Berwick Planning Board approves Megan's Meadow final plan, accepts Northland Drive subdivision

[18:16] Chair: Geez, it's a good thing that a quorum is only three people now. [18:35] Board Member: No, I'm just kidding. [18:37] Chair: Yeah, because I'm obviously very organized. I did bring the file, though. It'll say it at the bottom. It'll say it in his memo. Oh, we're on. Good evening, everybody. I would like to call to order the Planning Board meeting for Thursday, October 15th, if we could all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, I'd like to introduce my board members tonight. Tonight, to my left, we have George Claussen. We have Rick Raines, who's the vice chair. And to my right, we have Niles Shore. Terry Wilson is here. She's our code enforcement officer. And James Bellissimo, still just the town planner? Just the town planner. Perfect. First order on our agenda is to approve the minutes from the October 1st meeting. Did everybody have an opportunity to review those minutes? And did anybody find any changes that needed to be made? [20:00] Board Member: I have reviewed the minutes and make a motion that we accept them as written. All right, I have [20:05] Chair: a motion. Do I have a second? All right, I have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? All right, approved. Moving on, I'm going to open up our first public, oh, there we are, our first public comment section of the agenda. So public comment is open to anybody that's a resident of the town of Berwick with anything under the purview of the Berwick Planning Board that is not a current open application or an agenda item. Did you think that was thorough enough, the way I said that? Yeah, very good. I know we discussed that before. So if you have any public comments, please feel free to come to the podium. If not, I'll be closing it in just a moment. All right, seeing nobody come, I'm going to close the public comment. We have no public hearings tonight, and we're going to start with unfinished business. So the first order of unfinished business is an extension request for the major subdivision, major subdivision, 17 lots off School Street and Heritage Drive. That's the Sow Solar, and they had they'd actually put in their requests before our last meeting. Yep, because they, because they're, They're doing this spreading sedge work, and I don't know. The guy couldn't get out there in time or something. There was a delay with that, but they're still waiting on stuff. So they've submitted their formal request for an extension. They followed the rules for doing that. Is that something that we need to vote on or just acknowledge it? [21:38] Board Member: Just so you could vote to grant the 90-day extension. Okay. And everything was put in a time. I received word about a preliminary study and that would be coming soon so study was done [21:52] Chair: they found actually I did get more information about that they found they did find two of the plants way out both of them are in open space from what I understand but two were found so that's great. So I guess I'm looking for a motion to grant the extension. So moved. All right. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on granting the extension? All right. All those in favor? All right. So extended. So we're going to go a little bit off agenda. We're just switching it around a little bit. So we're going to go right now to the final plan for Megan's Meadow subdivision, which was the creation of one lot and I believe we have the town attorney on as well okay hello there you are the magic of television I'll leave you that and this is our final plan meeting aren't you happy well I'm sure I'll be back we'll see you in two weeks Neil all [23:43] Neil Raposa: right good evening my name is Neil Raposa I'm with Still Consultants New England here on behalf of LRB Leasing, who is the developer for Megan's Way here. We've been in front of the board several times. This project basically allows the creation of one single-family lot due to the acquisition of some additional lands that was transferred between the applicant and an abutter. So it allowed for the density to create the single-family lot that we have here shown in as shown highlighted in yellow down on this edge here and there were some items that came up in the last meetings one of them was the proximity to farmland or farmland on the property and that was clarified by the applicant that there is none on the property excuse me and also the trails that were specified in the prior approval that were to be maintained. I did not have the knowledge that I needed at that meeting, and those turned out to be trails that actually were maintained by staff there and by the applicant, and he did send over photograph evidence and some videos about the trailhead and the network that's out there. There were several conditions that were brought up that I received last night that were not worked on to the plan, but they were reviewed and I got