Newry Planning Board tables Loxom of the State application, elects officers

[0:00] Ted Baker: stop talking like good evening this is the october 7th 2026 meeting of the town of newry main planning board this meeting will come to order my name is ted baker and i am the chairperson this is a public proceeding and you the public have the right to hear everything that's being said unless the board votes to enter into executive session for the maine's freedom of access act you also have the right to review any of the materials created or received by the board that relate to the board's deliberation unless state law makes that document confidential. Please notify the board if you are unable to hear or if you would like to have access to any material. Tonight's meeting is being audio recorded. If you would like or need access to this or previous meeting audio recordings, please see the town administrator. I would also like to welcome Western Hill Access Television and its viewers. For those of you who are in attendance, if you have not already done so, please sign in at this time. there's a sign-in sheet over by thank you this is a working session of the finding board main freedoms of access law entitles the public to attend the meeting take notes of the meeting and make an audio or video recording of the meeting the board's policy is not to allow public comment during the meeting however as chairperson I may allow exceptions when it is in the interest of the board an example of an exception would be to allow an abutter to address the board by the new refining board rules of procedure. This meeting may not last longer than two and a half hours. The meeting may be extended by 30 minute increments if a motion to extend with a pro vote is made for each 30 minute increment. If the meeting is not extended, any remaining agenda items or discussions will be tabled at that time. Tonight's agenda includes continuation OF APPLICATION 26-292, BOX 7 OF THE STATE'S AMENDMENT 2, AND MARLEY LLC IS THE APPLICANT. WE ALSO HAVE NEW BUSINESS TONIGHT, WHICH IS DISCUSSING DIGITAL APPLICATION SUBMISSION STANDARDS. BEFORE WE DO THAT, THE BOARD HAS SOME ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO ATTEND TO. First is attendance for section 2.b of the New Refining Board ordinance amended June 8, 2021. The board is made up of three voting members and two alternate members. In order for the board to meet and to proceed, I must first establish that the forum is present. The quorum consists of two voting members of the board. Are myself, Ted Baker, asking other board members to announce themselves for the recording. [3:18] Heidi Murata: Heidi Murata, Vice Chair. [3:20] Cindy White: Cindy White, Secretary. Brian Moore, alternate. [3:23] Ted Baker: And let the minutes show that the second alternate is vacant. All three board members are here tonight, so let the record show that we have a quorum. Next is voting eligibility. A voting member that was absent for the previous meeting is not eligible to vote on old business unless they have completed an affidavit stating that they have reviewed the materials for the missed meeting, read the draft minutes, and have listened to the audio recording of the meeting. All three members of the board were present at the last meeting, so all three members are eligible. That the record show that having reviewed voting eligibility, I'll move now, move on to minutes of the prior meeting. Does any member of the board have any edits or comments on the minutes of our last meeting? If not, now [4:13] Heidi Murata: will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of winning board Wednesday, September 2nd. [4:24] Ted Baker: We have a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting with a second. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll take a vote. One, two, three. Let the record show that the minutes were approved. Next on the agenda is election of officer. We did that with the new rules of procedures, so first of all, we all need to sign the rules of procedures that we approved at the last meeting. [5:06] Brian Moore: And Heidi, Cindy, or Brian, would either any of [5:17] Speaker E (unidentified): you like copies of this once it's done? That'd be great, thank you. Put [5:25] Ted Baker: on our website. Okay, having signed our rules and procedures that we approved at the last meeting, we'll now move on to the elections of officer. Previously to the new rules and procedures, we had three board members and we had three officers. Now the new rules of procedures, the duties of the vice chair and the secretary have been combined into one hat, and I will open the floor to nominations. First of all, anybody like [6:06] Heidi Murata: to take role of chairman? I'd like to nominate Ted Baker as chairman, and I will [6:11] Ted Baker: I WILL SECOND THAT. I WILL TAKE IT THAT MEANS YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CHAIR. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I WILL ACCEPT THE NOMINATION. ANY OF YOU TWO WANT TO DISCUSS IT? I'M STILL SMILING. ONE, TWO. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE BOARD ELECTED MYSELF AS CHAIRPERSON. [6:35] Speaker E (unidentified): AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE HEIDI FOR VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY. [6:40] Ted Baker: AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. Will you accept the nomination? Yes. Okay. [6:46] Speaker E (unidentified): Any discussion? You can second it. I second it. Any discussion? Yeah. Any discussion? [6:51] Speaker F (unidentified): No. Okay. We'll vote. One, two, three. All right. There you go. [6:56] Ted Baker: Let the record show that Heidi Morata is the vice chair secretary. As per our newly adopted rules and procedures, we have a new item on the agenda which didn't make it into the printed agenda, and that is public comment. The board will listen to public comments for ten minutes, maximum two minutes per speaker. Is there anybody who would wish to make a public comment tonight? [7:22] Speaker F (unidentified): I would like to congratulate you on your reelection. [7:26] Ted Baker: We'll leave a comment on that. All right. With that, let's move on to correspondents received. We have six pieces of correspondents that have been received since, which are associated with application 26 292. The first being an email response from the vessel Bethel code enforcement officer dated