Durham Planning Board Tables Bowie Hill Phase Two, Advances Three Other Items

[0:09] Speaker A (unidentified): In a beautiful house to say you're working on a garage. Yeah, just finishing up. We stopped today actually. The site guys were here to finish up the last part of it today. [0:23] Speaker B (unidentified): Somebody else you contract someone to build it? Yeah, same guy that built their house. What was that his name is Alex Lausch, he [0:39] Speaker A (unidentified): was living in Brunswick, moving in. He built the house, but he moved to Scarborough, North Scarborough. Small guys maybe, but that's... [0:51] Speaker C (unidentified): Obviously, you got the experience from when he built the house, so it might not end up good to a garage, right? Is it attached or not? No. No. [1:15] Planning Board Chair: I did start it up, and we have audio. Awesome. All right. Are we ready to go? [1:22] Speaker B (unidentified): A minute? 30 seconds. [Speaker E (unidentified): No creases.] Exactly. Yeah, that makes [1:40] Speaker E (unidentified): sense. That's me planning myself and [1:50] Speaker A (unidentified): I did have Dom come over to take a look at it before we, when it was framed, just to make sure that he was okay with what we're doing. Well, that's good to know. I knew [1:59] Speaker C (unidentified): you. Yeah, he had some discussions with Sam Miller. That's what you want. All right, are you [2:08] Speaker A (unidentified): good to go? All right, welcome to the October 7th, 2026 regularly scheduled planning board meeting for the town of Durham. We have a quorum and Darren, I'm going to appoint you as a voting member tonight. Good to go. Good to go. You're welcome. Thank you for being here. Okay. Pleasure to be here. [2:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Pleasure to be here. To the flag of the United States of America [2:41] Speaker F (unidentified): and to the Republic [2:43] Speaker C (unidentified): for which it stands, one nation [2:45] Speaker B (unidentified): under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice this for all. We [2:53] Speaker A (unidentified): have any amendments to tonight's agenda? I [3:03] Speaker C (unidentified): don't have any item [3:10] Speaker A (unidentified): number four, acceptance of the meeting minutes of the September 2nd meeting. I have no comments on the meeting minutes. Anybody else? No comments. I'd move to accept them as [3:26] Planning Board Chair: presented. Second. All in favor, that [3:32] Speaker A (unidentified): passes unanimously. Thank you. Number five, acceptance of the site walk report from the September 17th, 2026. This was a site walk of the Bowie Hill phase two proposal. Any comments? Any comments? [3:55] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, Brian, for creating it. It looks very accurate. I would move to accept it as presented. [4:03] Planning Board Chair: Okay, second. All in favor? [4:11] Speaker A (unidentified): All right, informational exchange, I'm sorry. Number six, informational exchange on non-agenda items. Mr. Thabarge, would you care to share your comments on your report? [4:25] Planning Board Chair: As usual, I did include the report in the packet, and the first part of it just recaps the September meeting of the Board and indicates that the site walk was scheduled. Old. I did give a summary of the September 15th meeting of the Agriculture Energy Committee that is, excuse me, the Interim Economic Development Committee that's serving as the citizen group for that study project and the four tasks that were discussed at that meeting. And I did update you on my work in developing artificial intelligence to help process applications and increasing work workload that we're trying to manage here, and then finally I also reported to the town manager and select board about having updated all with the form or I think I'm all done the forms that are on the website for the new lane news ordinance update. I'd [5:22] Speaker B (unidentified): be happy to answer any questions I [5:29] Speaker A (unidentified): have none. No questions. Is there anybody in the in the audience, public, that wishes to have any informational exchanges on non-agenda items? Are there any non-residents who wish to have the same? I think we can move on to number seven, continuing business, completeness review of Bowie Hill subdivision phase two preliminary subdivision application, location, Matty Lane, Map 10, Lot 38. Public comment will not be taken at this moment. If the applicant would like to step up and state your name and your association [6:48] Jonathan Lobozo: with the project. My name is Jonathan Lobozo, I'm part of the development team. [6:53] Charles Perlman: I'm Charles Perlman, as engineer. Thank you. [6:58] Speaker A (unidentified): I think first for some of the board members here who have not been part of the phase one development, could you just kind of explain a little bit about phase one and how that's worked, how that progressed, and what your involvement was in any of that, and how it's, how it's been, whether or not it's been successful or not. [7:25] Jonathan Lobozo: Phase one, I believe in about four years since we got final approval for phase one, went from, originally it was 13 lots. Then we had two buyers who wanted to combine lots. So it went down to 11 lots. Lots, it's all sold out, all 11, 10 of the 11 homes are being lived in, and the last lot should be finished in the next four to six weeks. So it's been success, basically our payments been down, we're waiting to do final payment for phase two, and yeah. And then were you all the builders and [8:09] Speaker A (unidentified): developers of each home? Yes. [8:15] Jonathan Lobozo: There's a different company that I own that built the majority of the homes or all the homes. Okay. [8:23] Speaker A (unidentified): And as a cluster subdivision, you know, we haven't seen many that have been completed in town. How did that all go for you? It's been [8:33] Jonathan Lobozo: been great. What people, one of the allures is that the buyers have the community feel but also feel like they're kind of in the woods due to the selective clearing that we did, so there are buffers between each home, so that's, there's, there's a real community there that they have get-togethers, if not monthly, bi-monthly, and yeah, everyone has expressed, you know, they've been happy living there and being part of that community. Okay. [9:11] Speaker B (unidentified): All right. [9:12] Speaker A (unidentified): So let's go through the completeness review here. Bear with me, please. I just need to run through some notes here. So looking through our staff notes, we haven't received a butter notices. There's a question about record owner identification. Farmland soils seem to be missing, and the existing site conditions are not accurate. You're looking for a waiver on the road with fire protection. You guys, you phase one has sprinklers in the houses, correct? Yeah. Okay. Solid waste, that's ongoing. I would assume phase one has, there's a new capacity to serve letter. [10:54] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, Brian. [11:04] Speaker C (unidentified): I think one of the things that's important to note is that there was a lapse in time from for submission of this, and that's why the planning board needs to review this as if it was basically the first time through, right? And we're going to detail by detail and that and I guess it makes it more challenging. Certainly. Yeah. No, I think we established that [11:31] Speaker A (unidentified): that at our last meeting that we're going to look at this under the 2026 land use ordinance and the applicants have agreed to that due to the lapse. All right, so I'm going to go through the completeness review here. The [11:59] Jonathan Lobozo: majority of those items, I believe, have been addressed. [12:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Rest of George can. Yeah. [12:05] Charles Perlman: I mean, I sent him the butter's notifications. I notified for the last meeting and I had just forwarded those along with George. I thought I sent a few weeks ago, George. I'm sorry that stuck, but I sent him those notifications yesterday, and then the other things I think you mentioned were the fire thing that was a, that was a reference that I think I swapped up. It should have been indeed it's an R, so just the fire code that I referenced, and I've made that correction and submitted that to, and then swapping his name out for the company name, which I also did, so some of those were clerical and the other one was the [12:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Abutters notification, which I also said to you, so those the abutted notifications didn't include the current owners from phase one, did okay, but [12:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Those were submitted after the deadline has that been appearing before last meeting, so they were early, but they [13:04] Planning Board Chair: Submitted on time. Well, let's clarify. They were sent out before the certification came in yesterday to verify that they had been sent out. Two different issues I received yesterday. I just looked at it today because I was working yesterday afternoon when they came in. Sure. And correct me if I've got the facts right, you sent it out on August 23rd and it mentioned the September 2nd meeting, which is accurate because that was the first time that you reviewed this. The neighbors know at the at that last Meeting since they were given notice they would have heard that you were scheduling the public hearing for tonight, so I think that works. They have not obviously had a chance to check the accuracy of the butters versus the town list. Typically that's something I have Devon do, but we just received it yesterday, so [13:59] Speaker B (unidentified): So that hasn't been done. [14:00] Planning Board Chair: But I think you can assume that they have been notified and you could do the public hearing if you want to go forward with that. [14:06] Speaker C (unidentified): So you would also mention that the record owner ID had been corrected? With a form, yeah. [14:14] Charles Perlman: When was that? I submitted that yesterday too. I read the staff notes Monday or whatever. So it was my Tuesday, I was gone on Monday. [14:27] Speaker C (unidentified): The one thing we talked about, the readiness to serve for solid waste, the one additional or the one kind of isolated lot that we looked at on our site walk, which would be accessed directly from Boy Hill, but there seems to be a conflict from what I've read with stating that there would be no containers located on Boy Hill, but that particular lot that's not the case, correct? Good point. So we would look for the guy the town's guidance on how they want to [15:10] Speaker I (unidentified): Submit over that and function like the rest of the houses, right? I think with the subdivision [15:14] Charles Perlman: Road being a collector instead of multiple houses that would have been like a garbage collection area where we would have to bump out and have like, but being is it's just one single lot, it'll function the same as the rest of the houses on Bowie Hill from up. I don't, I don't [15:29] Speaker C (unidentified): I wouldn't think that it would be an issue, but my concern was it was conflicting. Yeah, I'll clean [15:34] Speaker I (unidentified): That up and that would have a Bowie Hill Road address, right? That one, yeah, so [15:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Is concealer in agreement with continuing to service that they have? It is more of a capacity thing, right, like [15:47] Charles Perlman: with the same the DEP notification saying does the place this is going to be deposited have the capacity to collect it and process it, and we did include that a lot in that letter and that request. Okay. [16:16] Speaker A (unidentified): Just going through the staff notes here, is it traffic generation study, is that due now? [16:37] Planning Board Chair: let me address that the board does have the authority to require additional information and I think that the threshold in the ordinance is if it has it 's excess of 140 trips per day which this would with phase two you can require a traffic study typically a traffic study for a subdivision like this is you know traffic engineer it doesn't really register on safety issues because of the low volumes however you