a chance to speak to the client about them. And the majority of them are fine, that we have no problem adding to the plan. We did want to clarify the condition about the, let me see if I can bring it up here, we [25:35] Chair: have three conditions or sorry four conditions I've [25:49] Board Member: also lost the video and [25:59] Chair: do you have a copy of the conditions and findings of fact Grady? I do yes and my network connection is gone so oh no [26:09] Neil Raposa: so we could read those and it's basically just the condition regarding the limitation of the development and ownership. I believe it was condition four here. Why don't [26:20] Chair: you grab mine and we've got extras here? I'll grab pretty stuff. That's okay, thank you, appreciate that. [26:31] Neil Raposa: And the conditions of approval that were presented was a water quality analysis for testing for total coliform, E. coli, nitrate, nitrogen, and arsenic would be required for occupancy permit as issued for the proposed single-family dwelling. And that's fine. We'll add that to the final plan. The open space that was discussed, we did set aside an open space equal to 15% of the overall lot and that is in the area of the existing footpaths that go throughout the throughout the property beyond the beyond the rock wall that's that's that's shown in those images that were presented. So that one has been added to the plan and it says the applicant [27:15] Chair: shall convey to the town a conservation easement over the open space prohibiting future development. Correct. Okay so that'll be great for the town. I mean it just sounds like the town's getting [27:24] Neil Raposa: new trails out of this. It's it's that's one of the things we have to you know we have to go through and see what the language is going to be. It's it's it's one of those items we have to discuss maintenance and all that portion of it, but it will yeah it's it's going to be prevented from development on that on that easement and it's yeah it is it's a beautiful area out there [27:43] Chair: the middle of that field. So and these conditions get put onto the final plan before it's [27:48] Neil Raposa: recorded right? Yeah correct. Yeah before signature. Can I do a proper information please? [27:53] Board Member: So typically the conservation easement like that wouldn't necessarily become public access unless was specified, so there would be public maintenance. Conservation easement just meaning it's protected from development in the future if the ordinances change a hundred years from now. There's an LB 2003 for rural areas where they're coming where that's yeah, you know what I mean? [28:17] Chair: Yes, it'll still be protected. It'll still be protected. That runs with the land [28:23] Board Member: fraternity right and it'd be the town to enforce perfect correct and condition three is the one [28:31] Neil Raposa: that we're i have not had a chance to put on the plan and go through completely with the client he's out of out of the country so and that was just restriction on the building permit so no building permit shall be issued until the code enforcement officer confirms in writing that all violations of previously approved plans with the town of berwick held by the applicant or by any individual or entity-owned manager controlled by Les Baudwell, including Navina Estates LLC, have been demonstrated to have been resolved, or upon confirmation by the Code Enforcement Officer that Mr. Baudwell is no longer actually or effectively directing or managing the proposed project. And that one, we would like clarification on the second portion of it, what that actively, effectively directing or managing the proposed project would be in this case, since this project is really just splitting off a lot, [29:24] Chair: that would be sold. I think that's why our attorney is with us today. Would you like to chime in? [29:38] Board Member: And I will say my connection broke up a little bit in the last third of what Neil was saying. So I'm happy to talk about the condition and what options you have as a board, but if there was a specific question, [29:55] Chair: I'm afraid I think they're looking for some kind of clarification about the second half of the condition about It's yeah just that the end part upon confirmation [30:13] Board Member: Correct. Yep, so I think the best reading of that language would be no longer Actively or effectively directing or managing development of lot three or the subdivision. I think if the board wanted to be more specific, so that the condition as it reads right now is a restriction on the building permit that would be issued as to lot three, which is the newly created lot. If the board, if the intention here is for the board to determine that Mr. Bodwell is no longer developing that lot or part of the process after the division, the actual development of the property itself. You could tighten up that language and replace the proposed project with activities on