September 1st. This was actually discussed at the last meeting but the copy was not available for the board members. Second is an email to the Nuri code enforcement officer to the new a funny board chair concerning cisterns versus sprinklers at lot summit. Again this email was discussed at the last meeting but a hard copy was not available and it's been made available now. Third is new correspondence letter from the new rate finding board chair to Peter Roberts of mainland development consultants dated September 3rd concerning application 26 292 lots of in the state subdivision determination of incompleteness and that was two pages. Did you receive that Peter? Yep. Email from Brandon Maser from Perkins-Thompson to Newrytown administrator dated September 7th 2026 regarding application 26 292 legal question on jurisdiction and that is available in your packet but the Brandon basically said that there was that the understand the agreement between Bethel and Nuri was okay as long as we abide by the limitations which fifth is an email from Peter Roberts mainland development consultants to Joel Jodry Nuri's CEO dated September 25th referencing, he had 24224 like some of the states, but it should be, I believe, 26223. [9:38] Cindy White: That's just an internal project tracking number that we have. [9:44] Ted Baker: And that was the response from the applicant to the letter of incompleteness that was delivered to them. And last was an email from the Vanuri Code Enforcement Officer to the Vanuri Planning Board Chair forwarding a multi-party DEP mainland correspondence chain starting on the 1st of September and going through the 28th of September, dealing with Loxom of the State's five-year stormwater recertification. Does anybody have any, board members have any questions on any of those correspondence pieces? board [10:22] Speaker G (unidentified): member but I don't see that I have like the email from they should be in your package. THIS IS THE ONLY THING ON THE DESK. I [10:39] Brian Moore: HAVE ONE ALREADY. YOU HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE? SURE. [10:51] Ted Baker: IS THAT THE ONLY ONE YOU'RE MISSING? [10:55] Speaker G (unidentified): MAYBE. NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE NEW E-MAILS. [10:59] Ted Baker: THERE'S THE ONE FOR BRANDON. THIS, I BELIEVE, IS THE COMMUNITY EP ONE. [11:12] Brian Moore: DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY GAVE YOU ANY PACKET INFORMATION. [11:17] Speaker G (unidentified): NO, I DON'T. THIS IS ALL STUFF THAT TED E-MAILED OUT EARLIER. that's what I brought the only thing that was on the table when I came was the [Brian Moore: correspondence] yeah because I got everything [11:32] Brian Moore: that Ted emailed out [11:33] Speaker G (unidentified): to the board I have all of that [11:37] Ted Baker: and I just gave her two so you don't have to duplicate the Perkin Thompson and I don't think you need to duplicate the DEP [11:47] Speaker G (unidentified): D-E-P or no D-E-P [11:52] Speaker H (unidentified): D-E-P [11:56] Ted Baker: IT SHOULD BE AN E-MAIL TO JOEL, IT'S A BIG LONG SCREEN. [12:09] Brian Moore: SO TELL ME AGAIN WHICH ONE SHE'S MISSING. [12:14] Speaker G (unidentified): I CAN CONNECT WITH YOU. OKAY, GOOD. WHEN I GO THROUGH MY NOTES AND STUFF, I'LL E-MAIL YOU. [12:25] Ted Baker: IS THERE ANY OTHER CORRESPONDENTS THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION? next on our business is unfinished business application 26-292 amendment to lock some of the state subdivision mile ride llc applicant please refer to a piece of paper in front of you called order of business application 26-292 dated 10-07-26 does everybody have that available all right again the first order is the is there any discussion or questions on the emails and correspondence stream that I just reviewed hearing none we'll move on [13:38] Speaker G (unidentified): IT'S NOT WRITTEN HERE, BUT DID YOU DISCUSS THE LETTER FROM PETER TO YOU DATED SEPTEMBER 25th? [13:48] Ted Baker: PETER'S ABOUT TO DISCUSS THAT, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO UPDATE THE BOARD. [13:54] Speaker G (unidentified): OH, OKAY. SO I JUST DIDN'T SEE THIS ON THE LIST OF CORRESPONDENTS. YEAH, I KIND OF SKIPPED OVER. [13:59] Ted Baker: OKAY. SO PETER, PLEASE UPDATE THE BOARD WITH WHAT YOU SUBMITTED. SURE. [14:09] Cindy White: The determination of incompleteness had a nice concise list of things for us to address. So the memo that I sent on September 25th blocked some of the states in 2017. So in the declaration process by which the HOA can take action against homeowners that violate the covenants, and then also establish an architectural review board who would be responsible for making sure that the architect submitting plans for the fire sprinkler designed, and so we kind of made some conclusions, conclusion, and we'd look for feedback from some kind of document needs to be registered to wipe the 2014 consulted with, have copies of that, if that [17:04] Ted Baker: Instead, in addition to what you submitted previous [17:09] Cindy White: To this meeting, yes, this is a new document, so that would [17:12] Ted Baker: Be, it'd be appropriate to submit that after, to [17:22] Speaker F (unidentified): Talk about the history of that particular, I'm [17:24] Ted Baker: Jared Crockett. Mr. Crockett, excuse me, but as I stated in my opening statement, this is a working session of the planning board, and while you are welcome to attend, take notes, videotape, and take pictures, our policy is not to open the floor to the public. I'm part of the applicant, I'm the legal [17:51] Speaker F (unidentified): Representative in accordance with the Secretary of State for Melroy LLC, so I'm part of the applicant, so that's why I assumed. But are you giving this [18:01] Ted Baker: Gentleman agency? Yeah, any problems with the board members? Proceed. [18:08] Speaker F (unidentified): So the history of this is sort of unique. I mean, you've, everybody in town sort of familiar with Lock Mountain and its story past, going back to 2005. So it appears that the original plan was approved in 2008, and there was some stumbling blocks along the way with the economy and so forth. And in 2014, the developer came back to the playing board and asked for modification of the previous approval to put cisterns in. Because at the, at the time, I think cisterns were probably cheaper, and until the new eudoros all of a sudden changed the