could have a situation where the entrance is close to a dangerous intersection, like the one down here where they just put up four-way stop signs. So in those cases, you would want to get a traffic engineer to look at that. So I think the main issue here is the sight distances, and I think that they've recorded those are out of the woods. [17:28] Speaker A (unidentified): We've seen those in phase one. [17:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Could you give us your justification or how things developed with the clearing of the trees and the roadwork for the phase two? Yes, so in April I made a decision [18:01] Jonathan Lobozo: to clear the road and partially clear the lots. We were out of, we had, we did not have an application submitted at that time, and the state forester, the DEP knew, the state forester was notified, town knew. It was cleared, and then due to that work being done, there were some major ruts essentially created on the roadway that to remove those, to stop those ruts from essentially detaining water, we also stumped that roadway, again when it was just the roadway, when you did not have an application in. So did the state [18:50] Speaker C (unidentified): forester actually come on site? Yes. Do you have a letter from them? He communicated [18:56] Jonathan Lobozo: with Calvin. So no. Correct. [19:07] Speaker A (unidentified): And this is during the time when your original application lapsed, right, so [19:18] Jonathan Lobozo: I've, like I said, the DP knows they don't have an issue with it, the State Forester doesn't have an issue with it, the road commissioner and the code enforcement officer also just does not have an issue with that. Yeah, we have communication from [19:34] Speaker A (unidentified): Calvin the road commissioner and CEO but nothing from DEP stating that they're okay with it because you're really close to some wetlands there very close and it also looks like that the amount of clearing that you've done exceeds the clearing that's in your site plan [19:57] Jonathan Lobozo: for clearing limits okay I think you could see by walk by the sidewalk that we did pretty minimal we stayed within the wetlands and we cleared basically the restrained lots the very the smallest amount possible to be able to build a house on that lot [20:21] Speaker C (unidentified): well wasn't there from where the phase one connects with phase two wasn't there actually Phil brought in there wasn't there a wetland you anticipate that's going to go between the [20:33] Jonathan Lobozo: two of them there's no wetland there's basically a saddle there's wetlands on either side of that of the roadway the proposed roadway we did have to bring in phil to allow the correct equipment to get in to log that property do you anticipate putting a culvert in there yeah no there's no basically the way the stormwater works is there's culverts on this other road that is one detention pond on one side of the road and another on the other side of the [21:00] Charles Perlman: and they both from the other side kind of helped because when we first laid out this site there's actually a logging road back there and so obviously to minimize kind of our impact we followed that as best we could all the way back there here into the geography that we have to do as well geometry but yes those wetlands were already split and we had the same concerns we actually did our own check to make sure we didn't hit any of those wetlands after the clearing and as far as like clearing limits on the lots go there wasn't anything stumped on the lot so really nothing on the lots actually even really counts as disturbed and cleared yet i think i don't know why but they don't count not you can cut the trees down and leave the stumps and they don't count that for any reason or another but that's so that's why we didn't log or stump the lots because again these lot limits and our clearing limits are still kind of that's up for you guys to kind of weigh in on and then to bless and so we would yeah obviously adhere to whatever [21:56] Speaker C (unidentified): So basically, the wetlands on each side of the road don't connect. [22:02] Jonathan Lobozo: There's a saddle between them. That is the reason why we designed it that way, so there'd be zero wetland impact on phase two. [22:15] Speaker A (unidentified): I guess it's a fuzzy line as to where limits of disturbance and true clearing is. I mean, you say you didn't take the stumps out, but you did clear it. And it certainly doesn't align with your site plans. So we're definitely going to need to see an updated existing conditions plan in your table that lists how much should be cleared for each lot is very inaccurate from what is existing [22:54] Jonathan Lobozo: existing out there today we can also provide that verbiage stating the difference between clearing the lots in terms of cutting trees down and then I guess yeah a lot of disturbance on [23:11] Speaker C (unidentified): those Lots so you say if you were actually clearing a lot you'd be removing all the stumps [23:25] Speaker I (unidentified): so you'd say all this activity was forestry in the subject development there was no intention to develop roads or utilities or lots no the road you know where the where the proposed [23:36] Jonathan Lobozo: road is there was some stomping done there and yeah but again it was it was when there was a lapse we didn't have an application in so essentially it's a logging road we understand the, how it's kind of a different scenario from the planning board in terms of how they're looking at this.. As I said before, none of this was done intentionally where we decided, oh, let's go in and spend. You know, pay the 6,000 dollars worth of fees to get. pre-application approval in 2024 and then let's let this lapse and then go in and clear and then come back a year and a half later to get final approval that was never our intention it's just how things kind of played out with the dp so [24:38] Speaker A (unidentified): you didn't intentionally clear trees [24:44] Jonathan Lobozo: no i'm saying from where they have been cleared no i'm saying we didn't intentionally the timing of it wasn't intentional right like the fact that this is two years of elapsed or 22 months of elapsed since we received pre-application of approval from the from the town this wasn't like a game that we were oh let's get pre-approval and then let's let that let that pass and then go in and clear and then you know it's been a lot more a lot more damage has been done as to the developer if it's taken so long you know there's been no game to it wasn't a game of an approach an intentional approach that we thought yeah we have to look at it a little [25:32] Speaker A (unidentified): Differently knowing what's what, the existing conditions are, especially with the cluster subdivision. I mean, the rules are a little bit different with cluster subdivisions and where the building envelope lies, so by altering the site it changes it a little bit and whether or not it is, it can be a cluster. Also during the site walk it looked like maybe some of the existing lots have been cleared more than they should have been, so there might be a violation there as well. I'm not sure quite how we want to handle that, but my recommendation is you [26:10] Planning Board Chair: discuss that during the substantive review, and I think you've indicated you're looking for a more accurate existing conditions plan that clearly identifies and measures the areas that have been cleared. Then we can pick it up again when we get into the substance. [26:28] Speaker A (unidentified): Sure, let's just start with the application, which is not filled out at all. I'm looking at, for those of you who have the PDF version of this on the board. I'm looking at page 21, 22, and it's signed, but the application is not complete. I don't know what page is 21, 22. What do you have available to you right now? [27:09] Charles Perlman: I can try to pull it up. I sent it to you. Okay. [27:12] Speaker A (unidentified): George, I'm not sure if you want to, if you can put this up on the screen. [27:56] Speaker C (unidentified): The memorandum, right? Which doesn't have a date on it. I go by the agenda, basically. So I pull up the PDF. This is what you're referring to, right? Yeah. [28:18] Speaker A (unidentified): This is the application. Okay. [28:22] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, you submitted. It's different on the link within the agenda. [28:27] Speaker A (unidentified): Regardless, this is what we received. There's nothing there. Yeah, signed, dated, but nothing there. [28:38] Planning Board Chair: Let me double check in the file folder for this because there might've been a posting issue there. Let me just double check while you go on. [28:49] Speaker C (unidentified): Oh, there's the application form, I see it now. [28:51] Speaker I (unidentified): Because I see, I see this. [28:53] Speaker C (unidentified): Keep scrolling down through. Mine's full on my screen. Ryan. See that? First thing you see is a memorandum, I believe. [29:02] Charles Perlman: Yeah, but the preliminary subdivision application page on [29:07] Planning Board Chair: your screen, it's showing that it's all filled out. [29:10] Speaker A (unidentified): This is what is. [29:13] Planning Board Chair: And is that off the website? Let me just let me just double check. That's what you're looking at. [29:20] Speaker C (unidentified): It's after the memorandum. [29:22] Speaker I (unidentified): I think I'm just wrong with the bundle PDF. [29:25] Planning Board Chair: It probably is the PDF maker from the website that made the packet. [29:30] Speaker I (unidentified): Because the PDF Bowie Hill Phase 2 Blurrification PDF is filled out, and that's in the agenda. [29:38] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, I think that's the issue. [29:40] Charles Perlman: And my signatures were freaky too, I think, at times. [29:43] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, that was the town's website producing the agenda packet that screwed that up, apparently. [29:52] Charles Perlman: Wait, mine are hard tab. [29:59] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, this is how I review this. What's on the website was sent to me, I download the PDF, all documents, and this is what I see. [30:14] Planning Board Chair: Well, let's just confirm that it is there. [30:27] Speaker C (unidentified): So there's one question there that actually says, has any liquidation harvesting of timber occurred in the past five years? [30:38] Speaker A (unidentified): What it's nothing's a question the liquidated harvesting is the key keyword there. [30:47] Jonathan Lobozo: Yeah this again this State Forester and you can verify with Calvin did they. [30:57] Planning Board Chair: Didn't deem it there's no monetary value yeah okay yeah it did it's the it's the town's website that. [31:06] Speaker B (unidentified): It screwed that up I apologize I should have checked it so. [31:23] Speaker A (unidentified): So it is complete somewhere yeah. [31:29] Speaker I (unidentified): If you go to the actually go to this page the agenda page that has the links on it that's what I always use that's where I pull it up and you click on. [31:37] Planning Board Chair: Yeah when you do the whole packet apparently because it's processing such an enormous amount but if you went individually they're saying it brought it up correctly gotcha yeah it's. [31:58] Speaker A (unidentified): Spend so much time you can let this down I know you also had a driveway permit and I'm not sure that 's even required at this point you got a driveway permit for block because it's 26 is that right I can't trust what I'm looking at right it's not dated there's no signature and it also it also says that the width of the driveway getting back to your point on Trask Collection is 50 foot wide right away right away now proposed width of an entrance oh that's like a curb cut. [33:21] Speaker B (unidentified): 50 doesn't feel right but it's probably pretty close yeah remember. [33:41] Speaker A (unidentified): What attachment that was I was I was. [33:52] Planning Board Chair: Asking the applicant oh I know yeah right there so this is the yeah. [34:01] Speaker B (unidentified): That's the one I'm looking at pose with the bench was 50 feet seems. [34:09] Speaker A (unidentified): Kind of wide for a driveway yeah I don't. [34:12] Charles