

How much higher does the foundation usually come above grade?

What's what's important microphone, microphone, microphone.

There's no typical usual. It's based on what the water table is and what the sub-drains are in order to be above that. But what is typical is that any water that discharges onto the property, continue that and be routed away from the property line. It's not pushing water off-site. That would be against the town planning board rules.

Exactly. And that's what I'm saying.

It sounds like they're addressing that.

Yes, I'm concerned about it. I'd like you to come and see it. When they dug the hole for the foundation, it flooded immediately.

That sounds like a temporary situation during construction.

Could be, but I'm telling you, it's wet. It's always been wet. We've always had a problem, and it's not directly related to a 100-year storm.

And the town does provide inspections during construction. The developer has to pay for inspections.

I do understand that. It's not just the design. I have a concern.

One minute, please. Is that the town engineer or the public works to make sure that doesn't happen? That the water doesn't flow in the opposite direction that it will be in fact. Flowing in the direction that it's currently flowing.

Well, yes, the, the applicant produces the stormwater management plan, the town engineer. And the roads and utilities committee have reviewed it. there's a proposed condition um that final um review of that stormwater management plan must be completed and approved by the town engineer prior to final plan approval so it's all being reviewed sure so it will be taken care of i understand but i have not met a new town engineer warren hall knew the property

and helped us with the water problem in the past. He has seen it.

John Mello was a very good engineer. You should talk with him.

Okay. But I don't believe that he's actually seen it following a storm.

Well, they...

It's a problem.

He was part of the review that the Roads and Utilities Committee did, so I think he's familiar with it.

Okay. Then if you could direct me to the proper authority about the soil and the air and the fact that an excavator should be wetting down the soil in dry times... before they start to dig it up i have a pool i have grandchildren i've had lung cancer i need it to be not dusty and dirty breathing in the dirt that i'm breathing in it doesn't seem appropriate

Well, the building inspector, I think I explained to you when you came into my office to speak to the building inspector about construction practices and what they're required to do. I've called several times and they've never called me back. That's the authority. I've been to the office and no one's there. That's the authority.

You know, I'm getting, I don't have a problem with these people building houses. I mean, it's fine, but don't affect my life and my property. You know, you should expect the fact that the soil, the air and the water runoff needs to be taken care of properly. And I don't believe that that's being done. And that's why I'm here this evening.

Well, I think you should talk with the building inspector.

Additionally, has since that was in agriculture, has the soil been tested for Leftover chemicals?

The lawyer said, no, it has not been tested. As I said, it's just verbal from Mr. Hugendorn, who rented the property from the of the chemicals he was using for many, many years.

Who has to test the soil for chemicals? Will our people do that? No?

No, there's no town testing of soils.

So what happens if somebody wants to get their toilet, they have to get a private person to come out there and test it?

Is it the state's responsibility to ensure that my air is good quality?

Well, the soil should be tested by a professional. Most people that have been in agriculture use chemicals at one time or another.

Absolutely.

And some of them...

I just don't want to breathe it in.

Some of them go away rather quickly. Others are more reticent and stay in. So you may have to go find a... I think it's worthwhile to get somebody to test the soil.

And then what would I do with that information?

We need to bring those...

The DEM.

Yeah. DEM.

And what would they do? I mean, it just seems like circular.

If the soil has been tested and it's packed with chemicals which are harmful for people or animals, I think there's a problem. And that would have to be remediated, not by you, but by the builder. So I think since you've got children that come to see you and participate in things, it's definitely worthwhile to have that soil guaranteed that there's not anything harmful

And can you recommend someone to do that? Do you know of anyone that does that or a company that does that? I don't.

I cannot, no. The best, I would call DEM.

Okay.

Explain your challenge here and ask them to recommend a soil tester. So a professional can come out there, test the soil, maybe DEM tests it and comes back and you know exactly what's going on there.

Okay. Okay? Will you come out and take a look at the property and the flow?

Well, if it's a temporary condition, you should check with the building inspector to make sure that's the case. If dust is a problem, he will make sure that they're following the proper procedures during construction.