requirements, right? They were never safer than sprinkler systems. I think we all acknowledge that sprinkler systems are the better option for public safety, as well as the homers themselves. But this one, actually, the planning board in 2014 sort of messed up, because in 2012,, under the original approval, Lock Mountain Summit LLC, the owners of the lots for the Nury portion of the lot, granted the land sale installment contract to Mr. William Dutton, Bill Dutton. And Bill signed it. It was lot 30. So in 2014, when that was amended, it does not appear that someone with an ownership interest in a lot that was in the Phase 2 Nuri portion ever participate and so but it passed anyway they updated the cisterns but then 2016 comes around and the application process when you renew the application process the planning board actually corrected the mistake whether they did it inadvertently or they did it intentionally that's the controlling document which I think appears in the minutes of your meeting is the last approval is what we're subject to but either way because And because the 2014 Limited Amendment of Conditions of Approval Agreement was recorded, now there's an ambiguity in the record. But fast forward, Locke summoned the state's LLC, which is Mel Rye's predecessor entitled to the Locke's, as well as the assignment for the development rights, the common areas. Because he not only owns Locke's, but he owns the common areas as a developer. I think that was part of one of the questions in the proposed document he cited Peter will provide but locks on the estates before selling to Peter they conveyed and what I think was in was in the record the planning board record at the time in the 2019 conveyances 2023 and 2024 are also going to be recited in the document that Peter will provide you what lots are not owned by Mel ride they're all subject to 2016 so it appears that they should have fires right if I were reviewing the title and when I reviewed the title for Mel ride I assumed that 2016 is in fact so no matter what happens the board has to do something in the board may have into your predecessors here in 2016 may have corrected the what they should have never granted but I don't know if that was intentional or not because not everybody who had an interest in those locks was put on notice of that of that hearing and so I don't know when he came back to reapply if they required him to go because they just they recorded the original the original conditions which was number 10 requiring sprinkler systems which is the right thing to do I think the fire department and public safety and general supports but something has to be done because the planning board I think there's just a miscommunication or something was recorded and then in 2016 I don't believe the second approval was actually put on record of the registry and so that should be remedy and that's I think on the development rights I think even though it Was lock summit at the time that was supposed to do it? I think Mel Rye needs to clean it up if this, if we just add some sort of clarity that we can disregard 2014 and take the, because the Bethel side, they all are sprinkler systems, which insurance companies prefer, public safety prefers, cisterns, once they get turned over to homeowners associations, they become burdensome, they're not maintained properly, and it's, I mean, I like to think that, I know when you turn it over, Melri will do a fantastic job, but in 20 years, homeowners associations don't set the money aside, so there's always a problem. So it's better to have the sprinkler systems because where they're built into the house they will get maintained so it's safer and in terms of ensuring that they happen in the building permit process the town will be on the record anyway any of the builders here know how that works so and the HOA has a right to enforce it to approve any of the plans proposed buildings so that's all I had to offer, but something has to be done because there's an ambiguity in the process. Because once that 2016 approval is re-recorded, now I've got a 2014 document that says cisterns, you don't have to build sprinkler systems, but I've got a 2016, the more current one, which I think the chair actually pointed out in a previous meeting, is the relevant document. [24:05] Ted Baker: So which document is the 2016 document? [24:08] Speaker F (unidentified): That was where the renewal expiration date for the you yourself said that [24:16] Ted Baker: was never filed with the registry of deeds but it was approved here and so what was approved the renewal of what drawings on what plans on the original plans I believe that's okay I'm was not the original plans amended in 2014 to allows it to replace sprinklers with cisterns and therefore the plan going into 2016 that was expiring included 2014 and as an amendment that was [24:46] Speaker F (unidentified): appropriately approved I believe it's in your records that the conditions approved actually have the number 10 there's how there are no plans for 2016 [24:57] Ted Baker: So how can you say their conditions of approval I can say that your minutes [25:01] Speaker F (unidentified): were approved so the board is bound by what it approved and it's minutes and I think that's a matter of public record if it's if I'm wrong the code enforcement office can jump on me for that one but I think it's those minutes were [25:14] Ted Baker: those same minutes that you're referring to grant an exception to the waiver to the developer to put cisterns greater than 1,500 linear feet away from the furthest house so there's conflicts right there and that's what has to be remedy so without a set of plans dated 2014 2016 and filed in the registry of deeds that was what that first question was on the letter to you Peter what are What are we going to use for plans? [25:55] Speaker F (unidentified): Plans that were voted on. That's what you have to do. But, [26:03] Ted Baker: so what plans were voted on? [26:07] Speaker F (unidentified): It's there in your minutes. I'm just working off notes that were provided, but Peter, you've had a chance to go through it. I believe the 2016 approval wore the original covenants, or the original conditions of approval. [26:19] Ted Baker: But the original conditions of approval were amended in 2014 and filed with the Registry of Deeds. And therefore, going into 2016, the conditions of approval number 10 had been modified to allow