Perlman: Think we're proposing the driveway itself is 50 feet wide but like you know those you have a 15 foot with the 15 foot radius on the edge of those typically so you're 30 feet outside of any actual driveway width already right so you just have no driveway and just have the apron you're. [34:27] Speaker A (unidentified): 30 feet just on your flare so has this been submitted or is this just something that you threw in the back and sure what there's no date on it I didn't see a signature from anybody I. [34:38] Charles Perlman: Didn't check that you've done that. I mean, again, this project's been approved preliminarily a few years ago, but then it lapsed, right? But there's a bunch of work, but the content really hasn't changed that much, right? So as far as driveway permits, entrances, site distances, [34:55] Jonathan Lobozo: engineering, but we're out. I mean, yeah, to reduce that to 30 feet, I think it's not an issue to us. [35:02] Speaker A (unidentified): I was just questioning the width. You can make it whatever you want. I just, it seemed weird. [35:08] Speaker B (unidentified): That's all. Okay, I [35:21] Speaker C (unidentified): think the one that, one that Brian, the one thing that we have concerned about was the mapping of cleared areas, correct? And we're looking at a couple of different versions here. Whenever I pull this up, I look at what has been present, what is on our agenda, and one of the, one of the tough, the tough thing that you've, because things have lapsed, you put the planning board in a tough position, and we kind of have to look at this as if it was brand new, and to an extent, because of that lapse in time. We knew what the original plan for Phase 1 was, and that there was going to be a Phase 2, but since it was a lapse, it has made it quite challenging. But if I may, I'll put a motion out there. I'll move to determine that the Boy Hill subdivision phase two preliminary plan application is substantially complete, but pending corrected mapping of cleared areas. I'll second that. One of the things that has come to our attention is tonight, originally we did not have the correction of the ownership information, but that has been corrected based on what has been presented, and also what initially was missing was the abutted notices, but that has been corrected. [37:21] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, motion's been made. Any comments? [Speaker B (unidentified): I] reject your motion, Alan. Okay, I think there are several other things that need to be resolved, such as some incomplete documentation that's here, stuff that's not dated, stuff that's not signed. I'd like to see a letter from DEP saying that they've been out there. There. I'm looking at your UDSF 3 and 4 that look like they encroach either within the lots or within wetlands. That doesn't seem appropriate. I don't think that you can actually do that. We didn't receive abutter notices until today, which should have been sent with the application. Farmland soils need to be mapped, which you said that they will be, but they're not all [38:39] Speaker C (unidentified): I have to say for now, but now I think, based, granted that the motion passed, now we need to go through the completeness review, correct? Substantive review, I think. [38:52] Speaker A (unidentified): It's a public hearing first now. It's probably caring is next and [39:00] Planning Board Chair: you can come back and revisit visit all these issues when you get into the substantive. Just moves the process forward [39:08] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay all right so now I'll open up Bowie Hill subdivision phase two public hearing. The applicant's representative is Grange Engineering. The project is located on Maddie Lane off of Bowie Hill. I need to read the script. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive oral and written testimony relevant to the Board's review of this application under the Town's adopted ordinances and standards. standards. This hearing is not a forum to debate broader town policies or growth management issues, which are established by town meeting and must be applied by the Planning Board. The Board's authority is limited to determining whether the application meets or fails to meet the adopted subdivision standards. Under the Planning Board bylaws, the Board may receive of oral or documentary evidence but must exclude testimony that is irrelevant or unduly repetitious. The chair will determine the relevance of testimony or evidence presented. Any board member may challenge the determination by motion subject to a majority vote of the board. All testimony will be taken in an orderly fashion. Speakers are asked not to interrupt others. the chair may impose reasonable time limits. He's on the sides of the crowd. I don't think we need to impose time limits here. All questions and comments shall be directed to the chair. I will then direct questions to the appropriate party, whether that is the applicant, the applicants consultant, staff, or another party for a response. Direct questioning of parties by members of the public is not permitted. When questions are responded to, the dialogue may lead to one party to address another. Please don't do that. All parties will be given the opportunity to present information, submit rebuttal evidence, and conduct cross-examination of other parties through the chair within reasonable limits to prevent an abusive process. For the record, an aggrieved party is defined in the land use ordinance as a person who can demonstrate a particularized industry injury resulting from the approval or denial of the application. An injury shared equally by all residents of the town does not constitute a particular injury. The application materials and staff comments have been made available in advance. Some have been excluded in advance. We received some tonight that are available if we need to see them again. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive public input on the application itself, not to provide a general explanation of the review process or ordinance requirements. These procedures are necessary to ensure fairness, protect due process rights for all parties, and allow the board to meet its legal deadlines for decision-making. Please provide your name and address us when you get up to make your comments. Thank you for that. I will open the public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak? I'm [42:45] Conservation Commission representative: just costa conservation Commission is on 35 Briana Drive and the conservation Commission attended the site walk on september 17th and we also provided a letter to the planning board earlier this week with our with these comments that i'm going to provide. So we noted during the site block that tree clearing for the road for phase two and the house slots has already been conducted and we understand this is a town violation to clear trees for house lots and the access road prior to obtaining planning board approval and the town development permit. We noticed that fill was brought in to create the second phase of the road and it appears that some of this fill may be impacting wetlands and it's It's unclear if the developers cut trees within wetland protection buffers, and if the trees have been cut within these certain buffers, that would be a violation, a state violation with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. We also noted invasive weeds have spread across the house lots, the cleared areas for the house lots of phase two and since some site work has already been completed it's not possible to tell if the wetland delineation was accurate and particularly if the new road bed directly impacted the wetland there the silt fences did not appear to be extended far enough to keep the fill pile from impacting the mapped wetlands on either side of the road so we suggest that there be a site visit with the ceo And the DEP to go over the wetland survey that was completed and then inspect the areas that have already been cleared in relation to the mapped wetland boundaries. We also suggest the Planning Board consider the prod asking the project to develop an invasive plant minimization and mitigation plan to be approved by DP in the town to minimize the spread of invasive plants on site. That's all, thank you. Any [45:37] Speaker A (unidentified): other members of the public wish to comment? Okay, I will close the public comment set portion of this meeting. We need to vote on that. Nope. All right, we're ready to head into the substantive review of Bowie Hill subdivision phase two culinary subdivision plane application, EMADI LANE LAP 10 LAP 38. Public comment will not be taken. Are [46:38] Speaker B (unidentified): we good to go? Yes. [46:40] Speaker A (unidentified): Can I answer for a quick question? No, public comment has been closed. [Speaker B (unidentified): Sorry. Any] comments from the Board other than what we've already addressed? Well there's [47:05] Speaker C (unidentified): waivers that are being requested here. This is comments on the public comment right or just [47:11] Speaker A (unidentified): comments on them substantially? Public comments have been closed. Okay, so cool. So this is and you [47:17] Planning Board Chair: can you can discuss, that's what I've been discussing on the comment right now. Oh yes, okay, that's part of the testimony that you're reviewing. Sure. Yeah, the [47:29] Speaker C (unidentified): comments from the conservation commission are definitely not falling on deaf ears, that's for sure, and they we will be addressing those. That definitely, I'm glad that they brought up those concerns. [47:50] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I certainly would like to see some more verification from DEP on what's been done out there. And maybe even an updated wetland delineation. Your UDESFs, they're within lots. That's okay. That's okay? Okay. And they're really close to the weapons, they're at the low points, but yeah, but there's still some [48:32] Charles Perlman: disturbance that will happen there. I've I've graded them in there to not touch those buttons. And then I think just to help ease everybody's conscience and paint the proper picture, even when they were clearing it, I went out and I what you're asking for, I'm already prepared, I've already prepared, but we've assessed where they where they I did a drone survey, right, I'm a drone pilot, so I did a drone survey of the area to prepare what we cleared versus the wetlands and what we're supposed to be showing out there. I haven't provided that to you all yet. That was kind of done just John and I wanted to make sure we didn't do what we knew we were going to be asked about, right, so we've preemptively already prepared this. [49:13] Jonathan Lobozo: So at the at the correct time, we'll supply you with all the equipment. [49:21] Speaker A (unidentified): Just to back up, I'm sorry, Alan. No, that's fine. Are you willing to address the comments from the Conservation Commission? [49:29] Jonathan Lobozo: We'll address it at the next meeting. [49:33] Speaker A (unidentified): Any comments regarding those comments now? [49:37] Jonathan Lobozo: In terms of we've done, we like, we said we did it, we did drone footage and overlaid it onto the proposed plan in the wetlands, and there are no disturbances. We do not clear into any other wetlands, and we'll provide that verification. Okay, why wouldn't you [49:52] Speaker C (unidentified): provide that to us prior to this discussion? Right now, it was just, first of all, we just [49:59] Jonathan Lobozo: just heard public hearing just occurred, and we can, it was just recently done, so [50:10] Speaker C (unidentified): but you anticipated that it was going to be a concern. 