lot three or no longer effectively directing or managing ANY PROJECTS RELATED TO THE SUBDIVISION. [31:43] Neil Raposa: I GUESS FOR CLARIFICATION, I GUESS WE WOULD WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT LOT 3 TO LEAVE OUT ANY IMBIGUITY THAT THIS IS THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT IS LOT 3. WE [31:57] Chair: TRIED TO HAVE ON THAT. AND I THINK PUTTING THE SUBDIVISION IN THERE IDENTIFIES, I MEAN, MAYBE IN PARENTHESES PUT LOT 3? WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE? It [32:10] Board Member: depends on the scope of what you want the condition to cover. So if the intention here is that no building permit will issue if there's a determination that Mr. Bodwell is involved in any project on any part of the subdivision, then I think you would want to say that. If the intention was to not have a building permit issue if there's a determination that either if the other violations are not cleaned up or that Mr. Botwell is not affiliated with any project on block 3 specifically, I think you would want to say that. So you could, you could do either, but you would want to clarify if you're doing one or [33:01] Chair: I think, and my board can absolutely speak up here, I think the intention is to get Mr. Bodwell back into good standing with the town, of which right now I think the board feels that he is not in good standing because we have things, projects that weren't completed per what he promised. So that's really the intent here. I think the first part of that really kind of clears that up. I mean, do you, what, you just want to make sure that it's specifically directed to this because he does have other applications in front of the board. You're probably going to see this condition again, Neil. [33:44] Board Member: And so the key here is that any condition you impose here needs to be, it needs to refer back to the application that's in front of you, right? So if the concern here is related to technical capacity, and under your technical capacity standard, one of the things that you need to look at is, well, who are the people actually involved in this project? Has the applicant demonstrated that the people involved actually have the ability, the track record, showing that they can do the things that would need to happen on this site? So if there are concerns about that, or concerns about specific individuals who have been identified as being the ones who would be carrying out the work here or the future development, I think it's appropriate under your regulations to call it out and say, well, you can't proceed unless you're able to demonstrate that the people who are involved in this, involved in the development of the project, are in compliance with the town's ordinances, because it's a matter of technical capacity. We want to make sure that any work being done on this subdivision is up to spec, so the, But because we're really worried about what consultants, developers, individuals are actually doing work on this project, there are two ways you could conceivably cure that, right? One is you could have all the individuals involved bring themselves into compliance, or they could disassociate themselves from the project entirely. An issue if, for example, there were no longer any connection whatsoever between the individuals who were involved in this development and the development at Bovina Estates. You know, there was no actual or legal or effective relationship between them. You know, if the entire interest was conveyed, you know, a new contractor came in, et cetera. In a situation like that, a condition that didn't have that second clause would, it would be trying to solve a problem that no longer existed to a certain extent, right? Because we're worried about the technical capacity for this project, and we're worried about that developer in terms of this project, if that makes sense. So I think it would be, if you're going to have a condition like this, I think it would be important to have something like that second clause there, that's kind of an either or, you know, either the people involved are going to bring themselves into compliance or they're not going to be involved. [36:52] Neil Raposa: It's basically the upshot there, that makes sense, right? Yeah, so it'd be, if he sells it, he's, he's no longer involved entirely with it. Right,, yeah. [37:02] Board Member: Perfect. So again, I think the way it's framed right now is the code enforcement officer would be making, doing some investigation to determine whether, even if there's a legal separation, whether there is still actual or effective participation on the project as well. But as it's framed right now, it would be the code enforcement officer confirming to the Planning Board in writing that either those conditions are either those outstanding violations are abated or no longer affiliated with the project or both so I've got a question Niles has a question yeah do we have the authority to say that these