cisterns instead of sprinklers in the nervous side of the project. [26:40] Speaker F (unidentified): But they did not? They papered over it when they approved it with the sprinkler systems. How? Well, because when you... Show me. What's in your record? If you want to, I believe that is the case. Am I mistaken? I mean, my understanding is the minutes of the 2016 meeting said you improved it with the original conditions. This is this is a housekeeping issue for the board. I know this predates you and we could probably go back, but there seems to be a reason why they corrected it because they never should have granted the 2014. Mary Buzzard with an ownership interest in lot 30 was not put on notice. It never should have been done. I don't know if they corrected it intentionally or if they did it inadvertently, but I'm pretty confident. Is it in your minutes or not from 2016? If you, I don't have the minutes in front of me at the [27:31] Brian Moore: moment. Yeah, if that was evidence supposed to be to support your arguments tonight, they should have [27:35] Cindy White: been included. Well, I think I do think like the details of how we resolve this need to be figured you're now mutually, but I do [27:58] Ted Baker: say that there have been bungles by code enforcement officers, bundles by applicant, and bundles by the planning [28:10] Cindy White: boards would be an understatement, and we 're proposing a way to like this [28:27] Ted Baker: This is a review for completeness. We were asking the board to do deliberations. We are not at that stage yet. Okay, so [28:40] Speaker F (unidentified): with the, has the board ever made findings in any other case? This is a question generally accepted that the sprinkler systems are the better option in general. [28:53] Ted Baker: That is not an issue, that is not a concern to the board. The board, as you are well aware, HAS TO APPLY THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ORDINANCE, AND SECTION 24 OF OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO OPT FOR EITHER REQUIRING SPRINKLERS, WHICH PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE FUTURE LOB OWNER, OR TO INSTALL FIREFIGHTING WATER STORAGE FACILITIES. WHETHER ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER IS IMMATERIAL. Now the board solicits through the applicant input from the fire department, and we highly regard that input, but for the board to sit there and say well we don't want to do this because yellow system is better is in it's not proper for the board. We apply the ordinance as it's written as it's [29:55] Speaker F (unidentified): our obligation to do so. You can take in public safety as a consideration I quarter in the intro when there's a section regarding that, it doesn't give you some flexibility because I think what we're trying to do is it to the [30:10] Ted Baker: right so that the flexibility is not there. The developer has the option to go one way or the other, and the board can't override that option as long as it's in accordance with the with the ordinance. Okay I did have one question, the [30:35] Heidi Murata: maps that were given for one of the maps, the detail sheet on 2.1 so it actually goes to 2.2, and I don't know if that matters, but I heard that [30:48] Cindy White: seemed like it was missing one of the sheets. It's missing from the findings of fact in 2016, and that's why I skipped it. The only reason I could tell that it's missing so [31:04] Heidi Murata: every other one is every other plan because i happened to notice and i was like wait are we somehow missing a document that we need to have as part of the complete package [31:21] Cindy White: yeah i noticed that too any [31:28] Ted Baker: other questions on what peter had to or mr crux had to okay [31:35] Speaker F (unidentified): what i have a question for the board. My understanding is the original approval was extended in 2016. Well that's excuse me what the renewal for the permit was granted in 2016. Is that is accurate right peter because the original development rights the only record that [31:57] Ted Baker: we have is a findings of fact and conclusions of law that reflects that the board re-approved the application. There are no sets of plans, there's no other information other than a seven minutes or possible minutes, and so that is that brings up the big question is what plans is the board working off of, and if and by through the response that i got from mainland it sounds like you're because of the findings of fact made reference to the 20 the 2007 dated plans that you're saying that those are the plans to go with, and those plans were amended in 2014 by the board to do away with sprinkler requirements or NURI and go with cisterns. So going into 2016, based on the information you're providing us, that would be the 2007 plans with any amendments, and there were other amendments that transpired in that period of time, goes into 2016 for resubmittal. [33:21] Cindy White: Yeah, I think Drew's just trying to bring up the... [33:32] Ted Baker: Another error. Yeah. If you, the applicant, are putting forth that the 2007 plans are the plans that apply to 2016, is that correct? I believe so, yeah. Then the amendment, or any amendments that occurred prior to that, are also part of that plan, which would include the 2014 fire sister amendment. [34:13] Speaker F (unidentified): Actually, it should have been reflected on the renewal. That's the way it's supposed to work, because if you don't do it that way, then you basically negated well the amendment. So when you do one of those plans, the condition is modified when the new plan is renewed. That's but if the plane was screwed up, then the [34:32] Ted Baker: tiger was it the planning board or was it the applicant? It's the applicant's responsibility to file with the registry of needs, but it is the approval if they [34:40] Speaker F (unidentified): approve they file what was approved. I get a lot of this, but the tie goes to the runner, the citizen and the landowner. So it's this is if you want to Mr. [34:54] Ted Baker: Bracket, if you want to submit a written, a written piece on that 's fine, but [35:01] Cindy White: it we're going to move on. Yeah, I think we have a good written document. Next [35:09] Ted Baker: on the order of business is has the additional feed and pay [35:15] Speaker H (unidentified): for [35:20] Speaker E (unidentified): the record [35:29] Brian Moore: check number 