100, yeah, we could, I could tell [50:18] Jonathan Lobozo: during the sidewalk that there were parties who were concerned about where we cleared, but yeah, again, this is all us talking in, but we'll provide documentation on that. [50:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Regarding whether or not Phase 1 is in violation, would you be able to provide us with a status on whether or not any of those lots have exceeded the amount of clearing that is required? required in the HOA and in the deeds that were provided for phase one, because we need to make sure that there isn't a violation there. If there is a violation there, then it's going to hinder our final approval for this subdivision. Yeah, my only question there is [51:27] Jonathan Lobozo: Because the people have been dwelling there for, in some instances, many years, and I can't control what they've done to the property. [51:43] Speaker A (unidentified): I'm pretty sure the deed in the HOA states what they can and cannot do. I shouldn't say I'm pretty sure, I'm positive that your previous documentation stated what they can and cannot do and what the limits of clearing are. You were to flag the limits of disturbance on each lot, so that's that's an important step before we move forward to a final approval or final phase of this application. Are you willing to provide that information? We [52:30] Speaker B (unidentified): can evaluate that next. Okay, you [52:36] Planning Board Chair: can also clarify what does the green represent on this diagram? Those were posed clearing limits. Okay, so in this table over here, we're talking phase two, yeah, for phase two, yep, says that post clearing is going to be on lot 14, 9, 150 square feet, I believe so, yes, that's a double check. Okay, so I did some just Google Earth, which is obviously not, yeah, accuracy, but the average based on the air photo of all of these lots is around 25,000 square feet of clearing. Okay, maybe it was 20,000 out of even four. Right, so this plan just is not even corresponding to what happened out there. If this green is supposed to represent what happened out there, it's not even close. And if the stormwater calculations are based on these areas, then that isn't in fly, so phosphorus calculations do. Yeah, phosphorus and stormwater, that's part of the problem here. You know, just the timing, it's the plans don't match what's now. Everything, okay, I'll confirm on phase one or phase two. [54:08] Speaker A (unidentified): And again, because this is a cluster, there are different regulations that apply to making sure that the building envelope does not include wetlands, steep slopes. Just take a look at the ordinance. Yeah, and review that with your the building envelope that you're providing. [54:35] Charles Perlman: Here, okay, and I think what would help ease also people's minds is the from my understanding is the 20 per lot limit was a phase two thing and wasn't in the deed restrictions for phase one. There weren't there weren't clearing limits per se written into that phase one. [54:56] Jonathan Lobozo: Covenants, we'll review that, but I'll confirm that with you. We'll provide you with the complete. [55:01] Planning Board Chair: Package, so it's hard as a cluster, right? Yeah, both clusters, so okay, just part of this is this is phase two of the same subdivision, so the board has to consider the impacts of the total subdivision and it doesn't separate, so as far as stormwater everything else goes, phosphorus, we need an accurate analysis of what's been cleared, and if there are clearing Beyond limits that can be addressed, like I know the combined loss probably we have larger areas, but if the Covenants say no more than 20 000. Square feet, it's a violation, so a lot of this can be worked out, but it's going to have accurate planes, that's what's that's what's really hurting this process. [55:58] Speaker A (unidentified): Remind me about the waivers you're looking for. There are two. [56:04] Charles Perlman: One, i believe with road with one and it was a little it the ordinance talks about public right-of-ways that serve 20 something lots and that's one standard, and then there's private ways that are a different standard. This is technically a private way, but the like the number it is oddly worded and we kind of felt like in between the two, so I don't even know. [56:28] Planning Board Chair: If a waiver is reported, report wire. So do we need to vote on the waiver, George? Well, let me just clarify. Under the old ordinance, there was that confusion. Under the new ordinance, it's just based on the number of lots, okay? And there's no public private anymore, okay? So this would be technically a sub collector because of the number of lots, but because you've done phase one with a 20 foot wide, then it makes sense to apply for a waiver for effects too. So I will fill out that. So you'll be asking for a waiver from the sub collector down to the local road standard, yeah. [57:03] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, to wave the 22. Yeah, and on a positive note, I don't know about how the board feels. [57:09] Speaker A (unidentified): But on a positive note, I'm willing to agree to that waiver to go to 20 to match what you have out there today, instead of widening it to 22, because I know what a burden that might be to all of your calcs for stormwater, et cetera. [57:25] Speaker I (unidentified): Do we need Fire Chief Byan on that? Yeah. [57:31] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, CEO as well. So, Board, have any other comments on this? [57:58] Speaker C (unidentified): Do we want to go down through the principal issues for board review to make sure that the applicant is on board with what we're anticipating for information? [58:11] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, let's follow up here and get buy-in. [58:22] Speaker C (unidentified): I think the first one that is listed here was road standards and waivers, and we just talked about that. Yep. So it sounds like they know where you stand, and whether the total board agrees with that remains to be seen, but that is a contention. [58:46] Speaker A (unidentified): Correct, it's a waiver that needs to be submitted. Yeah, submitted during the next phase and program. [58:55] Speaker B (unidentified): Correct, and [59:00] Speaker C (unidentified): the fire protection, was there a waiver on fire protection? Won't be here anymore. Yeah, I [59:06] Speaker A (unidentified): don't think it's needed because they're allowed, okay, they're preferred actually, okay, and they're in phase one. What [59:15] Speaker C (unidentified): about the only talk about traffic and access? Do we really feel that there needs to be a study for increased traffic? I [59:32] George: think based on George's comments earlier, probably not, given the sight line and it's [59:40] Speaker I (unidentified): not dangerous intersections, yeah. [59:42] Speaker C (unidentified): And under the solid waste, we need to clean up the discrepancy between [59:49] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah, about 26, what, 26, correct, yep, I think [1:00:07] Speaker A (unidentified): we've exhausted the clearing and site conditions [1:00:12] Speaker I (unidentified): discussion. Can I chime in on that one just briefly? I just want to make sure, because [1:00:18] Charles Perlman: Part of part of the argument against people doing this is that if I were to go in as a stormwater modeler and say, oh no, that was already cleared and dirt, so the existing conditions are being shown as gravel and cleared, that bumps the curve number up so that then when I have to account for the difference in increased flow, that's kind of like the end. But if somebody were being malicious and using this to do something malicious, that would be what they would do. They would say, oh, the existing conditions are already cleared and it's already logged, so my curve numbers of 75 and I'm above up to an 85 so my pawns can be smaller right that's kind of the map that's the engineering and so I guess what I could mean what I think I think what we're asking for is I'm going to propose an existing conditions plan that overlays what's been cleared shows our numbers lays that into my that compares that to what's in the stormwater model but still describe it and model it as undisturbed as in is it 's still going to be wooded on like helps it's still going to be wooded in terms of previous to development conditions and that way i think we take a conservative approach of sizing these ponds correctly and avoid that mountain like that takes that off the table does that make sense [1:01:35] Jonathan Lobozo: I and I could say in layman's term you're saying part of what they're asking is going to help us in quotation marks and we're not asking for that [1:01:45] Planning Board Chair: That doesn't make any sense no okay so I think I understood what you were saying yeah it's like on Deer Creek Crossing remember that they had that they had gone in and cleared all that area so they tried to make the argument well we don't have to count that as disturbed for dep calculations because in that case it happened years ago here this just happened so your existing conditions should show what would it just before this even started yes and then show just for the sake of the enforcement Issue yes what has been cleared compared to and then model it for going from existing or pre-existing that's what you get to not these conditions this is just for the enforcement part sure makes sense yes okay yeah I think I was trying to say that yeah [1:02:32] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't think anybody on the board, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody thinks this was malicious at all. But a lot of it is was the timing of submittal of phase two to the planning board and having work already done and it's that's what's challenging for us. Sure, and whether they're in submitting applications to the CEO and whether there are violations, that's up to them to determine that, not the planning board. Correct, George? Yep. [1:03:12] Planning Board Chair: Well, yes and no. The planning board may have independent jurisdiction and I think it probably does in the subdivision regulations where it says you cannot approve a final plan where there's an existing pre existing violation on a previous group plan and there were two here, phase one and then the prior preliminary approval. So again, hopefully that can all be worked out through you, but you're just trying to get it right. Yeah, so the other issue was the accuracy of the wetland mapping. I just want to get back to you to the previous [1:03:48] Speaker A (unidentified): comment. So eventually there's going to be a peer review that's going to occur and the peer reviewer, if they took your current information and looked at that, getting back to let's use the phosphorus plan for example, and you're saying this is what's going to be cleared, but that's not what really has been cleared, but our peer reviewer is you know going to have inaccurate information. And we rely on them heavily to determine whether or not your engineering is appropriate. Just wanted to follow up on that. There's going to be a peer-reviewed portion of this that it all needs to be very well documented. [1:04:39] Planning Board Chair: Understood. The other issue is the accuracy of the wetland mapping. Right. [1:04:46] Speaker B (unidentified): The accuracy of our, there was some people questioning it, oh and [1:04:58] Charles Perlman: what has been disturbed around the, that's what I thought would be a question. Yeah, is if we touch the wetlands, not whether they were mapped correctly. Correct. Yes, correct. Okay, so we're not arguing that the limits shown are, but our wetland scientists wouldn't flag what was appropriately there. They're saying, and did we impact them during this clearing? [1:05:21] Speaker A (unidentified): That's the question. Yes. [1:05:29] Planning Board Chair: With particular reference to the buffers? Okay. Any [1:06:04] Speaker A (unidentified): other comments from the board? Good. You okay with the engineers estimated costs? [1:06:22] Planning Board Chair: Not sure. I'm here with you and we'll be looking at that. Can [1:06:45] Speaker B (unidentified): we get a motion here? Say we do all right there. [1:06:55] Planning Board Chair: Are two options you can move to table to get the all this information that you asked for, or I did draft preliminary approval conditions draft that if you want to look at those and if they're if they address will address those questions when they come back for final plan. [1:07:10] Speaker B (unidentified): That's a second option well. [1:07:16] Speaker A (unidentified): There's a lot of amendments that would need to occur to your to your notes here George then. [1:07:26] Speaker B (unidentified): You may want to table how. [1:07:31] Speaker C (unidentified): Does the board feel I'd move to table this to our next meeting which hopefully additional information will be presented to the planning board so we can make a