Is this Chris we're talking about?

sorry yeah so i i i would make a list of what we've recommended tonight building inspector do xyz okay em soil testing xyz so are you going to approve it tonight and it's just going to go through i mean i don't want to

work backwards, you know what I mean? If you approve it and then I come back, I don't have another hearing from what I understand from what you said to, there's not gonna be another hearing?

There isn't another hearing as far as I know. What happens if we act on this this evening and then the soil is tested and DEM says there's a problem?

Well, if you approve the plan, the plan is approved.

That's it.

There would be a final submission that would be approved administratively, and that's just confirming that the conditions applied tonight are met.

It doesn't say anything about anything else.

About anything else.

Well, if they did get the soil, if she got the soil tested and found something.

I mean, that would be up to the board. If you wish to continue the matter for more information, that's something you could do.

It's my understanding that regardless of soil conditions, our approval would basically have to be put on hold. And if the soil is a problem, DEM is going to require it be cleaned before they can build. It's got nothing to do with us.

Well, right. If someone tests the soil and that test turns up with some negative results, that gets reported to DEM.

Right. And DEM takes over. We don't have any control.

No, the town wouldn't be involved in that.

Our approval or non-approval has no bearing on that fact at all. Very simple. If there's a soil issue, DEM stops the project. Okay. We don't stop it.

I understand. All right, so I will contact them and ask for a recommendation for testing the soil. I thought it would be the responsibility of the builder to do that.

Well, if a property is not deemed to be contaminated... And you can't just request that it be.

No, but that question was asked by one of the other board members, did you have the soil tested? And the answer was no. Right. Is it normal to have the soil tested? Not always. It's an agricultural. If it was.

I mean, if you would like to have the soil tested, you should make those arrangements.

I will. I will. So then my only other question is about the water runoff. Now, suppose a year from now there's a storm and we flood. Who's responsible for that? You know, I just want to make sure that we are safe and secure in our own home.

Well, the technical review committee has reviewed the plans and the town engineer has looked at the stormwater controls and they made a favorable recommendation. That means that they're following all of the requirements that the town ordinances put forth. And those requirements are that water does not flow where it's not flowing now and it must even be less than what it is now. So if they're following those rules, then those approvals have been made. Or those checks have been made.

And I assume each of the houses has some sort of drainage system, some exterior drains, whatever, that is not going to lead north.

There's no pumping. He said it's just gravity draining. Gravity.

Okay.

That is what you said.

It is not going to lead into her property. It's going to go into that system on the northwest or east side, right?

There will be no need for a sump pump.

There will be no alteration of the drainage to go northerly. It will continue to drain southerly into a swale and then into the detention basin.

Thank you.

Thank you. Gentlemen.

My name is Charles McBain, and my wife and I own 475 Turner, which is southeast. It's lot 143, which is pretty much where all the flow is directed. And I'm not standing up here to oppose the subdivision or the building of the houses, but I have some concerns about the stormwater, the management particularly. Right now, topographically, There it's about elevation 181 from the drainage from the detention ponds to the southwest corner the subdivision and. At the corner of our property it's about 170, which is a 10 foot drop over that area, and I understand that there are. dry wells for lot three and four but the um this the water table is about 18 to 24 inches and the dry wells i think are only two and a half feet deep so what's what happens when those dry wells overflow and uh with the newly affected area the new grades is that going to increase the flow along the southeast boundary through our lot Um, ask all of them. Yeah, I'll ask all of them at once. The other thing is during construction before the detention pond or the. dry wells are constructed, what's going to protect our boundary in the event of a major rainstorm. More than just a silt fence because they're going to have to excavate and the grade will get built up. I'm a local builder, so I'm familiar with everything. I understand what has to happen in the process. I just want to make sure that we're not going to have a massive amount of soil washing onto our property. Beyond what the silt fence can accommodate. And then. yeah another concern not necessarily concern, I just want to confirm that the sewer easement is going through an existing easement through our yard. And is that going to an existing tie in or will that have to be excavated and tied into the. line on Turner. Chris, could you comment?