conditions run with the land rather than our personal so the answer is that you could, but the devil is in the details, right? The standard, so any condition you have needs to be rationally and reasonably tied to one of your standards of approval. The underlying standard of approval here is related to the financial and technical capacity to undertake the project. So any condition you have related to that standard should relate back to the concerns that standard is concerned with. Right. So these conditions, any condition on the on the approval will run with the land. Right. So it is a condition on the subdivision. This condition will be met if one of those two things laid out in the condition happen. So, for example, if the property were out-conveyed to a separate LLC that was also owned by Mr. Bogbaugh, I think there's a good argument here that condition would remain unmet. Sure. and it would continue to run with the property, right? On the other hand, if there were, you know, out conveyances or, you know, if the linkages between this project and Mr. Bondwell disappeared, then I think even if this property stayed in, even if there was no transaction, I think the condition would still be fulfilled. Does that make sense? [Chair: yes make] sense to you that's enough thank you [39:53] Neil Raposa: makes sense to you it does still love to see lot three on there [39:58] Chair: just to clarify it so we could put projects related to the subdivision of lot three [40:06] Neil Raposa: or the you know the use of law three or the development the development yeah exactly yeah [40:12] Board Member: yeah or improvement or development [40:17] Chair: correct i think we're all just hoping that mr bodwell sells this lot and makes good on the projects that he started in town and we hope this helps him do that okay [40:32] Board Member: so i think you could you could get there by just striking the proposed project and replacing it with the language that was just described [40:41] Chair: projects related to the improvement or development of lot three okay are you satisfied with that yeah you happy [Board Member: yeah] okay I'm happy enough okay questions anybody on that one it's not [40:59] Board Member: So much a question as maybe a statement, and that is that I believe, and please correct me board if I'm wrong, but I believe our intention of this type of condition is going to start showing up in all of our projects. Yes, so that we have developers who are in good standing continuing to do projects, finish them, move on, so on and so forth. So I guess I would just say be prepared for conditions like this to show up, and we'll fine-tune it I think as we go, but it'll probably be very specific to whatever project we're we're working on. Yeah, we want to see projects get completed properly. [41:43] Neil Raposa: All right, in condition four, in condition four was that all conditions and waivers of with Megan's Meadow 2016 subdivision approval remain in effect, except as modified by this approval. And that one we'll be adding to the plan as well. That was always the intention there. Perfect. Awesome. [42:05] Chair: So, unless we have any further discussion on this, we are looking to approve findings of fact, approve conditions and vote on the final approval. All right. Alright. Have you guys had an opportunity to review the findings of fact? I did. Okay. Niles? Yeah. George? I did not. Okay. Do you want to? Not right now. Alright. So I'm looking for a motion to approve the findings of fact for the Megan's Way, Megan's Meadow. So moved. Second. Alright. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the findings of fact here? All right, all in favor? All right, so we've got four in favor of the findings of fact. We've had a lot of discussion about the conditions, so I'm looking for a motion to approve the conditions of approval for Megan's Meadow as amended. [43:04] Board Member: As amended, so I'll make a motion that we accept the conditions of approval as [43:10] Chair: amended. Okay, I'll second that. Okay, any further discussion on the conditions? No. Nope. All right, all in favor? All right, and then I am looking to vote on approving the final subdivision for the [43:29] Board Member: Megan's Meadow. I'll make a motion that we find the subdivision for Megan's Meadow to be accepted as a final. All right, I'll second. All right, second. Sorry about that 's [43:46] Chair: okay. Any further discussion on that? No. All right, all in favor? Thank [43:55] Board Member: you. Thank you. Will you be leaving those copies of those photos you refer to about the trails? [44:00] Neil Raposa: Yeah, I'd love to see that. I don't have copies. I don't know if you can go on, I can forward them, put it on the screen. I'm sorry, I thought I thought you did it for you, but not [44:10] Board Member: absolutely. Yep, Neil did forward them, I have. Yeah, we were going to try to rig up a yeah or something. [44:27] Chair: All right, so moving on in our