determination on completeness what are the pieces that the. [1:07:51] Planning Board member: The board deems incomplete not. [1:07:55] Charles Perlman: Completely human substantiative but I guess the to John's question is if we get peer review approval if we've got a dep approval on hand and I update and I can and I confirm that these existing conditions for these clearing limits match what we've shown and the calcs all line up are there big concerns outside of that is that kind of the condition we're talking about that we need to remedy I do agree with that big kind of sweeping motion let's make sure this thing is what it says it's supposed. To be and that we've our calcs line up with what is being shown I fully agree with that I think the tep and the purifier will take care of a lot of those concerns like y'all mentioned but outside of that is. [1:08:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Your motion to table this until it is yes yeah okay George do you have a list. [1:09:05] Planning Board Chair: We will put it together based on the minutes I'm assuming you're just straight up tabling the application yes so the next meeting that's would be my motion yes and the this tape will be on the website they can review that I'll be preparing draft minutes based on the transcript and we'll. [1:09:23] Speaker A (unidentified): Get that information to them okay before I ask for a second what's the time frame. [1:09:31] Planning Board Chair: Here to if we table it what's the time frame it'll be the first Wednesday November what's our deadline to make a decision two weeks two weeks and information would have to be submitted at least two weeks in advance is that what you're asking no oh in terms of the 16 a's yeah that would fit because you just determined completeness tonight yeah okay. [1:09:56] Charles Perlman: I guess our only request is if we do have all those things in hand final and we can iron these things out, I mean, I respect the motion and I agree, I mean, if we are open to pushing for final and prelim in the same meeting next time, if that's something you guys be open to, that would be huge for us in terms of getting some stuff done before winter comes and getting some of this [1:10:19] Jonathan Lobozo: buttoned up and is that is that is there a president there where if the applicant arrives [1:10:24] Planning Board Chair: with you can submit a request for a waiver to combine the two if you want to do that yeah yep that's allowed okay yeah cool i'll second elements waiver promotion all in favor [1:10:41] Speaker E (unidentified): okay thank you very much thanks everyone for your time [1:10:58] Speaker A (unidentified): okay number eight new business a request to extend preliminary subdivision plan approval for durham heights subdivision 439 quaker meeting house road map to lot 60 a public comment will not be taken so have you all had a chance to review this information yes yeah i totally probably understand and I guess I sympathize with the fact that the state is a little taking more time than you had anticipated no I fully anticipated all right [1:11:49] Planning Board Chair: all right I did not anticipate them to take that long to accept the application [1:11:53] Speaker A (unidentified): application I make a motion to approve the request to extend or for an extension so this application second one for you okay it's that easy no reason [1:12:12] Planning Board Chair: there was one other is this still part of this agenda I don't know I think you're probably looking for confirmation that this is going to be treated under the old ordinance yes [1:12:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes. Yeah. [1:12:23] Speaker A (unidentified): There's a motion required for that. [1:12:26] Planning Board Chair: I think it might be helpful just to acknowledge that is their request. And if you want me to pursue a legal opinion from the town attorney, which I don't advise or recommend, then you could pursue that if you want to challenge that. [1:12:41] Speaker A (unidentified): i would say given the circumstances that i would make a motion that we continue the review of this subdivision under the previous land use ordinance not the current menu ordinance [1:12:54] Planning Board Chair: no second thought all in favor thank you [1:13:24] Speaker A (unidentified): okay new business b substantive review of bassett subdivision amendment application winters waiting map 11 lot 41b public comment will not be taken have you all had a chance to review this yes okay listen George do you want to review your highlights here yeah you [1:13:58] Planning Board Chair: Might recall we had a sketch plan review of this and the applicant is attempting to get an amended amendment to two prior reported subdivisions that this property was part of under the ordinance and those subdivisions will prove when few ordinances were probably very limited and what they looked at what they required. So part of the difficulty here is dealing with two different approaches to subdivision review. So what I've tried to do is just kind of isolate what are the key issues here which are the grade of the road the existing Winter's Way the current maintenance arrangement for Winter's Way and how that will be modified and formalized as part of this process and then under the new ordinance they we don't have to talk about putting in fire ponds for one house anymore they can just deal with that with a requirement for the new watch have a sprinkler home on it and then the other issue is what documentation do they need they have submitted a lot of documentation trying to meet the requirements for something that's very hard to do with what they're proposing so they've submitted a series of waiver requests and some of those are necessary some of them are not so I think it would just be helpful to get a sense of the board how you want to approach it in terms of is the documentation that they've submitted adequate that you're comfortable that you can decide on whether to grant approval for this one more lot on that existing Winter's Way with the appropriate construction of the turnaround for the fire chief's request with a sprinkler on the new home and then getting a formal maintenance agreement for the road that clearly specifies who has rights to it because that's one of the issues is it's not clear there's supposedly a driveway easement on this but it's not part of the record that we've seen so just kind of nailing down some of those legal aspects of that common use driveway [1:16:17] Speaker A (unidentified): George did you say the fire chief had a comment about a turnaround I understand that the [1:16:26] Planning Board Chair: applicant has had discussions with fire chief and that they're looking at doing a expanded turnaround to talk to have to allow them to turn around up there maybe the applicant can address [1:16:37] Speaker E (unidentified): that yeah so we have submitted your name and how you're affiliated with the project yeah my name is evan jones the put together the application for the current owner so we in discussions SUGGESTIONS WITH BOTH THE FIRE CHIEF AND ROAD COMMISSIONER WE HAD SUBMITTED THE SAME ROAD PLAN THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET WHICH INCLUDES IMPROVING THE END OF WINTER'S WAY TO A T-SHAPED HAMMER HEAD TURNAROUND SO THAT THEY HAD INDICATED TO US AND AS WELL TO CODE enforcement it sounds like that would provide an acceptable level of service so that proposed 60 foot right of way leave space for that improvement at the end of the road. [1:17:34] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, I had just seen previous comments from the chief that said he was okay with the grade of the road. I didn't, I didn't see this comment from him specifically, so I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. [1:17:52] Speaker E (unidentified): Unless I have the long PDF and something. Yeah, the road, the road, the road plan that we sent to them had both the grade question on it as well as what we were proposing for emergency. [1:18:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Turn it off. Okay. May [1:18:16] Speaker C (unidentified): I ask a question? Yes. What do you, or how do you anticipate to control erosion with this increase in grade? [1:18:29] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, so the grade currently is what it is,. The road plan profile that we submitted has what the existing grade is, but it also has some recommendations that we've sent to address some of those items. Most of those are sort of just deferred maintenance on cleaning out culvert inlets, things that should be taken care of there's a section of ditching on the left-hand side of the road and we've identified which station that is where that dishing shouldn't get cleaned out it's not because of erosion that ditching is filled in but just maintenance and plowing over the years it looks like as well as an area where we 're recommending to smooth the road shoulder and adjust the pitch into that moon shoulder to re-vegetate it. Additionally, adding crown to the upper portion of the road to bring it into compliance was sort of typical road standards will help shed that water off to the side. We hadn't seen really any evidence of erosion coming off the road, but it was these sort of deferred maintenance items that we identified that should get taken care of as well as adding the hammerhead turnaround. As far as erosion is concerned during construction, you know, to increase the size of the hammerhead turnaround, we did submit an erosion and sediment control plan for the contractor to comply with while they're constructing the new hammerhead turnaround. You want me to go over what the current room maintenance standard is and how that works and would be helpful. Yeah, so as was stated, this is an amendment to two subdivision plans. The first subdivision was done back in the 80s. The subsequent subdivision was done in 2005 and showed this lot as remaining land. That shouldn't have been done that way. It should have amendment to the previous subdivision, but within that subdivision it showed access being granted to one of the abutting lots from this road. The subdivision plan itself was fairly vague on that, but the deed to that lot references that lot having access via 10 feet either what either side of the center line of the existing road, which is noted on our subdivision plan. Those folks' deed also references that cost sharing should be divided equally between that lot and our lot, and in the case where our lot may be divided further, it would break from going from third, or sorry, going from half and half maintenance costs to third. Maintenance costs, or however many subsequent lots there were, so their current road maintenance agree agreement leaves it open to additional lots being added, but it doesn't actually have the legal documentation to do that. So we've provided a sample road maintenance agreement that would be between the two lots that are shown on this road, but at the same time referencing the existing road magency agreement that lot benefits from and that their cost sharing would then be cut to a third cost since. There are now three lots. It's the lot that is I'm going to get the tax map number off somewhere here, but a lot 1141c is a lot that currently benefits from that 10 feet either side of the center line of the road, so that easement is active, will stay in place, and since the location of the road isn't changing, their easement doesn't necessarily need to change. The new lots will now benefit from a 60-foot easement just because that provides it. Where is the 10 feet you're talking about, so and which. Lock if you go to the subdivision plan itself he's. [Speaker B (unidentified): Jumping yeah.] That's the road this road should be before that, [Speaker B (unidentified): Well,] You might have falsified soon. I don't know if anybody else has got that, you get the front of that moment. Oh, [1:24:19] George: It's not showing. It's right after the completeness checklist. So you gotta go up quite a ways. If I'm looking at it right there, you probably are. [1:24:42] Planning Board Chair: Same project? Yup. What happens when you have a 365 page packet? [1:24:52] Speaker E (unidentified): And I flew the first, yeah, so right there, so they a lot below your cursor, this one, and you see a reference there that says C note eight, just above that text, so note eight there, 