Use the microphone.

So the first was about drainage and the effect of So here's the southeast corner. This is the lot. Here's the sewer easement that was just mentioned. The entire site will, from this ridge 50 feet in east, drains to the east, to this southeast corner. So what this plan does is by constructing a road and by constructing a drainage basin, it's cutting off all this area and routing it away from this corner. So that alone is a big disadvantage. reduction in runoff water. The remaining area will continue to drain to the southeast corner. And we're picking up these areas of the roofs, and we're routing them to dry wells. So the 100-year storm, the 8.5-inch storm, will be routed 100% into these dry well areas. And these are designed so that they're a minimum two feet above the water table. So there's some granular fill that's being constructed to build these dry wells. And the Grignard fill has a capacity that's even greater than what's being analyzed by the stone layer and by the distribution pipes that would retain the water, infiltrate at the infiltration rate of the silty soil that exists out there. So there's a reservoir that's available for these two roof leaders. So you're losing all this area. um from drainage you're losing the roof from drainage so what's left over what drains to here is these grass areas and that's calculated to be less than what the entire area was to this point so that's that's how you the reduction in stormwater runoff is um that's how the uh dm approved proved that design um the other issue was uh uh soil erosion control we have a soil erosion control plan that's within the plan set uh that provides for a silt soap basin so this runoff water would be discharged to this area maintained as a soap base and not not to the southeast corner where it naturally goes to it'll be rerouted to this area And then the remaining, um, area as undisturbed before construction would would have, uh, that so. So barrier, uh, along the property line. Um, part of the, uh, some erosion control plan is the maintenance of that inspection of that during construction inspection during storms after every, uh. every one or two inch storm to maintain that there is no sediment that discharges offsite. It's most important in areas, That private property, so this area where this water drains to now this would have more of an oversight than say the the upland areas, but the whole the whole site three acres is going to be inspected and reports issued so that there's no no so that's migrating off site. And lastly, the sewer, we camera the existing six-inch sewer, and we found it to be competent and in good condition, and there was no need to have excavated a new sewer.

So, sorry, just one more question. Did you model the flow along the southeast boundary, and it's going to be the same or better?

Yeah.

Okay. And then you mentioned the disturbance during construction of lot one and two. But what about during the construction of lot three and four, which are really the primary, they're downhill of that detention bond? What's the plan?

There would be there would be the sole and the property boundary would be additional.

That's a self fence.

That's a self fence.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public who wishes to speak?

Want to speak? One online?

No. I get a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? favor say aye aye opposed nay chair votes aye public hearing is closed i have a motion uh now this is for preliminary plan approval but we've added some conditions one condition is the addition

Why don't you raise your concern before we... Based on looking at a lot of papered lines tonight, I want to go out there and see it. I want to walk it. I want to see which is down and which is up. and I want our lady to get that soil tested, okay? So I'm recommending a site visit, which will have members of the planning board and the abutters will be notified so we can all see it. In reality, I'll call it on the battlefield. I think we have a clearer view, and I want to see and reflect what people have told us tonight about it goes this way, it goes that way. so uh what we'll do is we'll recommend this be continued we will do a site visit in the next couple of weeks and then we'll bring this back for consideration for decision next month

As the applicant, I'd like to address a couple things in terms of the...

Excuse me, the public hearing has been closed.

I'm not the public. Let's just wait a second. So if there is going to be a site visit, the public hearing would need to be open. And if the applicant wants to speak, we should... reopen the public hearing for that reason. So there's multiple reasons that now would be a good time for a motion to reopen the public hearing.

Yes, I agree.

We have a motion to reopen the public hearing.

Second.

Motion is made and seconded to reopen the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Chair votes aye. The public hearing is reopened.

comments so i'm the applicant lewis cal cagney representing the collection on honeymoon And I wanted to ask the board about the sidewalks.

About?

The recommendation for sidewalks on a minor subdivision and where is that regulation? Because we didn't seek a waiver for that. The only waiver that we seeked was a public road width from, I think it was the 26th to the 24th feet.