unfinished business, we're going to [44:33] Eric Sowery: to... I will sign off here as well. [44:35] Chair: Oh, thank you so much. I really appreciate that. It was very helpful. [44:39] Board Member: Thank you all very much. Good to see you all. [44:42] Chair: So we have the preliminary plan for a major subdivision off Northland Drive, R18-11 in the R3 zone, Webostra,, never know how to pronounce that. I'm going to actually recuse myself from this. As Troy knows, I have a client who is actually, has inquired about this particular subdivision, so, Rick, you're on. [45:38] Eric Sowery: Hi, Eric. How you doing? Good. Excellent. For the record, I'm Eric Sowery from Altus Engineering. Here on behalf of the applicant, I have Troy Williams with me here tonight. He's from the LLC. Sorry, we're representing Mr. Brown, who is the owner of Web Roaster, Inc. And we are talking about a large parcel of land between Long Swamp and Little Rivers down here. It's over 200 acres, but we're talking about a 33-acre chunk right up in here, and we walked it, as you know, about a month ago, I guess, right? Yeah, somewhere in that range. The plan hasn't changed since then. So the 33 acres is getting cut into 11 single-family residential lots with two tracks of open space. Open space is totaling about 18 acres. The road is paved up until here, and it's gravel on through here, Obviously, we would just pave over what's there now. The base is already in, cutting a new cul-de-sac off the hill there. We do have one small wetland impact here for a common dry. We did combine these two lots to minimize the wetland impact. Drainage is, as drainage does, goes downhill, obviously. We do have a small pond right in here. We have decreases in peak rates of runoff. Test bits are passing all over the place. We did have some comments from IF&W about bats. Bats are everywhere. We get that hit all the time and they recommended some tree clearing limitations, which is fine because that's in the summer We hope to clear trees this winter when you want to timber anyway So that's it in a nutshell. You guys have seen the plan already. I'm not going to belabor the point But so we're looking for application acceptance and setting a public hearing if you guys are so disposed to do so, okay? [47:18] Board Member: I read James's notes on the project and everything seems pretty straightforward. Forward, we do have some notes and recommendations that we just want to put out there for you. Absolutely, the first one being that one of the things we would like to see is proof of that a homeowners association will eventually take place. Okay, so our recommendation is that no building permits would be issued after the first six lots until we have proof of a homeowner's association. [47:57] Eric Sowery: Proof being just the docks. Yep. Yeah. We can do that declaration and all that fun stuff. Yep. [48:05] Board Member: And a third-party review has been requested, and we're going to be getting those results back for the next time you guys are in front of us. [48:13] Eric Sowery: We'll send those along. Yep. We hope we can get them back in time. Yeah. Yeah, ideally, if you can push them to get them a lot sooner, then we can turn the plans around by the next hearing. That would be better for everybody, but that's obviously out of our control. Yeah. [48:32] Board Member: Other than that, any questions from the board on the project? It hasn't changed since, except for combining the lots? No? James, you have anything? Thing I just had something. I'm sorry to throw this at you, Eric, but just for considerations for pedestrian circulation, I mean, I don't know if the board want to entertain or think about that, probably in terms of it's a 20 foot wide street in your, is it three foot gravel shoulders? I think we've got four on this one. Four foot. Yeah, are there gravel shoulders? Yeah, let me verify that. Mr. Chair, I don't know if we're going to... [49:17] Eric Sowery: Three footers, yeah, three footers each side. [49:18] Board Member: So, like, if that's just for considerations, maybe Eric can speak to just how... We had people walking on the road during the site walk, so just consideration for pedestrian, and is that shoulder enough? That was a thought I had today. Yep. [49:38] Eric Sowery: My gut feeling is that the shoulders are going to be fine. I mean, this is not a very densely developed project by any stretch of the imagination, similar to where you live, which I'm sure you walked down the road without incident, right? Yeah, I would say the amount of traffic here is going to be negligible. There may be a vehicle crossing through every now and again through Steve Brown's land because he's an open person. He lets people do that. But it's not a through road at all. So I don't see a lot of traffic. It's just going to be people living here. And apparently there's some kids who go out there at two in the morning. That's about it. [50:09] Board Member: I think I agree, and I think that, you