1408, you know, $10,000, put this in the safe so it doesn't just, you [35:38] Speaker H (unidentified): know, take me to Barbados. These are two letters that will be emailed to Mr. [35:52] Ted Baker: Roberts tomorrow. What is the acknowledgement of the additional fee being paid? The other one is the acknowledgement of their material they submitted for this meeting. Either you'll get an email from Joel. Thank you. Okay, I will make a motion. I move that the board, having completed the administrative review of the applicant's initial submission received September 2nd 26 and follow-up submission received on October 7, find that the application 26-292 is complete. Discussion please. [36:41] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, is it if we're [36:44] Heidi Murata: expecting more documentation to come from the applicant, or are you closing [36:51] Ted Baker: It would close it, so yes, that would close that in each once we vote complete. Miss the applicant really can't submit anything unless we ask them to submit something. It would be if that is if we want to receive that document, then your recourse would be to vote in opposition of the motion. [37:21] Speaker E (unidentified): And the additional information, so you can't, so that not for like it to help WITH THE HOW TO UNRAVEL SOME OF THE PAST ISSUES SO [37:37] Ted Baker: I CAN EITHER WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND WE WILL TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING I'M [37:45] Heidi Murata: NOT GOING TO SECOND BECAUSE I THINK THAT BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THE APPLICANT STILL WANTS TO SUBMIT YEAH OKAY AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THEM I WILL [37:58] Ted Baker: I WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING AND PETER YOU CAN HAND OUT EITHER GIVE IT TO JOEL OR HAND OUT WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO HAND OUT AND YOU HAVE UNTIL SUNDAY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS. [38:25] Cindy White: Yeah, okay. So I have this in paper form, so everybody can lull themselves to sleep reading it tonight, and then I'll send the PDF over to Joelle so you guys can have it in the electronic record. So, basically, in the original application, I had drafted up a limited conditions of approval agreement to overrides the one that was filed in 2014. And Jared basically just spent some time on information that was relevant. So, my assumption is the board does not want to discuss that tonight. Is that correct? [39:11] Speaker F (unidentified): That is correct. All right. We'll get out of here. We'll get out of here. [39:14] Ted Baker: We'll get out of here. Thank you for your time. THE NEXT MEETING THERE, UNLESS YOU SUBMIT OTHER INFORMATION, THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE TO GET A BRIEF FROM YOU AND THEN BACK TO A MOTION OF COMPLETENESS. OKAY. AT THAT POINT, THEN WE HAVE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, JOAN, DID YOU PASS THE INVITE TO US, OR WHAT WAS IT? NO, WE DID NOT. We the next item of business is discussing digital submission standards which will affect mainland you're invited to participate [40:02] Cindy White: Sure yeah Joel you didn't thank you [40:10] Ted Baker: It was email right I've never been in your pack packet that you picked up While Joelle is making copies of that, I'll give a quick rundown of what I am proposing. The UDRO in section 10, when it establishes what needs to be submitted with an application, i.e., the numerous paper copies, also states a digital copy. [41:54] Brian Moore: So everybody, when you get sent stuff via email, let me know if you want it printed, please. Oh, thank you. I do. [42:04] Ted Baker: So the UDRO says that if an applicant needs to submit a digital copy, it establishes no guidelines whatsoever as to what- [42:19] Speaker G (unidentified): Like PDF or whatever. [42:21] Ted Baker: Or they could send it in and you know, whatever. And while the applicants have been very good at submitting digital copies, they're at the bare minimum in that they're not bookmarked, they're not searchable, there are a lot of non-OCR or scanned images which can't be searched, etc. And part of my initiative here is to move the planning board now that we're into the second quarter of the 21st century to move the planning board towards digital records. I know that majority of the board likes to review things on paper. I myself do it all digitally, and so it gets very frustrating when I can't search or get inconvenienced by that. So I had put together a set of standards for a digital submission. First of all, it's a two, there are two parts. One is for professionally prepared applications, so if an advocate has hired a consultant such as Mainland or another engineering firm, there's a set of digital standards for them to abide by. If the applicant is just Joe Citizen who just doesn't have the access to all that material, then they have a much less rigorous standard to meet by. So I will allow everybody a couple of minutes here to quickly peruse through the digital standards. Again, this was in the email packet that I sent out, but the copies are now here. Does it impact your life? [52:38] Heidi Murata: Does it seem like, I mean, bottom line is that you really only have to submit digitally the plans? [52:46] Ted Baker: No,, that's, well, that's up to our interpretation. [52:53] Heidi Murata: Because it says eight and one electronic. The [53:01] Brian Moore: electronic copy I get now from most agents specifically is the full application, all the plans, everything that would be submitted in paper gets submitted electronically. Problem is because of the lack of software or knowledge on my end, everything gets submitted PDF at least then I can see it all. We don't have cat, yeah, I can't open the drawer, but there's ways in formulas that Ted's gonna explain to me and Peter's [53:37] Speaker E (unidentified): gonna submit that I could open. That was my number one was a workshop on how do you know like that's great, but like I'll open up the PDF with the plans and I do control left that might be still way to be fairly sappy but not with like [53:56] Ted Baker: Finding turning off things and without receiving CAD documents, just receiving PDFs, you can still get PDFs that have layers, especially on the, on your plans. And I don't know about you, especially the main plan very often has so much on there it's very