's two, there's two arrows coming off of that C note eight. That note eight references their current driveway easement, which covers their maintenance as easement as well. Is that easement on that? So the easement is, was not defined on the face of the earth, other than being on along the center line of the existing roadway. Okay, so the existing roadway as it was shown on previous subdivision plans was that segment of road that comes in and then turns left, and they can go off anywhere they want, right? Okay, so it wasn't, it wasn't physically defined on the plan previously in 2005, but it was defined in that way in their easement. [1:26:05] Planning Board Chair: Documentation, and that's in this record, that's on our subdivision plan. Oh yeah, reference to that easement, yeah, is on our subdivision plan, and the new maintenance agreement is just going to be. [1:26:17] Speaker E (unidentified): Between the two lots, so the new maintenance agreement is between the two lots, but also references the existing agreement that includes this lot. Okay, yeah, that helps. That was the cleanest way we could think enough to do it. Are there new lot lines being developed, or? Yeah, so the new lot line there, if you're coming from the corner of that property that I was just talking about, the darker dashed lines are the new lot line, so from there to there, that where the existing house is, lot one, lot two is. The remaining 12.3 acres. Lot two would own the right-of-way in fee, so that the acreage of the right-of-way itself is on lot two. And then that's why that line there where the Wintersway on the north side of Wintersway is a thinner dashed line, because it's just a right-of-way line. [1:27:38] Speaker A (unidentified): Frontage for the lot, the. [1:27:44] Speaker E (unidentified): 12 acre lot is rare, so the frontage for the 12 acre lot would be the 480. [1:27:49] Planning Board Chair: Along the winter's way this, yeah, and now with the new ordinance you can count this, right, so. [1:28:01] Speaker B (unidentified): It'd be that and. [1:28:06] Speaker E (unidentified): That's at least 300 feet, yeah, yep, that's if they have actually more in front. Yeah. 480 plus the turnaround. Do you want me to do a quick run-through of what was submitted in the waiver request, or? [1:28:58] Speaker A (unidentified): I just had a comment on the cost estimate. [Speaker B (unidentified): So.] The estimate from COP exceeds the engineer's estimate. I just want to know which one we're going to go with to submit to the town for review. [1:29:48] Speaker E (unidentified): So the estimate that we did was based on what we typically carry for equipment rates and material rates for gravel. Travel so costs and rates, I'm not shocked that the actual excavator came in higher given Diesel's seven bucks. One of the waivers that we're requesting is for financial performance guarantee, just because it's such a small amount. So it, we submitted, We submitted a waiver for financial performance guarantee in lieu of basically having a financial capacity statement submitted that the applicant has the financial capacity to undertake those costs. So if you know, in the, in the, financial capacity letter was submitted with the intent to cover the contractor's costs, because that is going to be whoever, whatever contractor is selected, it would be the real world's cost these days. [1:31:06] Speaker A (unidentified): Now, I just wanted to understand that before we make a motion on the waiver comments from the board here. I [1:31:46] Speaker I (unidentified): think we'll charge a set of votes identifying who has legal rights to the road. [1:31:51] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't have any comments. [1:32:18] Speaker A (unidentified): So we need to make a motion on every waiver or just summarize. [1:32:25] Planning Board Chair: I did include a draft set of preliminary approval conditions on page 260, I think. Thing. Yep. The way that's worded, we'll address that. [1:32:46] Speaker A (unidentified): So number seven, George, regarding this construction cost, they're looking for a waiver here. [1:32:59] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, you just substitute that in for what wording is there. Okay. The board grants a waiver. Okay. [1:33:49] Speaker A (unidentified): I'll entertain a motion. Unless you have any other comments, questions, or issues here? All right, I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision application of the Bassett Subdivision Amendment as outlined on page 260 of PDF that's been submitted, with the exception of number 7. Number seven I would also include in my own motion that we waive the performance guarantee [1:34:41] Speaker B (unidentified): I have a second promotion on fair okay thank you one [1:34:57] Speaker E (unidentified): I guess do you want to move to public comment on this [1:35:08] Planning Board Chair: I don't need to is that being waived well planning board you didn't discuss holding [1:35:17] Speaker A (unidentified): Excuse me public hearing no we didn't discuss the public were notified yeah we received [1:35:25] Speaker E (unidentified): That so I guess I initially we submitted everything for preliminary a few things came in afterwards being ifw review in the financial capacity so those were submitted within the two weeks prior but I always like to clarify I guess whether or not you are [1:35:52] Planning Board Chair: Okay, here you should put together the final plan for the next meeting and have all the documentation ready to go, and that's when you'll approve the final. Okay, is there a public hearing? They're not talking about having public hearing. Okay, all right, they're not required to. Okay, that [1:36:08] Speaker A (unidentified): was my question. Yeah, okay, yes, thank you. Thanks for clarifying that, it's an important point. [Speaker B (unidentified): Thanks, hey.] Number eight, new business, numbers letter C, completing this review of Harmoni Towers. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Oh, only Towers. Gateway LLC site plan review application for a telecommunication tower at 662 Millbrook Road, No. 5, block 46C. Public comment will not be taken. Are you the applicant? Yes, sir. Would you please state your name and your relationship to this application? [1:37:02] Mark Roberts: Yeah, I am. My name is Mark Roberts, and I am the representative for Harmony Towers in this application. [1:37:18] Speaker A (unidentified): Would you like to, would you please explain a little bit about the project? [1:37:23] Speaker B (unidentified): Oh, sure, this is [1:37:42] Mark Roberts: a 290 foot self-supporting telecommunications tower primarily for, initially for Verizon Wireless's use, located on Newelbrook Road adjacent to a Mid-Coast Truck Repair from the adjacent lot to the west. So the, so essentially it's a, you know, it's a tower in a 50 by 50 fenced compound with, you know, communication base station equipment located on the ground around the tower, gravel driveway 12 feet wide within a 30-foot easement from Route 9, just bringing power and fiber to the compound. No water, no sewer, intermittent vehicle traffic for maintenance, essentially. I guess the key thing to point out at this stage, since we're looking at this plan view on the survey, is that we are going to move the tower. One of the items that Georgia pointed out initially was that there is a separate setback standard for non-residential uses in, the rural agricultural zone, which is 100 feet, and so right now we're, you know, probably 20 feet off of that rear property line and 65 or so off of the, off of the east. So we talked about maybe moving property lines, but I think the quickest thing to do is just to shift the compound. It'll move essentially closer to Route 9, maybe 80 feet or so, center the center, in order to accommodate the setback, so that new survey work is underway. That'll kind of drive, you know, the resubmittal of some of these other items that are currently missing, though that's our time driver. Thank [1:40:15] Speaker A (unidentified): you. Yeah, George. [1:40:16] Planning Board Chair: Would you like to summarize your comments here? Well, the threshold issue that I did clarify with the town attorney is that in the past the town has, planning board has reviewed towers as conditional use, but the town attorney, after reviewing the ordinance, determined that essential services definition includes transmission towers. So some towns treat it as conditional uses. Some towns have special zones for transmission towers. Durham basically treats it as an essential use, which other than in the shoreland zone, does not trigger a conditional use review, and as we pointed out and we've been put this up to the top of the list, the town currently has no standards for transmission towers, so it's kind of like where you were before we did the solar standards, and so the only applicable standards that you have for this project is the site plan review which is article 8, which is really designed not for transmission Towers but for shopping centers and those types of commercial places that have parking and landscaping lighting and all that stuff, so but on the on the other side of that is that there are specific submission requirements and standards that have to be met even for a transmission Tower, and so I did can provide a list with some AI assistance of what is required for every recycling review application, and the applicant has indicated he's seen that and is anticipating providing some updated plans that include the required information, yeah. [1:42:05] Mark Roberts: And so I guess there are a couple of items on here that I might need some clarification on, and I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate forum or if that's something that I can work on with you George in the meantime, probably I could help you with that, okay perfect, and there are waiver [1:42:24] Planning Board Chair: provisions in the ordinance too that you could look at, right, so [1:42:40] Mark Roberts: I none of the items in your list are I see is problematic other than clarification like I said, so I guess one question because I think it's time sensitive is the notification requirement which I believe is at least 10 days prior to the meeting, so you know if the stars were to align and i was able to get everything together before the next meeting which i assume is two weeks, it's actually november the first wednesday in november, okay so it's almost once a month, okay, so yeah i don't have to worry about nothing, the key is going to be how fast we can get the survey on the schedule, so there [1:43:46] Speaker C (unidentified): is quite a substantial list of missing information here which appears that the applicant is aware of is that correct yeah correct i mean my main goal was to [1:44:00] Mark Roberts: get something submitted a lot of towns operate in different ways and so this is helpful to flag the items those that are you know potentially subject to waiver requests or what have you again it's especially with the site moving a lot of that stuff kind of resets [1:44:28] Speaker I (unidentified): I'll make a motion to mark the patients are complete as submitted second [1:44:36] Speaker A (unidentified): I would just add that it's incomplete based on the list that George has put together for procedural and mandatory submissions. Additionally, an application would be good. [1:44:56] Planning Board Chair: It looks like the applicant [1:44:58] Speaker A (unidentified): just took a copy of our land use ordinance and just put checkmarks next to things, but there's an actual form that should be completed as well. [1:45:08] Planning Board Chair: I'll second that additional information. All in favor? [1:45:15] Mark Roberts: Thank you, thank you. [1:45:27] Speaker A (unidentified): Job is not getting any easier, I'll tell you that. Okay, other business. Discussion of potential land use code amendments for the 2027 town meeting. Public comment will not be taken. George, summary, please. [1:45:49] Planning Board Chair: Yes, as we discussed the last couple of meetings, the town meeting for 2027 will be next June, and that's your opportunity to update your ordinances, to continue implementation of the comprehensive plan and to address issues like we just discussed in the last application. So we had identified the topics of affordable housing the town has brought most of the regulations into requirements by for the to meet state there are some a few that go into effect this coming July so the town attorney is working on those to get everything finalized and you'll be looking at that from her gravel travel pits the ordinance currently causes a lot of confusion and has caused some significant problems in terms of who regulates what size pits and so try to standardize all pits get treated the same would be helpful telecommunications Tower we just talked about the total lack of any standards and then we had some discussions during the last set of discussion pod minor policies to clarify the noise regulations that kind of got bogged down in issues of fireworks and fire and shooting ranges and this kind of goes back to what we're trying to accomplish in the first place was just clarify how you measure it you know because right now somebody calls up said I on my phone it Says there's 80 decibels come out, come over and shut them down. It doesn't work that way. So this kind of just clarifies what, how you do sound studies, and pretty much it would be just limited to those things like gravel kits and other noise generators, as opposed to towns not going to go out and regulate fireworks based on noise. So then the agriculture one, which we have put up earlier, the agriculture committee, some representatives are here tonight, night, they've submitted specific amendments. And so What I'm proposing to do is separate theirs out, because that's a more in-depth discussion at this point. For the other issues I've presented you with a series of white, what I'm calling white papers, which pretty much looks at these issues from a policy standpoint, and the general policy that is proposed in these white papers is to not get into to deciding where transmission towers go or where gravel pits should not be allowed. It just says right now the regulations are need to be fixed, so just deal With fixing the regulations at this point and defer larger locational issues and those sorts of things. That's not what I'm proposing you're tonight. You have the opportunity to say no, we think that this bigger issue needs to be address at this point. And so I'm just looking for direction if whether you endorse for this next town meeting just continuing to fix the broken ordinances, so at least when applications come in you have what you need to deal with something like this application. And also The agriculture committee obviously wants to deal with a policy level, but so the question will be do you want to deal with it at the policy level on any of those other issues, whether it's for revisiting affordable housing, looking at fireworks and being included, where telecommunications towers should go or not go. And so that's kind of where we are at this level. And then if you give me either confirmation of just go according to what I've got in those white papers, don't get into big policy issues, Just focus on fixing the ordinances to make sense, I can very quickly draft up the amendments into that and have those ready for you. But I don't want to do that and then I'm on the wrong policy track before and spend all the time doing it. So that's kind of where we are with this. [1:50:18] Speaker B (unidentified): I [1:50:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Was under the impression that the select board had voted on fireworks and basically saying that there would not be any policy created within the town and they would follow the standards created by the state. Yeah, I think so. I have to [1:50:41] Planning Board Chair: call that out in the ordinance, but where we get bogged down was saying, well, wait a minute, does this, if we do that in these regulations, does that say and then fireworks you can't? So we just started spinning on that. Okay, so I think the intent is to say no, it doesn't. It will, we'll make sure it's clear, no, it doesn't, doesn't affect that. Yeah, I think one of your comments was about [1:51:04] Speaker A (unidentified): like one-time uses, right? Yeah, thank you guys, rather than something that's continuous, you know, like a generator for instance that's continually running and being in an annoyance to somebody, but and they saw no persona, correct? Yeah, very different than the fourth of July one time kind of thing. Yeah, have you all had a chance to look at these? Yeah, good, awesome. Are we okay with moving forward with social the affordable housing? [1:51:44] Planning Board Chair: Our hands are kind of tied with that one, right? It's a state requirement to some extent. You're saying we're gonna do the bottom line of affordable housing and no more in terms of whatever the state requires, that's it. Many communities because of the housing challenges are going beyond that and adopting ordinances to give dense and density bonuses or apply for state funding programs. I don't think Durham's at that point, but this just simply says go by what the state requires and that's it and the heavy lift here is from the town attorney is that, yeah, right, the town has received funding through the you know state, so this seemed like a way just put that over into the town attorney's lap and she's going to end up reviewing it anyway to make sure we're in compliance, so just let her draft the amendments and explain. All right, so that's a [1:52:50] Speaker A (unidentified): light workload for the board then. We have gravel pits, telecommunication and the, is it called noise ordinance or is that just noise amendments? Yeah, do you all think we have the capacity to deal with these for the June, is it June 2027? [1:53:18] Speaker I (unidentified): I think it's a much lesser load than it was this meeting, so I certainly have much more [1:53:26] George: capacity to handle this than it would be to actually handle policy changes, the larger smoke issues, which could maybe be addressed at future meetings. [1:53:35] Speaker A (unidentified): I'm going to make a suggestion that we hold some workshops for these outside of this meeting. You guys okay with that? [1:53:45] Speaker C (unidentified): Have we had an inventory of gravel pits? Yeah, okay, and all the inventory and all the history [1:53:57] Planning Board Chair: behind - no, okay, that's the heavier lift. Yeah, and again, the goal is not to get into that as part of what we're doing here. That's being done separately, the larger, that's going to take longer. This can, this will just clear up how the town got where it did. Is there was confusion with pit owners and operators thinking I don't need to go to town for this because this is DEP, and so a lot of what happened probably happened without any planning or were involved. Yeah. [1:54:38] Speaker A (unidentified): And so lastly, the agritourism proposal, there's a lot to swallow here. Not sure if anybody has any comments on this now, but they have a meeting on October 28th, and I think they're looking, and I think they are looking for comments from this board prior to the 28th. Is it, does it make sense to have a workshop or hold a workshop within the next couple of weeks so that we can provide some feedback for their meeting on the 28th? Does that work for you all? I think so. Yeah, I'll be gone next week. All right. Juliet's not here, but what are we, what does everybody calendar look like [1:55:39] Speaker I (unidentified): for the next couple of weeks? I haven't gone the last two weeks of October, one for work, one for [1:55:46] Speaker A (unidentified): vacation. Last two weeks you're going next week, George. We obviously want you to be a part of that, so how about the week of the 19th? And maybe Brian, you can provide some comments, sure, that we can look at. Does that work? Yeah. How does, what does the week of the 19th look like for everybody? About Alan and Darren, the [1:56:20] George: 20th is not good. I have parent teacher conferences. [1:56:24] Speaker A (unidentified): Do you want to stick to Wednesday nights? I prefer, okay, perfect. Yep, I'm flexible on the [1:56:32] Speaker C (unidentified): a little bit anyway, so the 21st it looks like. All right, would that be, well, we need to find out about [1:56:41] Speaker A (unidentified): availability here, correct? Yeah, well, let's, let's bookmark it, yep, for now, 6 30. Does that work? Want to go sooner, later? [1:56:55] Speaker I (unidentified): I'll be at the scat away New Jersey, so [1:56:59] Speaker A (unidentified): sounds riveting. No, all right, 6 30. Yeah, if [1:57:07] Planning Board Chair: this isn't available, we can always use the [1:57:09] Speaker A (unidentified): try to use the, yeah, here we go, all right, workshop for my notes, and George, you're gonna confirm from availability of the place. All right. 20, October 21st, 6.30, we'll try to, yeah, if you just want to send me your comments beforehand, I'll check with Juliette Amart to see if she's available. And I'll let you all know if that needs to change. You're good with that? Okay. Since you all are here, do you have anything you want to discuss or add or? [1:58:02] Planning Board member: So, just so I'm clear, you all are not discussing that tonight, and you're going to discuss it on the 21st? [1:58:07] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I think it's a lot to swallow, unless anybody has any immediate comments on the agritourism proposal. [1:58:15] George: I mean, I appreciate how thoughtful it is. So, thank you. [1:58:21] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, we're going to have a meeting on the 21st and provide you with, I know you were looking for some feedback before your meeting on the 28th. So we'll get that to you on 21st before the 28th. Okay, well I will not, I don't know if we're supposed [1:58:37] Planning Board member: to attend on 21st or not, but I think it would be great if they did. Yeah, I will, I won't be able to have to have more discussion tonight, but I wouldn't be able to be there and try first. I don't know other members are, I'm not sure right now. Okay, I think maybe just if I could just share just a couple comments, and so I'm Jonah Furtick Bird, 1.5 Hill Road, co-chair of the Agriculture Committee, and so I've reviewed your documents, George compared, and I think you know just overall I think what you know we you know really the intention of this is to get to places where we have clarity for farmers, clarity for the town, and you know have appropriate scale what of agritourism in the community. And so I think you know appreciate the thoroughness of your review, George, and that and you know also just like making this clear so it doesn't become a complex like enough review and enough clarity, so like I think one thing that was coming up as I was looking at some of the things, this is yeah trying to get like how do we reduce the subjectivity of it and get to more objectivity of different aspects of it, and so I think that's what we were trying to do with some of the aspects and recognize that you know there's more clarity to get to. And, yeah, so we will have a public meeting and potluck on the 28th at the Eureka Center. [2:00:22] Speaker F (unidentified): And then, you know, [2:00:23] Planning Board member: look forward to both getting your comments and public's comments to then continue to revise that further. I mean, and just when the two of you came, you know, or took that in and tried to revise it from that conversation as well. [2:00:39] Planning Board Chair: Does that framework that I suggested tested for refining the tiers makes sense? Yeah, I think overall it does. I mean, I think just the [2:00:49] Planning Board member: thing that I was as I was reviewing this, you know, there's like, let's see, this is the agricultural white paper on page four, and there's developing the tears, and there's one, two [2:01:10] Planning Board Chair: to nine here, right, but that was the grid just applying. Yeah, but the principle is first established, and what it took from yours was three or four levels of review, starting out with just the no review by the town for certain activities, then having certain ones that get reviewed by code officer if it involves any kind of permits, and then if it involves multiple departments, having a review committee, staff review committee, fire chief, planner, code officer, road commissioner, or some combination and then only those activities that either individually, because of the particular use, a high traffic generator or whatever, noise generator, those would go to the full planning