know, putting sidewalks along that whole thing is a little bit much, but I'm wondering if we could meet in the middle somewhere and perhaps put up a speed limit sign. I know it's a private road, absolutely be a private road, but if we put a speed limit sign up to [50:28] Eric Sowery: keep it, at least showing that we're trying to slow the folks down. Yeah, absolutely, I think, well, we'll pick a spot. Yeah, we'll find a good spot for 20 miles an hour. Is perfectly reasonable, I think, for in there. The narrower road slows people down as well as the curvature. Yeah, so yeah, does [50:46] Board Member: that help address? I think so. You're right, the narrow road does help. Yeah, okay, like I said, it was a thought today, last minute. Okay, any other questions? I'm just wondering, you did run this [51:04] Eric Sowery: by Chief Plant, correct? This, I believe, has not been run by anybody yet. I thought you guys [51:10] Board Member: gonna do that. Yeah, no, Chief Plant has done a like a cursory review and just mentioned that the [51:18] Eric Sowery: there's a fire cistern or something. Yeah, there's a cistern, I think, on Northland, then the fire pond itself, it doesn't really have a dry hydrant in there, but I understand the fire department uses it for training, so obviously, you know, eight months out of the year it's open, so there's a secondary source of water. You just asked to fix the one on Northland? Oh, it's broken. [51:36] Board Member: Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. So that'd be a condition of approval. And he didn't ask for a hammerhead or anything? No, he's pretty good. Okay. Oh, [51:47] Eric Sowery: I'll get back to you because good point. Well, it's basically you, it's this looks like a dead end, but in reality, you can go all the way up here and turn around on the cul-de-sac, so there is a way around, and this in itself is a hammerhead just by the shape of it, so there's plenty of ways to turn around there, but have them take a look at it, please. Okay. And find out what's wrong with the system. Okay, that's the first we've heard of it. Yeah, they've been out there [52:12] Board Member: training, so surprising and say something. Okay, sure, it's likely how they found it, probably. Yeah, exactly, why isn't this working? Okay, so I guess we are looking for a motion for preliminary approval of application completeness. I will move that we deem the application [52:41] Chair: complete. Thank you, I'll second that. Second, any discussion? All in favor, no opposed, it's good to go. Okay, [53:01] Board Member: we need to vote on the waiver request for the plan scale. [53:07] Eric Sowery: Oh yeah, there was a plan scale waiver request. We couldn't fit everything on the sheet size and then still make it look good, so [53:16] Board Member: We should vote on that. Okay, yeah, you might as well. So we need a motion to accept the waiver for the plan scale. Any discussion? All in favor. Waiver approved. And we need to schedule a public hearing. We have one of our many calendar dates picked for that. I think November 19th looks pretty good for [53:45] Eric Sowery: that. Does that work, Eric? That does not work for me, but I can send Mr. Sudak. Okay, so that's perfectly fine. Okay. We haven't seen Mike in a while. I'll bring him in for you, no problem. He'll like that. [53:59] Board Member: Alright. So, yeah, we're good for the public hearing, 630 on November 19th. And that takes care of that. And we have on new business, a subdivision amendment for Northland. [54:25] Eric Sowery: Hold on to that. Once again, Eric, sorry, from All This Engineering, on behalf the applicant Steve Brown and Web Roaster. This was the original plan recorded back in the day, I think it was 2008, 2009. Sorry, 2005, my bad. Again, Northland Drive, the piece we were just talking about is over here. This is Northland itself. This is the, put the plan that created Northland and this lot up in here, 2.12 acres. It was classified as non buildable. Now I wasn't there at the time, don't know really exactly what happened, but I would guess that they didn't have a passing test, but in the intervening time, I think it was 2009, the state changed the criteria, so now there is a passing test, but so now it can be a buildable lot. So the application for you is just to remove this non buildable lot designation, and then you can see there is a chunk of upland in here, room for a leach field. I say plant the survey also out of the house, so there's plenty room to add that in there. The remainder of the lot is wet, but it would be accessed from Long Swamp Road. Okay, and [55:30] Board Member: you're looking to add that [55:32] Eric Sowery: into this is a totally separate application totally separate yeah so this is just changing the non-buildable status of it yeah okay this [55:47] Board Member: came and we have a building permit for this, and then we, you know, kind of go through the process, and then check the subdivision plan notice, it