hard to follow one thing because of all the other white noise. It's, yeah, so if you could strip away and say I just want to look at contours, yes, now it might, it might not be your standard read-only, read-document PDF, but the PDF can have layers in it. [54:52] Speaker E (unidentified): Oh, okay. But that's only if you have like Adobe, like professional Adobe or something? [54:56] Ted Baker: I would have to go back more into that, and Peter probably knows more about that because he lives on that every day. And if I'm misstating anything, please step in. [55:06] Cindy White: No, I think that is true. I like, as an engineer, I would usually not do that for some sort [55:27] Ted Baker: So you purposely go flatten that's the document so that it can't [55:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Can't be pulled apart. Yeah, well, I think Ted makes the point though that like [55:44] Cindy White: What you're signing and [55:59] Ted Baker: And actually if you're going to go down that rabbit hole here, you should be submitting password protected plans that allow us to open and read the plan but not edit the plan. [56:21] Heidi Murata: I mean, I hate to say this comment, but I will go a little bit step further. Technically they shouldn't be going to Becky's Sunday River email either, right, because her email on a company website shouldn't be part of the public record. You have a very good [56:38] Ted Baker: Good point there, but that's, you have, you have something that needs to be addressed. I don't, I don't, I don't, yeah, don't worry, you take that away from you, but you know, but that's not what this is. This is how the documents should be submitted. They should, it's not just what's in the PDF, it's also page numbering, having the footer on each page so that, and in the recent, in the recent episode Joelle had to sit down with a findings of fact put together quite diligently by Becky that was no page numbers And literally each one had to be written and then there was no table of content so that you could very [57:37] Brian Moore: Quickly say hey I want to know your findings of fact, help me number and [57:42] Ted Baker: Application pages. Yeah, but your findings of fact were on top, yeah, everything else was right, so the same doc as well as all one big massive PDF, so let's talk about [58:00] Heidi Murata: Just guidance, right? Like if we're talking about guidance, what happens if a professional doesn't adhere to the guidance? Are we going to not find it complete, or are we going to, how does that work? I'm really worried about a slippery slope of like, don't know, every team, I don't want to [58:18] Ted Baker: really police that. I don't, I don't see, I don't see that going to that extreme, but this is and [58:26] Heidi Murata: this is a guidance, it's not okay. I really want to make sure that we're, if we're doing it as guidance, [58:31] Ted Baker: I'm okay with that 's why it says your guidance okay yeah you know if we get it if you get an obstinate consultant here that doesn't want to do [58:44] Cindy White: that, I think it could be advertised as a, you know, if you want to get your application through as quick as possible, please follow these. Yes, thank you, because [59:00] Ted Baker: because what, that's one of the, one of the objectives here is to facilitate review and compilation of finding the documents that support it, yeah, you know, we are right now, we are extremely fortunate to have Becky who can do this in the sleep probably, but there's going to be a day down the road where Becky is [59:28] Heidi Murata: not, will not, you know, most, somebody takes over and then they have a big huge giant mess of 25 documents that they could end up resulting in something not being right documented correctly [59:43] Ted Baker: in the final, right, or the quality of the findings of fact redress to [Brian Moore: a one-pager again] to what we, to what we are dealing with in other business, so the other reason I want, I like [1:00:00] Brian Moore: the guidance, I see some labor in here on my part, but I do think it's time, and I'm finding this in my own code enforcement office also, not just this town, but a lot of towns and a lot of small towns need to start coming into the 21st, even the 20th century would be handy, but 21st century would be best. We have a little bit of paper heavy, and there's going to come a time when, no different than the old fax paper, this will all disappear, all of this will disappear, and having some moving forward down and starting the process of getting these into a digital format is, I think, important. We need to, We need to step up. We need a big development footprint in this town. [1:00:54] Heidi Murata: We need a repository for them. [1:00:56] Ted Baker: And as it says in here, that's a bigger bone to chew and it involves the town itself, but I would like to be on the leading edge, the fighting board would be on the leading edge, so that we don't have to play catch up. [1:01:17] Brian Moore: All the developers, professional agents and that we work with have the tools to submit like this, and I like the fact that we are going to have another avenue so that the jewel joggers of the world wants to come in and develop some land that I come into and I just want to split it into four lots, it's a minor subdivision, but I don't want to hire the developer, I want to do this myself, I [1:01:42] Speaker I (unidentified): able to walk through the application and do that, but that's what I was going to [1:01:47] Speaker G (unidentified): mention too, is the UDR road, but for like when applications come in for shoreline zoning where we had someone along the Bear River leading to I think replacing bridge or something like that at one point and they're basically hand and sketching their plan, so I think it's good that it's not I [1:02:22] Ted Baker: like the guidance, yeah, and as I said it's guidance, I hear what you're saying not to get on the slippery slope and yeah we're you know it's it's cooperation, I'd like more [1:02:36] Brian Moore: time to review this and maybe revisit again, not that I get a vote in any of this, but I'd like to bring it back with you next, I'm gonna put it on the top of my desk, yeah, I throw two [1:02:48] Cindy White: things out there, yeah, one the UDR, oh that's posted on the website is a non searchable scanned document, and so if the I [1:03:09] Ted Baker: have to check that because I pulled my