board review as it does now. And so, or if you had ones that individually might not trigger a planning board review, once you get up to a certain composite of activity that makes it the equivalent impacts of one of those high noise traffic generators, then that composite plan or project would go to the planning board for a conditional use review. So that was first the concept, and so obviously the board and the and the agriculture committee and ultimately the town meeting have to agree that framework is going to be put into place, and then the question is how do you go about assigning signing each one into those boxes. Yeah, so what I did was I just came up with a set of quite initial questions to say how do you take each proposed use and rather than just saying how many people are going to be involved and how often does it happen, you ask these serious questions and you put it through that filter, each proposed part of this, put those through that filter, and then it either ends up in tier one if it doesn't have any impacts, tier two if it has to go to the ceo, tier three if it affects traffic or roads or new driveway entrances, that goes to a committee, and if it's going to be, you know, a combination of events per year, like the wellness center came up with, you know, all these different events that are going to be happening, then the composite kicks it into tier four. Yeah. [2:03:48] Planning Board member: i think just, you know, again, kind of how to how to make it and the reason why we kind of landed on the numbers of people is it becomes a clarity versus like there's a clarity like that being, oh, you have numbers of people, you know, and i think just as we think about the different questions, just making, yeah, sure that they're easily to quantify or clarify, and so i mean like just to, you know, it's like a like an [Speaker B (unidentified): example does] The activity supplement and support agriculture like there's a greater subjectivity of that could, you know, could exist than how many people are there at an event. And so I just want, you know, as we think about this, I mean, we, and I think there's importance that was put in there of, you know, making sure like, and this is something we discussed a lot too, is we want this not to be like, hey, we just have a field and we're, and now we're calling it agritourism. You want to make sure that there is an agricultural enterprise and the, there's definitions for that. I mean, the USDA definition is that agricultural enterprises if you're selling a thousand dollars or more in a year. So, you know, we want to make sure that, I mean, that, and that's pretty low bar, but that there isn't, you know, active agriculture operations. I think that's the relationship to agriculture, that's one of the first ones, and part of the challenge [2:05:20] Planning Board Chair: of that is making sure you don't have a would typically be a commercial venture exactly, that then adds a thousand dollars worth of we're going to have a vegetable garden or something that to generate the thousand, and now it's really which is the, which is the primary use. [2:05:37] Planning Board member: And, you know, I will say that given how little we pay for produce in this country, you can make more money from like an Airbnb on your farm sometimes and, you know, selling produce. And that's, you know, and so I think there's, there's a, you know, and that's like, so the challenge to kind of a needle thread there in a sense, to make sure that we're, you know, yeah, that we're not, you know, to your point, you're not just saying hey, we're just, you know, doing like doing something that's a little add-on so that we can qualify, and yet at the same time we also don't want to create barriers that make it so if you're, you know, legitimately doing agritourism where you know, kind of like, well let's, you know, the end of each year we need to evaluate what's your income level from the farmers, like that could get to a place of too much. I think this would be [2:06:36] Planning Board Chair: up front just trying to define the different uses, not individual screen of the projects, and then and once it meets these certain criteria, then it can be considered that. [2:06:50] Planning Board member: Yeah, and so, I mean, you know, just to, I mean, yeah, again, as we went through this, developing those tiers and, you know, open to other thoughts about the best way to structure that and, you know, really try to go through and think through the various aspects of the performance standards and again open to the feedback to do this to be something that works for you all and then ultimately for the town as well. I don't know if you're there, but Abby Apartment is the main farmland trust and Eric his day is also on the agricultural committee. Do [2:07:31] Speaker B (unidentified): you have anything else you want to add? Yeah. [2:07:36] Speaker F (unidentified): I took three area would go anything with a lot of those under those nine categories. There's a lot of great questions, but a lot of them seem like the answers to them are very subjective. And so when you're an individual agricultural person trying to have agritourism sort of goes down a rabbit hole of answers that you don't know which direction it's gonna really take you. Yeah, we just worry about what's the framework there. [2:08:18] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I think from my perspective and I'm sure all the board members feel about, we don't want any ambiguity. You know, it'll be late when it's nice and cut and dry. And there's a lot of, there's a lot, right? I mean, all these different tiers years and all these different applications to and I just like when is it a business, you know, and does it does it fall under a business category rather than an agriculture? Like I'm just going to use Replanova as an example, right? Like just the other day they had an event or whatever, it was a couple weeks ago, they had an event where they shut off their parking lot and people were parking on route 136 and that's that's dangerous, right? Number one, and they've been expanding, right? So at one point I could see that being an agritourism venue or agritourism zone, whatever label. Well, George, what's the right from the from the get-go? And then it expands, you know, now we have a farm stand, now we're selling booze, now we have a, you know, just so at some point you're going to say, well, when does it come back to the planning board or when does it go? Every time you expand, should it come to the planning board? When you get a liquor license, they didn't start by selling beer. And wine now they are which, you know, I'm just trying of take all the guesswork out of it and try to figure out when we need to get involved in not or not. And the other thing I noticed was, you know, you have these yurts or tiny homes as part of, does that fall under the, and an accessory dwelling unit, does that fall under a different category when you have all of these different living quarters or living spaces on your property. Just quick thoughts. Yeah. Just talking out loud, really, but. So yeah, I mean, some of it's complicated. We just need to discuss it. [2:10:44] Planning Board member: Regarding parking, we do name the performance centers, no street parking, so we do have it in there. [2:10:49] Speaker A (unidentified): Right, yeah, but so I don't know what was going on that night why they decided not to have people park there was a food truck there I'm not sure if it was Annie's food truck that you decided to call come off parking but yeah I don't know but when I saw that 's what made me think of think of it yeah but yeah I mean and [2:11:12] Planning Board member: We definitely recognized I mean the aspect of auxiliary dwellings there's some complication there and so you know I'm wanting to figure out how to best navigate that you know with existing ADU network as well so a thoughts you know how to yeah I mean how did to do that I mean and I think as we talked in be right now that is under code enforcement officer review in our tiers you know and if it's like yeah that you all think that goes to a should be put at a higher tier then you know [2:11:54] Speaker A (unidentified): Welcome that feedback as well so no it is allowed under affordable housing you can have up to is it five units on the lot is that right or three units on one three [2:12:06] Planning Board Chair: Under Durham, three accessory units. [2:12:10] Planning Board member: That we did change to three. And I mean, it'd be equivalent to that. The five camps, under five campsites aligns us with state regulations. I think I'd say, here at Select Board, I noted that Durham's campsite regulations right now, if you're over one, your campsite or your campground. [2:12:33] Planning Board Chair: Well, you gotta look at the definition. And what is a primitive campsite and what is a campground I don't think the intent or the ordinance requires a planning board review of a of a primitive campsite well I mean when I've [2:12:47] Planning Board member: Looked at it before. It doesn't, I don't think it does. It does, it distinguish that, because I don't think I remember seeing that. We can look at it. Yeah, so anyways, I mean, you know, and I mean, I think to, what was your comment, George? I mean, yeah, great, you know, primitive campsite, you know, versus, yeah, it's obviously different than a, than an RV with sewer and all that. So I mean, yeah, again, welcome those, that feedback to clean that up and make it be clear what is allowed. I mean, and yeah, I mean, like I think In our intention, it is definitely not under being permitted. We were not envisioning five campsites with RV hookups and electric and sewer are being permitted by rights. So we can clarify that language and make that be clear for all. [2:13:43] Speaker A (unidentified): All right. So we're going to have a workshop scheduled, and hopefully you get me some comments before the 28th. [2:13:50] Planning Board member: Yeah. I'll see if anyone else from our committee is able to attend. Fantastic. And if there's any questions between now and then, you can feel free to reach out as well. Thank you, Jonah. Yeah. [2:14:06] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, last on our agenda, as you're all aware, some do they resign from the board, use this with a vacancy. I'd like to make a motion, if Darren you're acceptable of this, to become a permanent member, active, right, active permanent member. Isn't that, does that have to go [2:14:31] Planning Board Chair: through? Yeah, they sent it back to you to get a recommendation. Yeah, first time I've been through [2:14:38] Speaker A (unidentified): this circle, so I'm just checking the boxes now. Yeah, so I would like to make a motion that we appoint or ask the select board to appoint Darren as a permanent member of the [2:14:54] Speaker C (unidentified): of the planning board. Second. Third. Okay, and I would hope that if we have any ideas of someone that might want to be an alternate to bring them aboard. Yes, I've noticed that the [2:15:11] Speaker A (unidentified): town has been soliciting applications for another member, so thank you for, I never said yes yet, so yes, so now it'll move forward to the select board and we'll see what they have to [2:15:26] George: say about it. Do you need anything from me in order for that to happen, or is it something that you, blood sample? I think let's do blood sample, my firstborn child. [2:15:38] Speaker A (unidentified): No, I think from here I'll let, I'll let, I have an email chain going, I'll let Joe Roy and Jerry know that we approved. Approved the request. Approved the request, yes, thank you. Whatever, I'm not gonna say it well, but I'll type it out. I'll do that tomorrow. Cool. All right. [2:16:03] Planning Board Chair: Okay. I'll move that we adjourn. Second? I'll second. All in favor? Good night. Thank you all. [2:16:39] Speaker A (unidentified): Do I just unplug everything to get this to stop? [2:16:42] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't know. I will switch it. It's on. [2:16:58] Speaker I (unidentified): All right. I tend to go with the window ignition for the number 4. Ah. That'd be dangerous. This is a hold on my calendar right now. [2:17:10] Speaker B (unidentified): What's the game? [2:17:17] Planning Board member: What's the next game? Yes. Keep running. I'll put that in there. Okay. Okay.