Those sidewalks are required now, Ron. The construction standards, roadway construction standards and the regulations, it does discuss sidewalks.

or recall the exact in in minor subdivision any subdivision other comments because would the board be open to voting on the quantity of the units based upon the frontage and the setbacks that are all met

Well, I think if the board wants to take a site visit, we should do that before we vote on anything. But we would have to continue this to the next meeting and schedule a site visit in between.

I guess the site visit wouldn't change any of the math, right? It wouldn't change the stormwater calculations or the sewer calculations or the frontage or the setbacks.

What I hear is there's concern about what the situation really is, and they would like to see it for themselves.

Yeah, I mean, I guess when you live next to a property that's not engineered and designed to drain and retain all its own water, you know, your current home is actually at risk now, opposed to when a property is engineered by a professional engineer and also peer reviewed and approved, that the quality of the stormwater runoff is going to be an improvement to the overall surroundings. which is just typical math.

I understand the point you're making, but we have a request from a member to make a site visit before we vote on it. So if I would like to hear what the other members of the board have to say on, on this request.

Sure.

I, you know, certainly support my fellow board member. However, personally, I'm very comfortable with what I've seen and understand. But at the same time, I support my fellow board member.

How do you feel, Matt?

I think we should do a site visit, but you're asking for us to approve the number of lots, right?

Yes. Based upon the math and the engineering that was done for the frontage and the setbacks and all the requirements that have been met based upon the buildable land area. It's basically a Form A subdivision.

I think we should, if we're going to do a site visit, we should conduct a site visit before we vote on anything.

my concern is like we do a half approval like how you guys would have to come back again anyways when you have to if we do a site visit we could we can come back and prove the rest of the math in terms of you know the engineering and the storm water and all that sort of stuff but i think what's what's Very solidified tonight is, you know, the roadway, the frontage, the setbacks, and that. I guess we can still walk around and measure it.

You typically do not bifurcate.

Yeah, I know. I mean, we're voting on what's been submitted today. And if the planning board members wish to have a site visit, we should do that.

I'm not opposed to that at all. I was just asking.

All right.

So why don't we have a motion to continue this to the July 8th meeting?

And Ryan, you can schedule a site visit for the planning board between now and the next meeting.

I'll make a motion that we continue this until next month.

Yeah.

Okay. I have a motion to continue. Do I have a second?

Second.

So we have a motion to continue this application request until the regular meeting July 8th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. This item will be continued until the July 8th meeting. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. At this point, it's almost 730, and we're going to have to end this meeting at 745 because a member has to leave. So I'm also going to request that item 5D also be continued. So may I have that motion?

So moved. Second.

So a motion is made and seconded to continue item 5D to the July 8 meeting. there any discussion all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay chair votes aye item 5d is continued to the july 8th meeting now uh the planning board still has a few items to deal with um yeah hold on a second i'll take care of it All right, for item 5E, I would like to continue that to the July 8th meeting, but modify it so that it reads a nonvoting liaison member. Ron? Item 5E, I would like to continue that, but modify it so that it reads a liaison member, a nonvoting liaison member. Okay, so may I have that motion to continue that subject to that change?

Motion made. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to continue item 5e with the change as requested. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. That item is continued. Item F. spoken to matt about that I think this might be best handled with a special meeting, given the likely duration of that presentation so. With everyone's approval matt's approval primarily can we set up a special meeting for that presentation. Okay, do we need a motion for that no okay. Item 5G, I would like to continue that to the regular July 8th meeting, but I have a question for you on that, Ron. It sounds like the current or the most recent draft would be acceptable as is, so long as the planning board approves it to send it to the town council. In terms of the state law? in terms of state law okay so there's no need to do an update on that okay so let's just continue that to the july 8th meeting may i have that motion please motion to continue a motion is made and seconded to continue item 5g to the regular meeting on july 8th is there any discussion all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay chair votes aye motion passes Item 5H, consideration of establishing a planning board subcommittee to study and make recommendations on potential creation of a wastewater management district and a stormwater utility. I think this is a good topic for a subcommittee and I would like to appoint that subcommittee this evening. I would like Art Weber to serve as chair and the members be Charlie Valancourt and myself.

Everyone agreed to that and so it's up to you to all meetings and do every.

item five I. We do not yet have a draft of the one pager that we're going to send to the town council so i'd like a motion to continue this to the July 8 meeting. We have that motion place made. have a second second the motion is made and seconded to continue item five i to the july 8th meeting any discussion all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay chair votes aye motion passes item six updates are there any comments on um the project update document you can make the comment

Before we get to that, I think we need to continue 5C. It was an application of the collection on the Honeyman for the industrial 5D. Excuse me. We already did that.

We did that.

We did that? Yeah, we did that. OK, sorry.

So any comments on the status report? I have one question, Ron, on the very first item on the comp plan. What's the current status on that?

So we're actually, Rudy just today gave me a draft document that's going to show comparison of the implementation programs between the 2015 and 2025 plan. Still going to do a little bit more work on that. And then I figured I would show it to you and see where we go from there.

Have you heard from the state yet?

Oh, no, no.

Nothing from the state? Not yet, no. So if this document showing the comparison gets completed, I assume we'll let the planning board review it and get their approval. Still wait for the state decision on it?

Well, I guess that's a call that the board would make. We can certainly go ahead and schedule the public hearing City Council Chambers, Once that comparison document is available if you'd prefer to wait until state comments are in so that we know whatever at least they're requesting in terms of amendments or modifications to the draft plan, we could do that too okay sounds good.

City Council Chambers, Does anyone have any comments on the pending state legislation. At this point, I would like to point out that the Planning Board has initiated action on all of the eight items that discussed at the joint meeting. So that's pretty good, I think. Committee reports. Tree Commission is not here. Open Space and Fields, Charlie.

uh yes at this last meeting uh nick coogan the chairman stepped down no one has yet volunteered so we're looking forward to who that next chairman may be um of discussion was a question was raised regarding the progress on the boundaries of the property at the bridge leading to Kampanaag's Clambake. Nick is to get in touch with Sean to see if any progress has been made. That's about it.

Thank you. Conservation Commission?

Matt?

I talked to Melissa Welch. We have a tentative meeting date of June 24th, as long as we have a quorum. So we're switching our date to, I think, give us more time to review applications before they come before this board, like was talked about earlier.

Thank you. Middletown Center, Steve is not here, so we will forego that. upcoming meetings we well the um as ron noted the july 15th meeting will be cancelled so as of right now we just have the regular meeting on july 8th and you will schedule a safe visit thank you may i have a motion one thing i've got one question okay first matt and then art um

And then I guess we can add it the special meeting, which Ron can set up working with the planning board members for my presentation, correct? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, for July, I would hope, right?

If the board agrees, I typically pull the board members for availability. So okay.

All right. Thank you.

Yeah, that that should be added also. Thank you.

All right. Question from the solicitor. kind of anxious to get to this issue about didn't talk about about the zoning intensification business start to over zone in 10 20 and 30 i think peter's working on that which matter and specific uh specifically referring to the uh multi-housing zoning that uh

Right yeah i'll speak with the solicitor about it and be prepared to report to you at the July meeting on that.

Quite frankly, I think what needs to happen to that once we get it. more than seven people this suck that's in here. And I think it's important enough that we can talk about it and we can give the council advice. I think this kind of thing needs to go on a ballot so everybody in this town can vote on it because intensification of zoning is a big deal. and when you look at the area that it potentially can overtake i think it's important and i'm not comfortable sitting here with six other people and telling the town exactly how this is going to work and i don't think the council should either so intensification zoning on this scale for me is a electoral issue for everybody in middletown to vote on we could um we could address that when when and if we make a recommendation to the town council i think

Okay, so now any other comments to bring before the board? We have a motion to... So moved. Second. Motion is made and seconded to end the meeting. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Meeting is adjourned.

We're out of time.