copy off of the website, it's searchable, okay, yeah this is and [1:03:21] Cindy White: then my next comment was yeah I was just well the PDF is electronic form, it just for some reason [1:04:49] Ted Baker: funny you should bring that up because I near future, no not near, but in the near future will probably be doing away with ten point two three and going to something else which is more geared towards criteria OF APPROVAL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FOR EACH OF THE 21 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL, YOU THE APPLICANT LISTING EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU SUBMITTED THAT PERTAINS TO THAT CRITERIA OF APPROVAL. NOT ASKING YOU TO WRITE THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THAT'S OUR JOB, BUT ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS I HAVE, ONE OF THE HARDEST PARTS I HAVE WHEN REVIEWING SOMETHING IS I'M GOING DOWN TO the criteria for approval and I'm looking at the archaeological sites or whatever I said okay well what did the applicant submit in response to respond to this energy around, so you end up digging through things repeatedly to do that, so that's that's probably what I see 10.1 will probably stay the same because it's the information about the applicant like that, but the yellow ones will probably change and be more geared towards the criteria approval. I know a lot more about PDFs now than when I generated those forms, and so I will look into see what I can do clean them up. Those forms were generated in a word processor form maker and then converted to PDF, so there's a lot lost in the translation there probably. Yeah, I think I think you guys are on the right [1:06:37] Cindy White: track though, because to your point about archaeological, if everything's set up this way [1:06:50] Ted Baker: maybe even for you for when you finish together [1:06:54] Cindy White: well, that would be your boss review or ten years later trying to figure out what it was [1:06:58] Heidi Murata: well, my other suggestion would be why wouldn't they just submit a single file with many PDF pages, so like why are we breaking them? I'm doing that now [1:07:09] Ted Baker: that's that's what we're not breaking it up, it's gonna be one PDF. Okay, well [1:07:14] Cindy White: check what Ted's trying to say is when I send you a 400 page PDF and you can't control F and search through it, yeah, or [1:07:22] Ted Baker: if the bookmarks don't line up, so because for instance if you go in here open this up in the PDF that I sent you and you will open up the left-hand margin, you will see the outline, and then and it will have you know 4.2, you click on 4.2 and it takes you right there, you don't have to sit there and scroll through the document. Yeah, Peter, thank you for your, yeah, thanks for your help again, feel free to pass any more [1:07:52] Cindy White: comments along in the email. I think my initial reaction was like oh no, and then [1:07:57] Ted Baker: I WAS LIKE WELL ALSO PETER WHILE YOU'RE HERE ON THE TOWN WEBSITE YOU GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD PAGE, NOT THE NOT THE ONLINE DOCUMENT PAGE, OKAY, AT THE PLANNING BOARD PAGE WHERE YOU FIND THE MINUTES AND PAST MINUTES AND AGENDAS, THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND A LINK IN THERE THAT SAYS GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR AT boards applicants in public, and that's where these things are good. There are a couple things in there already, this will be in there, the rules of procedures, which I also encourage you to read if you haven't done so already, will also be in there, so that will be a to you, and there'll be more guidance cut documents coming to go in there to help explain what we're looking for in the different quite yours. Okay, thank you, thank you Peter, have a good night, we will table this until next week so that everybody can, yeah, or not next week, until the 5th of November, 21st, no the 21st, you've been here for that one, are you guys, i'm here for that one [1:09:09] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, you see even just some of the issues with that form, like some things are covered over and [1:09:15] Ted Baker: Yeah, and it depends on how you, where you open it up and what that, the only, let's go to reports quickly, the town administrator. [1:09:35] Heidi Murata: Monday we had our Comprehensive Planning Committee, another excellent meeting. She gave us two huge sections on water resources and natural resources. The committee's really happy with the work that I was doing. It's coming out wonderful, and the town should be really proud of the work that we love. Erica, she's the best, just her understanding and the depth, deep dives that she does for the town is so worth the money. I mean, I wish that I could recommend everybody to her that's doing a comprehensive plan. I'm really great idea to include links to our udro and then also to maps that are created on other sites. So we did ask her to make sure that those don't break, but we're going to put an appendix at the end so we have actually have the maps even if the links break in the future, which we know they will. It's going to be, it's going to be really a very big report, but I think her summaries are very well done. So we're excited to move through everything. We're still working on adding more content on it, but it was just the first review of the natural resources. But it was great. [1:10:53] Brian Moore: I have a little insight for you. We did figure out Bald Pricket Ledge and Leonard Ledge. We figured those out. It took some digging, but we found them in [1:11:02] Heidi Murata: they do exist in Newark. Yeah, we're talking about just like where is places and where they are and just abuse and yes it's free. We do it's November 9. Oh [1:11:20] Speaker E (unidentified): that's the next public like though the public. Oh no, the next public one is [1:11:26] Heidi Murata: probably not going to be until then the whole next section is done. Okay great. And that's hopefully, I would say, spring-ish, not. Yeah. That's going to be pretty good. That's pretty wonderful. Yeah. But she's so good at referencing back their initial input that everybody had on the surveys. And it's just so good. [1:11:47] Ted Baker: That's awesome. I'm looking forward to it, because it's going to help us and the applicants, because things like archaeological and what not, they should be able to refer to the comprehensive plan and find the information they need. Yeah. [1:11:59] Heidi Murata: And it could result in like additional grant money or money to the town based on what the plan looks like, because then you can say like, we'd like to apply for this grant money because it's suggested in their comprehensive plan that we want to target whatever it is, covert replacement, yeah, whatever it is, thank. [1:12:20] Ted Baker: Else, thank you, thank you, hard work. Next is the performance bond master or the escrow report from the town manager. We have three projects that are closed out, there are New River Village, Monkey Brook, which I assume is the minor subdivision 4J, and Myrtle Hill, although I guess the ski trail is there so it's all different. [Speaker H (unidentified): It is different.] Barker Mountain, it says performance, do not touch. [1:13:07] Brian Moore: Those are internal notes that they keep on their computers out front. [1:13:11] Ted Baker: That was the 126.23, so that must be the lift. [1:13:15] Brian Moore: It is the lift, yeah, Daner and I from Sunday River are working through some of those. [1:13:21] Ted Baker: Projects and getting him up to speed, okay, and then the Pines group has eight thousand some dollars, Timberline has sixty five hundred dollars, and Locks in the state has eight thousand five hundred, soon to be augmented, and the money in here that's separate, that's separate, this is strictly for the engineering, and there will be a new line in there for the, for this application review, like I said, I am working with some applicants for older. [1:14:06] Brian Moore: Their applications getting them, even say hey you need a tickler, you need to come back to us at such a date, so you know you can either extend or let us know it's done, yeah, right now my only third, I am the certified inspector for four-day development and they are back in there doing their retention pond so. [1:14:29] Speaker H (unidentified): If anybody drives, that's all the hammering, I'm here, that's all that, well. [1:14:32] Brian Moore: I don't know if you've heard me hammering from them, shouldn't have been because they have the holes pretty much complete last fall, so yeah, nope, they're on track. [1:14:43] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I know that one, I figured you thought in case someone, your old name. [1:14:48] Speaker H (unidentified): Versus your new name on there, yeah, just attendance and I'm in the rooms from my father and Cory, I was too, well Cory at that meeting, well that's what that's what she was, agenda, oh that's for the agenda, kind of funny, that was funny, I. [1:15:08] Speaker I (unidentified): Was looking at your name plate and I was like, as I was telling Peter on the, if. [1:15:19] Ted Baker: You go to the town website, click on the Numery Planning Board page, not the online document page, but if you go down to committees, there's a drop-down menu, and you'll see Select Board, you'll see Planning Board. If you go to that page, that's the page where if you miss a meeting, you're going to go to listen to the audio, because that's where the audios are kept. It's also where approved minutes and agendas can be found, and there's a new link on there that goes to the guidance documents, and right now we have two or three things in there. We No, the UDRO is online, on the online document page. Oh, got it. It would be easy not to put a link for the UDRO in there, but the guidance document that we had for amendments that I came out with back in August is there. And as I get bored and I generate more guidance documents, there will be more. [1:16:25] Heidi Murata: Is there a rule of procedure in there too, or no? [1:16:28] Ted Baker: THE RULES AND PROCEDURES WILL BE IN THERE NOW THAT THEY'RE SIGNED. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO FIND ALL THAT INFORMATION, ET CETERA. ANY OTHER? I WILL BE GOING TO THE OCTOBER MMA PLANNING BOARD SEMINAR AT THE END OF THIS MONTH. EXCITED. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT MEAL. And I don't know, anybody have anything else? I will check my email last thing [1:17:07] Brian Moore: Sunday before I leave. I'm not here next week, I'm on vacation, and we're closed Monday, so nobody else will be here to check my email, just in case the [1:17:15] Ted Baker: applicant for they have attended, they have attended, they have to submit new material ten days prior to the next meeting, so that ends on Sunday, so [1:17:26] Speaker E (unidentified): that's a reminder. Do you put an auto reply with a email in the email who they could reach out to? So I'm thinking they would get that auto reply and theoretically notice, and no, there's no one else here. I won't do that. [1:17:41] Ted Baker: That okay, so the next meeting is the 21st. We will pick up, we have, we'll pick up this old business here. Hopefully we can get through the completeness and schedule a public hearing. Reminder, please, we are in, we are in front of completeness, not behind completeness, so no deliberations, and we'll talk to each other. No, and we also have a new business next week, which is a shoreline zoning [1:18:26] Speaker H (unidentified): application. Do you want this or do you want to wait and receive it? Actually, [1:18:30] Speaker E (unidentified): wait, let's start back. I'll take that. I mean, oh, is that the one from Peter? Oh no, this is this [1:18:35] Speaker H (unidentified): is the new application which is oh the new application you girls from driving over oh thank you 're welcome shoreline zoning if you if you find the music used to go to puzzle mountain [1:18:46] Ted Baker: If you found the URL confusing, wait till you see the shoreline zoning rule. [1:18:51] Brian Moore: So just so you know there's a floodplain application, the applicant stapled everything together, I did not pull it apart, I put a little pink note on it that says I take [1:19:00] Speaker H (unidentified): care of that, you guys don't even have to look at that, make sure that it's been [1:19:04] Brian Moore: done, yes, if it can be, no, you can say that it was included, but the CEO is taking care of it, is it you, it is in there, okay, yeah, thank you, 're welcome, all right [1:19:24] Speaker H (unidentified): Without any further ado, oh, motion to adjourn, how's that? [1:19:29] Ted Baker: Good. Oh. And I was relying on you, I think. That's 720. I'll second that motion. All in favor? One, two. Two.