said not build a lot. We did some research in into it. The logic makes perfect sense to me. You could approve it tonight, for approve this request tonight. I appreciate you guys cooperating with us, and you know, could we get some back and forth whether, I'm sure it was part of the planning board approval and whether it needed to go back to planning board. [56:22] Eric Sowery: Which was ultimately our recommendation, so we're here just to be safe. Yeah, well, it sounds like the law changed in your favor. Yeah, well, nothing changed, it's just the criteria changed. [56:33] Board Member: Right, yeah, right. So any questions about this amendment? No, you need a motion. [56:42] Andrew Russell: I'll give you a motion. Thanks, George. Second. You're welcome. [56:45] Chair: Them, Niles, you're the best. Any further discussion? All in favor. All right, all right guys, we do have. [56:56] Eric Sowery: Yeah, we do have a plan for a signature. We anticipated you guys giving us approval. [58:04] Board Member: I would like to recognize Nicole Effect oh being back in the big chair. Thank you. [58:13] Chair: You, we have no more new business, so we'll move on to the second public comment if we do have members of the public. So if you have a public comment, please come to the podium, state your name, state your address, comment away. Yeah, come on up. Yep, come right to the podium, just state your. [58:31] Andrew Russell: Name and address. Andrew Russell, we are at 32 Halflinger Lane, and just a very general, I'm pretty new to this town also, so yeah, I don't have any of the backstory of some of this development stuff, but I just had a question. It sounded like early on the sale of one of these properties is going to let the developer potentially, sounds like, hope to finish some of these unfinished projects. Just curious as a resident of some of those areas, is there a path forward if that hope doesn't come to fruition and. What does that mean for residents? I guess, can you comment on that, James, if you can't answer it's fine, just, well, I can just speak. [59:11] Board Member: Generally, this is, it's still a violation in court, so if that doesn't come through, the town we'll continue with prosecution of the violation. Okay, all right, we're, we're, we're very. [59:27] Chair: Much trying to help Mr. Bodwell. No, got it, I understand, I'm just curious if things don't. [59:33] Andrew Russell: Work out, yeah, people on the street kind of need to know, yeah, okay, thanks, yeah, thank you, thank. [59:39] Chair: You, anybody else for a couple of public comment, public questions? All right, seeing nobody else come forward, I want to close public comment, informational. [59:47] Board Member: Items, just wanted to put the word out, there's gonna be a special meeting added, planning board meeting on October 29 for the ATP project, and then the gravel pit at Two Sisters Ground will be on it, most likely will be on November 5th, I think everything will line up that they'll be on it, just so I know those are two applications that have public interests, so perfect dates, subject to change, you can always check on the town website under planning and development, planning board agendas, everything. Gets posted ideally everything most of the time everything's posted at least a week in advance, so all that supported material, the packet, is in a week in advance. If it's not there, if there's questions, you can email [1:00:40] Chair: me or call me or stop in and the so the regarding the two sisters just not speaking about the application, but they did respond to the public hearing, the public comments and questions, and those can be found, the responses can be found [1:00:57] Board Member: online already. I took those out of this packet to make the packet a little smaller, more manageable, but the packet for November 5th I will, can you get them on there just so I'm trying to post them maybe like at least two weeks in advance, and I'll just update the packet as other business comes in if people request. Yeah, if people, if people want you would like to see it just email the information, I can email the PDF to them directly, otherwise I'll try to figure out a way the two sisters information will be you go to the website out of the agendas and minutes will be on the November 5th, it'll be under packet. Okay, or just email James, look [1:01:43] Chair: or email me, I'll give them to you. I just wanted that to be out there because that was kind of important to the public. Anything else from you Terry? Anything you got anything for us? No. All right, anything from the board? Nothing that can wait, can't wait. All right, great. Well I actually do have one announcement and we have a new admin and [1:02:03] Board Member: a new part-time part-time admin and part-time building inspector starting on [1:02:08] Chair: Monday. Wow, exciting. Yes, let's hope they stick around. Yeah, awesome. All right, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn.