Gorham Planning Board Advances Solar Project, Tables Dog Kennel Contract Zone

[0:17] Chair (presiding officer): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is Monday evening, October 5th, 2026. This is a regular meeting of the Gorham Planning Board. Would you please join me in pledging allegiance to the flag? Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you. I look to staff to please call the role. Mr. Hager. Here. Mr. Benson. Here. Mr. Frank. Here. [0:53] Mr. Walsh: Here. Ms. Nichols. Mr. Delaney. Mr. Walsh. Here. [1:04] Chair (presiding officer): Gentlemen, in your packet, we have the meeting minutes from the September 14, 2026 meeting. Our Secretary, Ms. Nichols, is not here. Does anybody have any edits, corrections, changes, approvals? If you've had a chance to review them, I'll jump in myself. I did not see any, but I sometimes miss things. [1:34] Mr. Frank: Mr. Frank, please. I'll jump in right behind you. It's well written, no corrections, and no omissions. Thank you, Mr. Frank. Is there a motion, then, please? I motion that we accept them as written. Thank you, Mr. Frank. [1:47] Chair (presiding officer): Is there a second? Colonel Benson, thank you. No corrections, edits, changes. All those in favor? Three, four. Mr. Walsh, abstain. Abstain. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Ladies and gentlemen, moving on, reports. As we mentioned... [2:08] Mr. Delaney: Mr. Chair, point of order. Please. With only, I know we have four, so that's a quorum, but do we need four voting members to be able to officially approve the minutes? [2:20] Town Planner / Staff: I could speak to that. We did have this question come up at the last meeting, and on land use change items and contract zones, you do need four affirmative votes, but for all other matters, it's three votes, provided that there's a quorum of four members present. [2:40] Chair (presiding officer): Four members and a majority. Thank you for addressing that. Thank you, Colonel. As I started to mention, we have a backlog of work that's coming before the Planning Department, and it trickles over to the Planning Board, and to give every item its due diligence and not beyond 10 p.m. so they were still wide awake we are implementing the second meeting of the month in October and probably in November we had two meetings in September so please look forward to seeing us again on October 19th we have already planned that we will have an agenda and things distributed if something is not finished this evening that 's all I have any questions comments ideas committee reports committee review mr. [3:37] Mr. Benson: Walsh, the ordinance committee has not met recently. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. [3:43] Chair (presiding officer): Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee, Mr. Frank. Nor have we met. Thank you, Mr. Frank. Looking to my right, administrative site plan review. Yes, the [3:55] Town Planner / Staff: The Administrative Site Plan Review Committee met and approved a lay-down yard project at 37 Bartlett Road. And there will be meetings. We're in the process of scheduling a meeting for October 28th to review two projects, one on Day Road for a parking lot for Persumska Regional Land Trust, and then another project at 11 Burnham Road for a 2,000 square foot educational wrestling facility I [4:35] Chair (presiding officer): missed something in that translation what was [4:37] Town Planner / Staff: October 28th the minor site plan review staff review okay thank you thank you we [4:42] Chair (presiding officer): have a couple of site plans but I haven't seen them been scheduled yet [4:47] Town Planner / Staff: that's not sure planning board review that's for the staff review okay [4:51] Chair (presiding officer): but the site visits we have not nailed those down yet no we have not [4:57] Town Planner / Staff: scheduled the site walk the deadline for that was I believe that the doodle poll [5:02] Chair (presiding officer): was October 8th so we'll get that okay I'm not sure mr. Walsh you 're able to see that or not okay great I apologize I'm missing things here ladies and gentlemen item for review items item one public hearing land use development code amendment large-scale data center restrictions a request to amend the land use and development code to provide definitions for data centers over 50,000 square feet the amendment also restricts uses including data centers not expressly enumerated in any zoning district I look [5:40] Town Planner / Staff: to my right to introduce this yes mr. chair so what this item does is basically there's two things one is prohibits uses that are not expressly enumerated in the land use code in a specific zoning district either by right or by special as a permitted use or special exception the second thing it does is it defines data centers meaning large-scale data centers at 50,000 SQUARE FEET OR GREATER. SO IT EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THOSE LARGE SCALE DATA CENTERS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED AS A USE IN ANY OF THE ZONES. AND WITH THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO CLARIFY OR AFTER PUBLIC CONFERENCE. [6:41] Chair (presiding officer): THANK YOU. WHEN WE SAY 50,000 SQUARE FEET ARE WE TALKING IN TOTALITY SO THAT IT'S NOT a four-story building with 12,500 square feet or whatever that is total are we talking about a footprint that is measuring 50,000 square feet or my [6:55] Town Planner / Staff: splitting is it that's a great question it's the aggregate data center area meaning that if you have a let's say a hundred thousand square foot office building you could have a portion of it be for you know IT servers that are up [7:18] Chair (presiding officer): to 50,000 square feet in totality yes sure okay thank you I please yeah [7:28] Mr. Benson: A couple questions, and just to make sure, have there been any data centers is proposed to Atatagora? [7:38] Mr. Walsh: Not that I'm aware of. Okay. [7:40] Mr. Benson: And the other thing, if there was a company interested in having some form of data center, could they enter into a contract zone without changing the proposed language? Yes. I thought so. You know, I understand the definition of the data center you have in there, and I looked it up and I found some words very similar online from a data center. So I'm fine with that. I have heartburn over the putting this moratorium on other uses, because I just wonder, is there another use that we would like out there that isn't enumerated that would fall into a trap and be seen as business unfriendly there further well [8:46] Mr. Walsh: Interesting thing is, the council had three meetings on this, their ordinance committee talked it over, and they presented this language, so I would assume that they talked about that very question. The answer is yes, there's going to be some use that we haven't even thought of or imagined, that will come forward. The answer to that is twofold. They could enter into a contract zone, or they could propose to change the ordinance. Right. To allow it in some district. [9:28] Mr. Benson: I mean, in some respects, this has become a political hot-button issue, and kind of fits into that category of a solution looking for a problem. But it's unlikely a data center will ever be proposed in the state of Maine, given our state of our cost of power in the state and the infrastructure that supports it. It's not a likely candidate. It never happened. So it's kind of a – I find this an issue that's just kind of a waste of time. But nevertheless, I do think the definition of the data center is pertinent and appropriate. I personally I dislike changing the ordinance because I'm afraid there's gonna be something out there that may burn us in the end, you know, be seen as [10:17] Mr. Delaney: Business unfriendly girl, Mr. Chair, before we continue with our own comments [10:24] Mr. Benson: And that's a public area, correct? Oh yeah, that's right, this is public. I'm sorry. [10:28] Chair (presiding officer): Well, anything else that we want to flush out before, maybe I should go over and stand over there. We invite people, ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone would like to speak in favor of this issue, please approach the mic, the podium, state your name and address to the record. Ladies and gentlemen, I see no one rising. Is there anyone that would like to speak against this project? Please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. Again, I see no one rising and ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone that is neutral that would like to speak about this proposed large-scale data understand our restriction, please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. Again, I see, I see no one rising, so I will close this public hearing. Ladies and gentlemen, look to my left, comments, questions, please [11:32] Mr. Frank: Mr. Frank, well, as usual, Mr. Walsh speaks first and well, and I think his remark or comment that it's a solution in search of a problem pretty much nails down what this thing's all about. [11:53] Mr. Delaney: Mr. Chair, anything else? [12:00] Mr. Frank: It's not at all clear to me what this fear of data centers is all about. It's not like we want to outlaw nuclear waste dumps. I mean, it's a business. It's a data center. So I'm puzzled over the apparent fear, I guess maybe is the word, of these things are going to destroy civilization or something or put our air in water. [12:41] Mr. Benson: I think there's an appropriate fear that they will drive the cost of power up. And it has been done, and in the case of Virginia and Ohio, there is evidence to support that. I think if you take, and there was one proposal at Sanford that included a power generation site. Now, unfortunately, it's based on natural gas, and it could tax the natural gas supply to the area. But if you were to build a data center with a power plant associated with it so it was self-serving and it had a source of water that would not strain the local water supply, there's nothing wrong with it because those are the two big issues. But I think that's where a lot of the fear is. [13:28] Mr. Frank: And there again, we should be able to compel as part of a permitting process, compel them to supply their own power. Small nuclear reactors are great. And in terms of cooling, I mean, you don't have to use water just once. I mean, every car we drive, well, unless it's electric, every car we drive has a nice radiator, and it cools the engine, and then the water cools the engine, and it goes through the radiator, and it reuses, so you recirculate the water. You don't just keep pumping it out of the ground and then dump it back somewhere. Colonel, [14:15] Mr. Delaney: did you? Yeah, several questions. On page one in the overview, it says that draft amendments to the land use development code to clarify how uses that are not specifically identified within the code are treated. I think you just said what it's doing is prohibiting them. In effect. Yeah, they're being treated by being prohibited. There's no other special language with regards to. [14:40] Mr. Walsh: This actually spells out and clarifies something that I'm not going to say most people because most people don't know this. Zoning is prescriptive. So if it's not allowed in the ordinance, it's not allowed. Right. So by stating it, will be blatantly obvious. [15:03] Mr. Delaney: So it's just clarifying something that already exists. It is. Okay. It's just confusing to me because I was looking for some examples of how these things were going to be regulated, and they're not here. It's just a blanket statement. So thank you. That clarifies. [15:17] Chair (presiding officer): Go ahead. I think Colonel sometimes it's not what a document says it's what it doesn't say [15:20] Mr. Delaney: right sure it's a leeway please so then on page two it talks about is either as permitted use or a special exception so what are some examples of special exceptions because none are listed here [15:35] Town Planner / Staff: schools above a certain size because of the impacts due to transportation quarries and those are listed out like there's a list of exceptions yes child care centers basically any item that has a high degree of nuisance potentially associated with it gets extra review but [16:01] Mr. Delaney: this is saying that governing lawfully existing non-conforming uses any use not expressly enumerated is either permitted or a special exception so that you're telling me that those [16:15] Town Planner / Staff: are allowed there those items are listed in certain zones yeah these data centers [16:23] Mr. Delaney: are not I'm not talking about data center I'm just talking about this once this one amendment part three land use chapter 300 subject to the provisions of article 1-2 governing lawfully existing non-conforming uses law and flawfully lawfully existing non-conforming uses so there must be some lawfully existing using non-conforming uses. Any use not expressly enumerated in the chapter, but that's not supplied here. So I don't know what uses are not expressly enumerated in the chapter. I don't know what uses are, as either permitted, which I would guess are the ones that are enumerated, or as a special exception. So what kinds of things are special exceptions that could be placed in a zone that aren't enumerated? [17:12] Mr. Walsh: Essentially speaking, we have 16 basic zoning districts. There are special exceptions listed in probably eight of them. They're mostly exactly the same, and those are the uses that Damon gave as examples. [17:31] Mr. Delaney: Of things that could be put into those areas? [17:34] Mr. Walsh: That are already special exceptions. [17:35] Mr. Delaney: Exceptions, okay. Okay. Yes. So, yeah, I guess, to me, if it's listed as a specialist exception, then it is a permitted use. It's not an exception if we've listed it because we've listed it as a use. So that's part of my confusion. It's not an exception. We don't have conditions that we say, hey, if a business meets these conditions, we have the ability to grant an exception. [18:07] Mr. Walsh: Yes, in fact, that's what it says. That's, in fact, what it says. So when you're reviewing a permitted use, it is permitted by right. There is nothing special or distinct about it. You're not reviewing it with special standards. For a special exception, you are reviewing it with standards, additional standards in and above what is basic. [18:36] Mr. Delaney: And those standards are enumerated in the ordinance. In the ordinance. Yes. Yes. And they may be different depending on which zone you're in. [18:43] Mr. Walsh: Not the standards, no. The special exception standards are very specific. They're all the same, and they are in the ordinance. [18:55] Mr. Delaney: But it doesn't provide the board or the town from saying there's another use that we haven't identified. Unless it's specifically identified as an exception, then there isn't like a standard that is applied for some other thing. Is that correct? Because I was reading it the other way, like, oh, any use could come before, and as long as it meets these standards, it can be an exception. You're saying that it's read the other way. Right. [19:24] Mr. Walsh: If we've thought of it, and it's listed underneath the special exception categories in the zoning district, then you review those under the special exception standards. Great. [19:36] Mr. Delaney: Right. And so just to clarify, contract zone could still be possible. Town could still sign a contract zone and still allow a data center. [19:46] Mr. Walsh: They could still consider it, yes. [19:48] Mr. Delaney: And so that's one. And then two, if I'm a developer and I want to build a 49,000-square-foot data center, I'm allowed to. It's actually not considered a data center because under this definition, if it's below 50,000 square feet, it's not a data center. Right. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. [20:15] Town Planner / Staff: Well, the impacts are much lower once you're at 49,000 square feet. Yeah, in the lower, if you have a smaller gross floor area used for it. [20:25] Mr. Benson: Bill, what you might find is a particular business that has to have a large server. No, I get that. Server room. Yeah, I mean, you could, depending on what their needs are. [20:36] Mr. Delaney: Yeah, I guess that, like, so my, again, maybe this is, maybe I'm confusing this, but if, say, just hypothetically, Amazon was going to build a warehouse in Gorham, and they wanted to have a data room, right, like most large businesses have. Pick another IDEX or whoever, like your local, and they're going to have a data room. That's not a data center. Their business is something else. They have an IT room. That wouldn't be considered a data center. It would be a room that had data in it, but it wouldn't be a data center. It would be a warehouse, or it would be a laboratory, or it would be something else. It wouldn't be a data center because that's not its business. So your example of a room, I don't get that part of the restriction because that would be a business. [21:30] Mr. Benson: If you look at the definition that's proposed for a data center area, that server room, for lack of a better term, would fall into that. [21:40] Mr. Delaney: I guess I could see that. Yeah. [21:42] Mr. Benson: So, I mean, what it would say is you can't have a 51,000-square-foot server room. [21:50] Mr. Delaney: Is that right? I mean, is that how it's right? Because I don't see that we only see these little paragraphs, so I don't know what the paragraph before or after says or where it appears inside the regulation. [22:02] Mr. Walsh: So maybe we should take this to this would be in the definition section with which stands alone I [22:11] Chair (presiding officer): I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in here because I know where this is headed we could have a 60,000 square foot building so what with not a whole lot of computing power in it so it is 50,000 square feet itself in and of itself that's the threshold are we talking about energy consumption I mean I mean, there's a lot more to it. I hear this is going around the state of Maine. Different cities and towns are starting to regulate these things. I understand the consumption of energy is enormous. But to say it's 50,000 square feet, again, somebody could put up a 60,000 or 70,000 square foot building, but the energy is only what could be consumed maybe in a 40,000 square foot building, and they just want extra storage. I'm reaching here. [23:01] Mr. Benson: Isn't the, there's two definitions here, one is the data center and one is data center area. Isn't the purpose of the data center area, if you have 100,000 square foot building and 50,000, you can't have more than 50,000 square foot of it dedicated to some form of a business that would be considered a data center. Am I reading that right? [23:28] Chair (presiding officer): I don't mean to interrupt. Let's just move on with this thing. I think motion two looks good to me, but I'm not going to introduce that. It's got to come from one of you, if you so feel. I mean, we could continue to debate this, and we're spinning our wheels. Okay. [23:43] Mr. Benson: Well, I think Damon and Carol may have sensed the number of questions we would have for if we have to move it to the ordinance committee. So that would be me. So I'll make the motion then. Move to send the proposed amendment. to 300 comma part 1 zoning regulations including subsection 300 1.8 prohibited uses and subsection 300 1.29 terms defined regarding data centers and data center area to the planning board ordinance committee for workshop review [24:19] Chair (presiding officer): and no recommendations Thank You mr. Walsh is there a second please mr. Frankel second Thank You mr. Frank yes we could have some discussion but I think it's crystal clear we have a lot of questions and I think it's better That I served in a workshop and I brought back. Anyone else on that? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Well, I hope the rest of the meeting doesn't go like this. [24:46] Mr. Frank: No count on it. Let's look up. Ladies and gentlemen. I told you I was back. [24:52] Chair (presiding officer): Sorry? I told you I was back. Welcome back. Welcome back. And no souvenirs. Ladies and gentlemen, item two. Item two is a public hearing. contract zone rough life retreat LLC a request for a contract zone at map 59 lot 9-2 located at 252 awesome betrayal East to raise the number of allowed dogs from 10 to 55 at a dog daycare and overnight boarding facility I look to [25:19] Town Planner / Staff: staff to introduce us please yes mr. Chair, so this is the first time this item has been before the board. What the applicants are proposing to do it are to set up a contract zone that would have two essential elements. One is to raise the number of permitted dogs in the land use code, which is the capped at 10 currently, and raise that to 55, and then reduce the setback from the structure for kennels to 40 feet from the current 100 feet along the property lines, and specifically this is along a central main power company utility corridor. So some items to note for the board, so this consideration of the contract zone is not a consideration of approval for the operation of the site ITSELF. THAT WOULD COME UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW. IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOMETHING REVIEWED BY MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE OR THE PLANNING BOARD DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF WHAT EVENTUALLY WOULD BE PROPOSED. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS STRICTLY CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRACT ZONE THAT WOULD MODIFY THE UNDERLYING ZONING LANGUAGE AS DESCRIBED. So there would be more review ahead of this one. We have not yet received from the applicants legal language that would constitute the contract. What they have provided is more of an overview. So there is an opportunity for the board to give feedback, and depending on the feedback, the applicants could then go and draft the language, potential contracts in language with their land use attorney. So that's sort of where they're at. A couple other things to note. The items that the board should evaluate here, the two items, should be weighed against whether or not such a project could be approved without creating undue nuisance to budding properties. So that's really the key thing to focus on, and this is advertised as a public hearing, but that having to take clarifying questions or discussion after [27:53] Chair (presiding officer): public hearing. Thank You Mr. Yakalov. I'm a little bit confused, are we putting the [27:57] Town Planner / Staff: cart before the horse here? I think the idea is to get for the applicants to get some feedback from the board so they know whether or not to or how best to [28:08] Chair (presiding officer): Proceed, I think it's what they're looking for based on what we may or may not hear this evening. They may or may not apply for a contract zone. Is that my understand? Would be up to the applicants. Yep. Okay. Did that stuff, is that, is that a indication, is that essentially? Yes. Okay. So we're with their vetting it with us. I get it. Okay. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this, please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. Okay, Mr. Frank, take [28:53] Town Planner / Staff: your time. Are present here, so you may want to invite them. I might want to, we [29:01] Chair (presiding officer): we is there any silence just in case? Okay, thank you. So ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone that wishes to address this in a positive manner, please approach the podium, state your name and address of the record. Typically, Mr. Chair, we've [29:15] Mr. Delaney: had the applicant speak first and then we've gone into public hearing. Yes sir. [29:19] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, we can withdraw my silly comments. Is the applicant here would like to speak to this? Please, I apologize, I should have allowed you first. Colonel always right. Hello, [29:37] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): I'm Emma Johnson, I'm the owner of Rough Life Retreat, well Rough Life Retreat LLC. What's before you today is a contract zone to increase the cap from 10 dogs to 55 dogs and then also wave the, or not wave, but reduce the performance standards to have the 100 foot setback to just 40 feet on the left side of the property running along the CMP corridor. Yeah, any [30:23] Chair (presiding officer): questions? Any, Mr. Walsh, I heard [30:30] Mr. Benson: from you for a month. Fire away. I guess maybe I hold my question. I really, I looked at what you have proposed here, you know, what the proposal for the 40-foot setback on the CMP corridor seems reasonable. What about the other side? [30:49] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): So the other side would stay with the 100-foot performance standard, that setback. The only reason that we're proposing to reduce that side is just with the 100 foot there's like a 15 foot building envelope and we can't build the proposed facility in the way that it should be built to provide for that number of dogs. Why 55 dogs? So I pulled the town dog registry and at 55 dogs that is 3% of the town's entire dog population, so I figured that was a good number to kind of go with. I worked at a dog daycare, large-scale dog daycare for four years, so I'm used to 80 plus dogs. I have yeah, I have a good experience with it and I'm comfortable with that number. So [31:55] Mr. Benson: this facility is just a dog daycare or is this a overnight kennel? So it's a [32:00] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): It's both, so dog daycare during the day, and then we have overnight boarding as needed. That won't be like, we won't have 55 dogs a night boarding. It'll be like, max, like, during Christmas or Thanksgiving, maybe, like, 15, 20 overnight. And that's, like, very peak. [32:18] Mr. Benson: Is there a restriction on them? I'm kind of looking to the staff, too, on this question. Is there a restriction to the number of dogs that can be kenneled overnight? [32:26] Mr. Walsh: That would be in the contract zone if you would like to add it in. Okay. All right. [32:33] Mr. Benson: Most importantly, can I have one of those buses that's going around and pick up all the dogs? I watched the video, so I... [32:38] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): That's a good idea. I've seen that. They're great. It's amazing. That's all. [32:45] Chair (presiding officer): The question that I have, a perhaps mathematical question, do you want to limit this at 55 based on the existing number of licenses, or do you want it to be a percentage of the licenses? I'm thinking out loud. You're basing it right now on a percentage of the number of licenses that are issued now this [33:11] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): particular calendar year. That's where I just got my base number from. So it's not gonna, that number won't change. Like, if next year you ended up having 4,000 dogs registered, or the year after you had 1,000, the number would still be 55. This was just a general base number. I didn't want to go too high, but I also didn't want to go too low to where I wasn't supporting our community. Okay, good. [33:37] Chair (presiding officer): Good, I'm glad you thought that out. Thank you, I appreciate it. Yes, Mr. Frank, the [33:44] Mr. Frank: the reduction of the setback at the CMP line, I don't see that as a problem at all, because the butter, so to speak, is really nobody. And again, with it now, with respect to your number of 55, the structure you're proposing, just physically, it will accommodate that many. Yes, so if you wanted to go up to 100 dogs, you wouldn't be able to do it in your proposed structure. True, you said that, so that's, that's another limitation that's going to fix the 55. Correct. Yeah. [34:29] Mr. Benson: I was looking at the comment from the co-division that's in the staff comments, and it's talking about standards that your facility will be built to. Here, this is pretty minimum. I wouldn't expect the town of Gorham to have standards. But are there industry standards for the size of pens, the size of exercise area, [34:54] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): That you will be building your facility to. So me personally, I there is a specific square footage per dog. I think it's, I want to say 50 square feet, don't quote me on that, per dog. However, I would rather have too much room than not enough room. So I was kind of basing it off of like a hundred square feet of space. So not specifically just the building, but the building plus the yard area, because our structure would kind of rotate dogs like a half would be inside and then they'd go in and out just so we can have more control and structure to our days and [35:42] Mr. Benson: have you run this plan by the property owner on the on the other opposite side from CMP like not my director butter but [35:54] Emma Johnson (applicant, Rough Life Retreat): the one a budding CMP no the way your director butter oh yes I have he's supportive of it dog person yes very much so yeah [36:09] Chair (presiding officer): Anyone else? Thank you. This is a public hearing now. Well now we'll segue into the public hearing if you don't mind. So ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing. If there is anyone close the public hearing. Thank you for your participation members of the board [37:05] Ben Hartwell (attorney for Dollar General): please [37:08] Mr. Delaney: Colonel yeah for the staff just for everyone's edification on the contract zone it's the contract zones enter between the applicant in the town right so anything we would we would be giving a recommendation to approve but we're not actually improving the contract zone that's correct yeah so the [37:27] Town Planner / Staff: The language would have to be reviewed, you'd make a recommendation, and then it'd have to go to the town council for a public hearing and vote. [37:36] Mr. Delaney: Right. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. While presented, the town probably needs it. I appreciate your entrepreneurship. That's all great. I have a question about the 100-foot setback on the right side. So that was put in place for 10 dogs. So now we're saying 55 dogs, but we're using the same setback. So that would just be a thought that I have. And establishing a contract zone, I guess what my concern is would be lots of little contract zones that are kind of all over the place for niche or individual small businesses that becomes very difficult to manage for the town and provides us cut it does it gets away from the zoning that we've we've sought so that's my concern without seeing I guess the language of the contract zone I 'm not I don't know that I'm ready to vote on it tonight I'm just saying that those are some of my concerns even though I applaud the idea and probably the need for it in the town it seems like you know to be something that would be a [38:53] Mr. Benson: Great project, but those are my concerns. I echo those concerns on that, but I figured it just says cook with town council, and they are really the ones who weigh in as to whether they want to enter a contract zone. So that's kind of like, okay, probably not that, but I hate seeing a bunch of cookie-cutter contract zones, but if that's the only way to allow this particular business, because that 40-foot setback, again, I think it's a reasonable request, but contract zones are the only way to achieve it, as well as 55 dogs, and so be it thank [39:40] Chair (presiding officer): you. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Frank, please. Yeah, I'm looking at the [39:46] Mr. Frank: at the motions without the actual physical contract zone document, but we can't really proceed with anything except maybe, well, we could send the proposed contract zone agreement to the next available planning board meeting if we can be assured that we will have the contract zone to in front of us to consider, or the final one, move to table discussion until we get the document. So either of those last two, the only ones that I think are viable right now, thank [40:30] Chair (presiding officer): you. I throw this out that a workshop we would be perhaps adding teeth to this idea, but it still has to go before the council to be adopted, and I don't think we'll have a contract zone back. I'm taking a pretty strong guess here that we will not have a contract zone agreement back from the council by the next month, so I'm looking for something in between. Yes, the fourth one [40:59] Mr. Delaney: was we're, we don't have the language in the contract zone agreement to look at. That's what we're not looking for the final contract zone to come back to us. It's just the language provided by the applicant. Is that, is that right? That's correct. Yeah, we'll be waiting for the applicants to work on that and provide that. Yeah, so that would be my motion is that we table until we move to table discussion until the contract zone agreement language is submitted for review. [41:22] Mr. Frank: Yeah. Second. Frank, second. [41:28] Chair (presiding officer): Colonel first. Gentlemen, were you fighting? Who said? Mr. Frank, you seconded. [41:35] Mr. Frank: Yeah, the table. Yes, please. Yeah, [41:40] Chair (presiding officer): I would like to. I concur. I mean, I would like to, I guess, send this along and say this has our support, my personal opinion, without out weighing in for the rest of you, the 40 feet, they'll have to debate the merits of that. So right now the motion to table the discussions and with the contract zone agreement is in submitted for review motion the second any other discussion it's my right any anything you want to add to this just to [42:09] Town Planner / Staff: Make sure you might want to ask if the applicants have any additional questions for the board to provide guidance for them to write up their document. Sounds like the board is okay with the 40-foot setback change against the utility corridor, number of dogs, just for the applicants clarification unless [42:31] Chair (presiding officer): the some CMP's got some what regulation electricity keeping 40 feet away I don't know I'm a mechanical guy not electrical thank [42:43] Town Planner / Staff: you I think the applicants would find that useful it's the order to draft their language all right thank you [42:48] Chair (presiding officer): We had a motion the second any other discussion all those in favor thank you good luck Mr. [42:57] Mr. Benson: Chairman ask a process question I'm sorry can I ask a process question fire away really so we put this as a public hearing but in essence it was really a discussion why didn't you bring in as a public hearing not just a [43:10] Town Planner / Staff: discussion the purpose was to see if there are any abutters or anybody who may have an opinion that would inform the board about how to move forward okay thank you we have a 500 foot setback for about us in this case this the state law is actually a little different on the notification it's a butters to a butters which essentially gets at the same thing okay at it but it's it doesn't state LAW IS ACTUALLY VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT CONTRACT ZONES NOTIFICATIONS. [43:44] Chair (presiding officer): ARE WE READY TO CONTINUE? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ITEM 3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SITE PLAN PERENNIAL GORHAM SOLAR, A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 0.99 MEGAWATT SOLAR ARRAY ON 10 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE WESTERLY PORTION OF THE MARTIN PLACE FARM ON FORT HILL ROAD ZONE RURAL MAP 61 LOT 7 MAP 64 LOT 15 AND MAP 43 LOT 26 THE APPLICANT IS RECOMMENDED I'M SORRY REPRESENTED BY LUCIAN IS IT LUCIAN IS THAT HOW I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY ALL RIGHT LUCIAN LANGLEY'S PE WITH BH2M WOULD SOME STAFF LIKE TO INTRODUCE US PLEASE CERTAINLY MR [44:31] Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chair, this parcel is a large agricultural property with the address of 314 Fort Hill Road. The project is spanning the rural district parcels, three of them. The array would occupy the farm's western portion and use an existing 1,700-foot farm road. There is no daily staff, and the traffic would be limited mainly to the construction, maintenance, and any emergencies that might occur. The outstanding issues is the access and emergency response. So the applicant needs to identify the 18- and 20-foot road sections for that purpose. Provide a 20-foot unobstructed width, confirm that the culvert capacity is good for the tank trucks and emergency vehicle turnaround, clarify the road reconstruction, widening, grading, and profile, let's see, as well as an emergency operations plan. Plan. The second issue is stream crossings and permits, so they need to clarify the crossing and road widening design, the erosion controls, resource setbacks, and use of native planting material. And the plan is subject to Maine DEP, construction general permit, NRPA, permit by rule and U.S. Army Corps as required. Stormwater, the third thing, they need to clarify the pre- and post-modeling for the existing culvert and ponding area. They need to address some plan details and waivers. So they've been asked to add entrance site distances, existing conditions, and equipment pad details, reconcile some road grading notes, and revise the fencing for wildlife passage. And decide separately on the requested waivers. This is your task for the evening, as well as listening to the updates provided. The three waiver requests are for underground utilities, exterior lighting, and landscaping. And when you're reviewing that, you might ask the applicants for the reasons specifically for those so that you can add them to your motion. And with that, I turn it over to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Sireman. [47:32] Chair (presiding officer): With the applicant, would you like to speak with us, address us a little bit, please? [47:45] Nick Lacasse (Perennial Renewables): Good evening, everybody. My name is Nick Lacasse. I am one of the owners of Perennial Renewables, which is a hundred percent owner of Perennial Gorham Solar, which is the applicant this evening. Perennial is based in Hallowell, Maine. We started the business about five years ago. We specialize in these one megawatt solar sites, about ten acres. This is a solar tracker site. This is one of our first forays outside of Kennebec County, so we've done roughly about 10 megawatts of projects all within kind of, kind of a county central part of the state where We're based really excited to be here presenting the project. We're here earlier in the summer, early summer, late spring, to just be here for a preliminary discussion. We had the follow-up site walk meeting. Thank you for anyone that can join to see the site. We are excited about the site for a number of different reasons. The first is based on where it is off of Fort Hill Road. It's nearly invisible to traffic anyone from the road as well as the Martin family from their farm. So we're big believers. We've had some issues up in the central part of the state on impact from a visual perspective. This site is naturally buffered by the topography of the farm itself, so that was a huge big benefit. Second would be allowing Martin farm to have other revenue streams that is not farming. We will be providing a lease to the farm and they're looking to begin to bring in different things that are not just you know raising you know farm animals for 4-H, which I don't actually think makes you any money. You. Just do out of the goodness of your heart. Another piece of it is we're using utilizing a piece of the farm where there's not high crop yield. Norman had identified this as like a lower bowl section that we all went and saw. This lower bowl has not good soil. When we learned from him, we first you know looked at the site and now based on state law we have to go and confirm that if it's a field like this or there's not new trees, you have to tell the state hey you know we're developing on non-high. Value agriculture land. State's really concerned about solar projects eating up that HVAL, so we confirm that with some site tests. So we feel like it's a good project. A lot of the things we really like are about the specific site themselves and being able to be part of the farm. This will provide a tax payment to the town every year as well. It's a new state law that changed, so around 20 to 25 thousand dollars per year this project will provide to the town and tax payments. We won't be sending. Anybody to school or using any your water. We're just creating more electricity onto the grid, so it's more of a net benefit from a tax perspective. Perennial is the development company. We stay on as part of the general contracting team. We're responsible for scheduling procurement of major materials, solar panels, project racking, transformer, switchgear, and all that type of equipment, erosion control, making sure the site stays up with the folks at BH2M. So hopefully that just gives you a broader. understanding of who is responsible for the application whose name is down it's important to us to be here and be a face in the room I'll turn technical questions over to Lucien and Jamie who I 'm happy to be up here with tonight have been in similar situations with them a lot before so thank you very much and if you have any questions about perennial or the project happy to answer them thank [52:02] Chair (presiding officer): you. Thank you. Good [52:07] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): evening. My name is Lucian Langwald, bh2m, and just a quick, just to add on to what Nick gave for that project purpose. So since our planning board site walk at the end of the end of the summer, we've been busy crafting this design to comply with not only the town of Gorham but as well as the Army Corps of Engineers and Maine DEP. So to really comply with all of these agencies and natural resource constraints on the site, I guess a big deal is this road and the rest of the project. We've cited this array in a really good location. We've picked a great, a great spot to build it, but we need to get there. In order to get there safely and really meet what the EMS and planning staff and everyone has told us, we do need to narrow this road. It's, it's hard to hold 20 feet and not spill all the way into the stream and its buffer. And if you were at the site with us, you would, you'd see that existing road and that road footprint really limits us to achieving 20 feet and with, but we still believe that with an 18 foot wide road in those just those sections near the natural resources, we can still provide a good safe access to the site. So that's just because I heard that was a, you know, a concern, just want to throw that out there so we can, you know, have a discussion about it. We've recently submitted to the main DEP and Army Corps of Engineers and that was just last Friday. We've also received feedback from the main DOT. This project does not require an entrance permit and they've stated that in a letter to us. We did also receive confirmation that the DEP and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife does not look at the vernal pool on our site as a significant vernal pool, so that was confirmed. And yeah, we're, we're happy to be here today that for this public hearing. We also want to present these waivers to you, so we have three waivers that we're looking for. That's lighting and landscaping and the requirement for a complete underground utilities, and I can expand on all those who are to our discussion. But the underground utilities are something that's required through our CMP interconnection agreement, and we've tried to minimize these poles to the greatest extent we can. We're going underground throughout the existing farm operation. They keep no overhead area, no overhead lines out of a place where they could be an issue, and the remaining area of power is completely underground, and lighting and landscaping. Due to the location of the solar array, it just isn't compatible with the agricultural landscape and the natural buffering that the site gives. So that's my intro. Thank you. Any questions, anyone? Thank [55:09] Chair (presiding officer): you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak, in looking to my left, [56:00] Town Planner / Staff: gentlemen? [56:09] Mr. Benson: Just want to clarify on the, I'm still a little confused on the overhead versus underground. Just walk me from the road in to the array, how it goes. Not [Town Engineer / Staff: sure.] We have a copy in front of us. [56:34] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): I'll put this up here. Alright, so coming off Fort Hill Road, there is an existing overhead pole on the Fort Hill Road side of that shed. It's not in bold. That pole is being replaced with a bold pole right beside of it that says a customer riser pole, and in fact that pole will actually be located a little bit closer to the shed because there was a comment about overhead lines, and if we've talked about pulling that pole and placing it close to the shed, it kind of hugs that area, and then from that point it's underground through where all the existing farm operations happen, right to those four new poles which are labeled three CMP poles and there's one customer pole that's a with a riser pole. From that point we are completely underground. There is a pole on this plan that says pole quantities to be redacted with approval from CMP. We've that, excuse me, Mr. Langley, so yes, is that drawing to drawing number two? This is sheet number two. Yes it is. Yeah, okay, thank you. I apologize. No problem. So I'm looking up here at this pole on the north side of the road. That pole doesn't exist. That's a, we've removed that, but that text label still exists to be redacted if we can with CMP approval. So right now on this plan we have one pole being replaced at the front of the site, and we have four new poles completely underground from there all the way to [58:03] Mr. Benson: Of the transformer pad, okay, so you see your underground to that pole, you come up, and excuse me, your overhead to coming off of Fort Hill Road, you go underground through the farm buildings, you come up for your four poles with the air switches, correct, and then you go back down, correct, because we need those [58:23] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): four poles, but we're trying to give the farm us, yeah, light in their lane, right [58:27] Mr. Benson: And then you're, you're underground all the way out to the site, correct, oh, all right, easy. [58:34] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): Very good. Which, you know, going underground limits our, you know, encroachment into resource and everything like that, and it is a more expensive venture, but, you know, it's our commitment to trying to meet this standard. Okay, very good. [58:49] Mr. Benson: Oh, I guess there was one other question. Sorry. It was right in there, some issues about checking for wildlife that might jump out of the fence, having the gates to let them out if it happens. So what's the plan for that? [59:05] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): That's a great question, and I like this question because there's not a great answer. With wildlife, there's deer biologists, the game biologists, and then you have your environmental biologists who look at it in a more holistic view. And with a fence, you know, the primary intention is safety. With deer, if you leave an opening under the fence, a foot or more, they will shove themselves under it and they'll get trapped. So the fence that we want to provide is a fence that doesn't leave an opening at the bottom for a deer to come through, but it has large enough openings for smaller mammals and things like that to still move. Of course we have to keep it safe, so we can't, you know, it still has to be seven feet high, we're not going to go any lower because then the deer could jump over it. With this particular site as a field, there's no really good option for like an earthen ramp or anything like that, which we have done on other sites the best thing I think looking at the those concerns and those comments that we can do with this site is to add another gate that way if an animal does get trapped in here we have another way to release that 's usually the issue is once an animal gets trapped nobody sees it for a long time and you can't get out luckily you know this farm is buffered from the road but it's still on the farm property you know the martins are here we wouldn't expect the a deer to get trapped And nobody to see it, but the solution there is to revise our fence design to comply with IFW recommendations. I don't think we can go as large as what they're saying, but we're still going to look at providing larger fence openings at the bottom with exactly what they're saying. Thank you. Yep, I [1:00:53] Nick Lacasse (Perennial Renewables): just wanted to quickly address the overhead polls as well. When we started on the partnership with the Martin family and the farm, it was made very clear to us that this was only going to work if we were able to limit the overhead power lines through the farmyard, as they are, as we said, diversifying revenue streams and don't want to look at polls either. No one does. So we put the note on the plan about pole redaction on purpose. We are in a constant back and forth with Central Maine Power Company regarding what meets their Blue Book specs and what we believe to be electrically feasible and safe. So the minimum amount of poles we believe to be on this site is probably three new ones, three to four new ones. We're finalizing that with them right now. We just want to make sure the plan set is accurate enough and shows that we're, you know, attempting to redact right now for visual impact reasons only, and anything that would be accepted would be stamped by an electrical engineer approved by Central Main Power, anything along those lines. Thank you, gentlemen. [1:02:09] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): Any [1:02:15] Chair (presiding officer): questions, any comments, much material here? Please, Mr. Walsh. I'm good. Please, Mr. Frank. [1:02:25] Mr. Frank: Nicely done on the sidewalk, gentlemen. You laid it out well and the verbal description, and so it was a good experience. And there was no snow. [1:02:42] Mr. Delaney: Colonel, please. I'm ready to move on. We've got several waivers, and I'm ready to offer those if we're done have a discussion. I move to grant a waiver to bring a quorum solar from the requirements of 302.4 to 7A, requiring underground utilities at tax map 61, lot 7, map 64, lot 15, and map 43, lot 26, as briefed as part of their plan. Thank you, Colonel. Is there a second? Second, [1:03:09] Chair (presiding officer): Dave Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Everyone understand the idea and the content? Anyone opposed? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. [1:03:17] Mr. Delaney: You colonel, you're on a roll. Yeah, I've moved to grant a waiver of Torino Scorum Solar LLC from the requirements of the exterior lighting requirement of 300-4.9 M and the associated lighting submission requirement of 300-4.8 C1 C7 pursuant to 300-4.12 at tax max 61 lot 7, map 64 lot 15, and map 43 lot 26. Second, Dave Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Any other [1:03:48] Chair (presiding officer): Questions or ideas, discussions, all those in favor, anyone opposed? Thank you, Mr. [1:03:54] Mr. Delaney: Chair, I move to grant a waiver to bring a warm solar LLC from the requirements of landscaping were found in 300 dash 4.9 0 and the associated plant tank schedule submission requirement of 300-4.8 1C11 pursuant to 300-4.12 at tax map 61 lot 7 map 64 lot 15 and map 43 lot 26. [1:04:20] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you, Colonel. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Your Honor. I'll look to my right for a minute here. Is that a number zero or is that a letter O after 4.9? I think it's a letter O. I think so, too, but it's a letter O. It is a letter O. Okay. You're okay with that? Yes. Okay. Thank you. We had a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor? I'm going through myself. I'm jumping on the gun here. I'm a little bit a little anxiety about this 20-foot wide road. Are we not going to have 20 feet or, I heard it's questionable or is it negotiable with I don't see it's negotiable but sure yeah I'll so [1:05:13] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): That NFP the fire standard you know it limits roads to 20 feet in width but just under that it says with the authority having jurisdiction you can reduce the width of that so we look to mainly you know EMS and then also from engineering the peer review to tell us you know where do we fit in here. And we're not proposing to reduce this road width just to save money or anything like that. This is a farm road. We just want to upgrade it to the minimalist way to provide safe access but also not encroach into this resource. And I know I keep saying that, but the setback I'm really talking about is a 25-foot stream setback for the DEP. If we encroach into that resource it's the it's an individual NRPA permit due to the proximity of the stream it's the largest level of permitting the DEP has under that permit so if we maintain that setback it is it is exactly what the DEP wants to see and I think we'd have quite a hard time going into that setback and getting approval for this road and they would be looking to ask us why we need that with so our first step is to say do we really need that with and we've had a discussion with The fire chief, I'm here with the team tonight. We have Jamie Lowry from BH to him, our engineer, and he's spoken with the fire chief to try to figure out what we can do to find some common ground here. And we're proposing a, which was discussed during the meeting, is a little pull-off right after the stream crossing on your right hand side. There would be a little pull off there, which if you remember from our site visit, there's sort of like a little access that goes up the hill right after that. So It's a good spot for that. We can have a little pull off right there, and then on this nice straight spot where we have the stream too close to the existing roadbed, that's where we would do our width reduction only to 18 feet. For the remaining areas of the road, we have it at a full width of 20 feet. And with, and we'd be happy to update our detail sheets as requested from the peer reviewer to show both a 20 foot and an 18 foot wide detail of road. Okay. [1:07:35] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you. Numbers of the board, any comments, questions, suggestions? Mr. Walsh, I, you [1:07:53] Mr. Benson: know, this is really an engineering question. I guess I'd say, Chuck, do you have a, any input on this? Sure. So we did discuss this with the applicant [1:08:03] Town Engineer / Staff: from an engine, strictly an engineering standpoint, I'm fine with a reduced width. It certainly satisfies the goals of fewer impacts to natural resources. This is strictly the 20-foot width is strictly coming from NFPA, so that's a fire protection code. So this one will have to be agreed upon by the fire chief, in my opinion, but from an engineering standpoint, the applicant providing what they need as far as width and section of that road would be perfectly adequate [1:08:37] Mr. Delaney: for me. Is it appropriate then adding a condition of approval? I think it would [1:08:44] Town Engineer / Staff: would be covered under the general all staff comments are satisfied as long as [1:08:50] Mr. Delaney: the fire chief has indicated that as a staff combat and he has, it's it's it's okay, I'm [1:09:02] Lucian Langwald (BH2M engineer): good. Yeah, we, but we believe we can satisfy all those requested comments with relatively simple plan changes and updates and exhibits. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Walsh, are you okay? Yep, very good. [1:09:14] Chair (presiding officer): Mr. Frank? Good. Any last-minute comments, suggestions? There's a little bit of yellow. I believe it will be taken care of. Look to my right, ensuring that it's going to be taken care of. [1:09:31] Mr. Delaney: Mr. Chair, I move to grant Perennial Solar LLC request for site plan approval for the Martin Farm Solar Project located at M61 backslash L7, M64, L15, M43, L26 at 314 Fort Hill Road in the rural zoning district based on the findings of facts and conditions of approval as written by the town planner and amended bill amendments. [1:09:56] Mr. Benson: And a second by Dave Walsh. [1:09:58] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you, Mr. Walsh. We're all understanding of what the application is. Some of us took the site walk, so it's a long walk into the valley there. All righty, all those in favor, anyone opposed? Thank you, good luck. You don't know how we doing, we need to check our legs, we keep going. Oh good, looking to my right, go set ready. All right ladies and gentlemen, item 4, item 4 is a discussion site plan amendment review Dollar General, a request for review of a site plan amendment to revise the approved landscaping plan located at for Cornerstone Drive off Dingley Spring Road at map 77 lot 5 zone roadside commercial RC. The applicant is represented by Chris Taylor PE was a big of techniques, looks at my right, please to introduce this. Certainly, as a [1:11:01] Mr. Walsh: reminder, you reviewed this application on the 14th of September. This is only a landscaping and buffered discussion, but I will add in here that we slash you have received an abutter comment that includes other concerns. Those concerns have been sent on to the code office and the director of our department for further investigation and discussion with the applicant. You've got some revised plan showing the buffers, the service area screening, tree protection limits and details, and the previously missing landscape notes and detail sheet. Town departments didn't have any additional comments, and Barton Lejudis, the peer review landscape architect, has stated that most of the comments have been addressed from the previous application. There's one note that they have made as an outstanding item is that the invasive species is still not entirely resolved in Note 1. So they would be looking to probably have a discussion with the applicant, as sometimes happens peer-to-peer. And the final plan revisions, we'd look to have that revised. And with that, I turn it over to you, Mr. Chair. [1:12:46] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you, Ms. Seidman. Evening, Attorney. Welcome. [1:12:57] Ben Hartwell (attorney for Dollar General): Good evening, Mr. Chair. All right, we're back again this month. [Chair (presiding officer): Please introduce yourself.] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Ben Hartwell, Legal Attorney for Dollar General. I'm also here with Chris Taylor from Sebago Technics. Just a reminder for a lot of people who may not have heard my comments last month, I'll make it very brief that when the site was, well first of all, the site plan was already approved. During the site clearing last fall, winter, it became apparent after the clearing that some of the exposed pine trees that were part of the natural buffer plan and the original plan was more dangerous so we had a de minimis approval to or de minimis change approval to remove those trees and the condition of approval with that was to get a landscaping plan approved by the planning board so there was a few changes that peer review asked for last time looks like most that's been resolved chris will expand on that two of the things i just want to reiterate is yes there's a series of photos in a in your materials and that would be beyond the scope of this review tonight that's not part of what the landscaping plan is required to do but as a good faith the applicant has dealt with is in the process of dealing with the light that was miss aimed that's getting taken care of there's an issue with the sign that's being taken care of and finally I just want to point out on when you get to page 8, one of the proposed findings, there's a financial, the word financial crossed out right above that. We talked about this at the meeting last month, excuse me, last week. It was recognized that the letter I produced on August 27th does have the financial capacity. So I'm not sure why that's still crossed out, but I just want to point that out when you get to it and I'll let Chris take it from here thanks thank you councillor [1:15:34] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): good evening Chris Taylor with Sebago Technics representing the applicant tonight I guess the only thing I'll point out we heard your comments from last time the plan got revised to add some additional evergreen trees to kind of beef up the buffer the loading mechanical areas were called out on the plans to identify those showed some of the existing trees in the rear of the building that are going to are to remain just to clean things up a little bit and then on the peer review comment the Outstanding comment. Just give it a little bit more context. Is specifically about revising note one on the landscape plan. Excuse me, are you referring to a particular page in this? Yeah, if you turn to page five, Barton and low Judas's review says one minor landscape comment remains, and the comment is talking about no one on the landscape plan, and it's not that there's any invasive species proposed, it's there's a note on the plan saying that all species are to be native or endemic. I think the There's maybe a little bit of a disagreement of which plants are endemic or native to New England area. So what we're going to do is just take off the first sentence of no one. The rest of that note states that there's not going to be any invasive species, none of the proposed plants are invasive, and Bartlett Judas isn't really questioning that. It's just more than native aspect of it. The ordinance doesn't require native plants. We try to, we prefer them where possible, but we'll just to clarify, we'll take off that first sentence of note one to address that comment. I think that's all I have for updates, so happy to answer any questions you guys have. Thank you for that clarification. [1:17:40] Chair (presiding officer): Occasion when Mr. the board, yes please Mr. Frank. I'm sorry, the butter [1:18:02] Mr. Frank: comments Chris, the especially with the with the lighting. Did I hear you say that the one miss aligned or miss aimed light it's been corrected and properly [1:18:15] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): or something? I know that the applicant is, I don't know if it's been corrected yet. I know he's, he's seen the comments and our is looking into it to make sure that it's correctly aimed downward facing, that sort of thing, and to try and reduce that the glare going into the neighbor. And another thought I had which [1:18:41] Mr. Frank: I'll pose as a question during the whatever construction was going on, did you have lights that were specific because you needed them to get the job done, as opposed to just continue to have them there when the business is ready to open? [1:19:05] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): I don't know if any lights were added during construction. My understanding is that the lighting that's on site now was part of the approved site plan. [1:19:16] Mr. Frank: from so the existing lighting is what it's going to be though where the light [1:19:23] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): poles are match with what was on the approved site. Now that the fixture may be miss aligned or directed, but I know that the applicants looking into that and seeing what he can do to help improve that. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frank. [1:19:51] Chair (presiding officer): Gentlemen, any other comments, questions, suggestions? Mr. Walsh, please. [1:20:01] Mr. Benson: Just a question, and just a point of order. I did miss all the fun on this discussion before, but I went through it, I watched the video, and read the minutes on it. So you're familiar with it? Yes. Thank you. So as I understand from the last time you have added additional trees into the landscape plan that's correct you just [1:20:25] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): point those out yep I do I can pull it up so the additional trees are all evergreen trees there's two located here trying to fill in a gap between some of the existing trees to remain there's never green tree here and then there's three along this side as well focus was to add buffering to Dingley Springs Road [1:21:08] Mr. Benson: and what size are those trees and when planted six [1:21:16] Chris Taylor (Sebago Technics): to eight foot height have planting they're the Canadian balsam firs and red spruce yeah which are [1:21:24] Mr. Benson: fairly slow growings yeah okay well thank you for pointing those out [1:21:40] Chair (presiding officer): gentlemen anyone else any questions for the applicant or planning well page 12 We have a couple of proposed motions, if you would, please. Let me ask of a point of order here. Should we vote to allow Mr. Walsh to vote on this issue where he has said that he has watched the video and understood the previous meeting? We don't have a lawyer present. I know we do, but I trust him. [1:22:27] Mr. Walsh: You could choose to do that, yes. It would make it more certain. [1:22:33] Chair (presiding officer): All right, so I'm looking to my left. These two gentlemen, would one of you entertain a motion to allow mr. Walsh to vote on this item saying that he's certified to watch the video so moved say it Thank You mr. Frank Thank You colonel all those in favor 3 yes thank you okay mr. Walsh welcome home please I guess are we [1:23:00] Mr. Benson: looking to approve so a motion to approve all right now move to grant to MCG's request for landscape plan amendment approval for a dry grid store at Dingley Springs Road located at map 77 lot 5 and the current in the roadside commercial zoning district based on findings of facts and conditions approval as written by the town planner and I don't believe we made any further amendments tonight i haven't heard any nope so as written by the town planner [1:23:32] Chair (presiding officer): thank you mr walsh is there a second please mr frank will second thank you mr frank [1:23:36] Mr. Delaney: any other discussion any other questions yeah i just want to clarify from the staff you mentioned this up front but i just think a point of emphasis that this in no way changes the any code enforcement or other issues that may be being reviewed that's correct those issues also stand they're also being reviewed this [1:23:58] Mr. Walsh: In no way I sent the entire package to the code office and the director. Yeah, I [1:24:04] Mr. Delaney: just want to clarify that I know that's outside the purview of this committee but I want I want to make sure that 's understood thank you well said [1:24:11] Chair (presiding officer): Any other comments, questions, ideas? Yes, Mr. Frank, please. Yes, the first for [1:24:16] Mr. Frank: staff, the it's Dingley Spring Road, this is a on page one, not Dingley Springs Road, just a typo. Thank you. Yeah, well thank [1:24:31] Chair (presiding officer): you Mr. Frank, you know you're here, your feelings under it by. Oh, absolutely. No, looking to my left, anyone else? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you for Risa metal. Have a good evening. We need a break. We good. One item to go, ladies and gentlemen. This is a discussion, a gravel pit sketch plan review, brickyard quarry expansion, a request for sketch plan review over proposed to expand quarry operations in a 6.3 acre area adjacent to an existing permitted quarry. His own industrial map 34, lot 14. The applicant is represented by Owens McCullough, PE, with some a go techniques. They look to staff to introduce us. Please, yes, Mr. [1:25:29] Town Planner / Staff: chair. So as the board may recall, this area was subject to a rezoning that was before the Planning Board over the summer, and then it was approved by the town council on September 1st. Then 30 days has now passed. There was some question about noted here in the memo about the appeal window that is passed, so that zoning is now in effect. So the applicants are coming before the board for an initial sketch plan review of the proposal to expand their quarry operations into that rezoned area. So the review before you will be, will include a number of areas, the noise, different types of stormwater review, air quality impacts, the review of changes to blasting impacts, hydrogeologic study, updated erosion sedimentation control, and updated decommissioning reclamation plan review that they've, applicants also have stated that they'll be submitting some additional number of additional materials, including a grading plan showing proposed lift locations, which they'll explain more detail when they make Their presentation about what that will involve, they're also going to need an amendment to their DEP site law permit. So what they're here tonight for is to get some to introduce the project to you, get some initial feedback, knowing that there will be additional submittals, there'll be a public hearing, and a full review of additional materials by peer review and town staff going forward. A couple of initial notes from planning, that the noise data should be updated with any changes from the 2016 noise study. Planning recommends, and we've discussed this with the applicants, a merging of the lots, so that the quarry lot would be one lot, and then the lot that it expanded into could be separated off at the zoning change line, and then potentially some other use could be proposed on that additional lot, which is in the urban residential expansion zone. So that's a suggestion there. One other question that came up from the Conservation Commission I wanted to highlight was the presence of snowmobile trail. So a question was whether there'd be any changes or impacts or rerouting to the to the snowmobile trail, and one other thing from planning is the operational standards manual should provide to the town for a review with that. Happy to take questions and turn it back over to you, Mr. Chair. [1:28:44] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you, Mr. Your Club. Good evening, Mr. McCullough. Welcome. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the [1:28:52] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): board. My name is Owens McCullough, civil engineer with Sebago Technics, here tonight on behalf of Shaw Brothers Construction. With me is Lee Pratt from Shaw Brothers in the audience in case there are questions that come up that Lee can help with. So tonight is we're here for to begin the conversation, initial presentation, and if it's pop, thank you, oh boy, that's not real readable, let me zoom in. So we're here to begin the conversation for a relatively small expansion to the north of their existing quarry operation. I think the Planning Board probably saw this in some form when it was going through the zone change process, usually comes to the board and then or to the council to the board back to the council, so this is just moving forward with the site plan portion of that zone change. So just to refresh everybody's memory or update you, so Shaw Brothers obtained the Crumpton property, which is to the north, goes all the way up to Queen Street, that's about 47 acres in land area, and at that time once they acquired that land they wanted to pursue a zone change to allow for a pretty small expansion to the north. So just to get you oriented, the original industrials, hopefully you can see my cursor across there, the original industrial zone line to urban residential was in this location here. The expansion put it up to here in this location, northerly of the property line. And then there's a stream that was mapped down through this area here coming 75 foot off of that stream to the south establishes the northerly boundary of the expansion, which is this cross-hatched area in this location. The existing quarry operation is down in this location that it was approved initially back in 2008 with another approval in 2016, and then in 2024 there was an approval by the board for an expansion to the northerly property line of the Shaw Brothers property once they acquired the Crumpton property, and now with the zone change that allows them to continue up into this location here. Here. The current quarry operation is being built out in phases over time. The current operation is in this location here, and over time it will be expanded in a northerly direction and a southerly direction to make up the entire property. I have an overall context plan which might be helpful, that you'll eventually see in more detail with the grading. But this is the Crumpton property here that will remain in this configuration here. And as Damon indicated, what we'll do is convey out this portion of the property that is now in the industrial zone to the Shaw Brothers parcel, so that combines those two parcels, leaving the remaining property as its own lot. The current quarry, as I said, is in this location here. The site plan approval, the DEP permit currently allows for ultimately a full build out in phases into this into this area here and our addition is basically where my cursor is in this location here. The quarry will be and we'll include this in the NEXT SUMMITTAL, ACTUALLY YOU PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THIS BACK FROM THE 2008-2009 SUMMITTAL, BUT IT WILL BE BUILT IN TWO LISTS. THERE'S AN ELEVATION ABOVE THE GROUNDWATER AND THEN ULTIMATELY GOING BELOW THE GROUNDWATER. THERE WAS HYDRO GEO AND NOISE STUDY AND EVERYTHING ALREADY PREVIOUSLY DONE AND SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY ALL THE AGENCIES. And this little addition here, we'll get updates from Saint Germain Associates, the hydrogeologist for it, and they're going to provide us with an update, and we'll also have an update from Mr. Bodwell, I guess, who was the noise consultant originally, and he will also provide an update as we go forward. So procedurally, tonight is really just a conversation to get you familiar with this modest expansion, small expansion actually going forward. It's going to follow all the same operations manuals, all the same operating policies, all the same other permit conditions and approvals that we previously went through just to add the six acres into the overall project area and that's really what we're looking to achieve with this at that point I'll I guess I'll pass it on to the board for any questions Thank You [1:34:31] Mr. Delaney: Mr. McCulloch Colonel yeah so you said six acres is that the acreage that you plan to for the quarry itself or is that the total acreage that's the quarry [1:34:42] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): Six point three acres six point three out of a total of how many 47 acres because we only the zone change is only encompassed basically this small portion here so the that limits us to what we'll do for an expansion work and on your [1:34:58] Mr. Delaney: Drawing here the dark black area along the board yeah we're right where your cursor is, does that indicate something specific? Yes, it does. [1:35:08] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): That's an extenuation of the grading on what the actual quarry depth and excavation will be. And you'll see that on the formal plan. So there's two steps. There's one quarry that goes down to about elevation 105. And then, ultimately, it will go down below groundwater to its final depth. [1:35:29] Mr. Delaney: So this is showing the below groundwater? [1:35:31] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): It is okay thank you members [1:35:39] Mr. Benson: Of the board anyone else yes Mr. please Mr. Walsh all right so what's what's the expected timeline to get into this new area [1:35:57] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): Well it'll be part of their continuing operation and I guess that's going to be more of a Lee question on when they think they'll go that way as opposed to the other direction but this is really just to add long-term capacity to [1:36:12] Mr. Benson: The, yeah, I think Mr. Shaw made that clear in an earlier meeting. I'm just kind of curious, now that you're going to this step, the timeline would be based on DEP permitting. [1:36:22] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): Town and DEP permitting, so obviously we couldn't have that direction until we have DEP permitting. Pardon me, would you introduce yourself? Oh, I'm sorry, hi everybody, I'm Lee Pratt, 16 Elliott Road, also a representative of Charlotte's Construction. Thank you guys for what you do. I sat up there for four years, so I understand you're actually sitting in my seat, Mr. Walsh, so congratulations. No, not at all, actually, but it would all be based on permitting, and then we'd start working our way into that parcel of [1:36:57] Mr. Benson: property so Owens made the comment that the operation will not change in other In other words, when you're one inch outside the new area operating under your current standards and then you go one inch into the new area, it's status quo. [1:37:14] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): So vibration won't change, traffic won't change, noise won't change. We will operate under the same manual we operate under now. [1:37:24] Mr. Benson: So we've heard a lot of feedback, read a lot of feedback, you know, from the neighbors. So, you know, from all of that, have you altered operations in any way? Are you planning on altering operations in any way just to? [1:37:40] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): We're continuing to operate under best management practices that we operate under now, DEP standards. There is a, we don't plan to remove any trees that are shown on the plan currently, which gives a 300 foot tree buffer in between, none of those will go away, but we plan on continuing to operate under DEP standards with best management practices. We have made changes to our operations as we've needed to, so we planted 400 trees on top of our buffer, we water before blast, which you're not required to do, we've paved over 50 acres of our plant so we can sweep it, we have pop-up sprinklers all over the facility that spray water. I would say if you, if you venture to ask DEP who's the example, I mean they do point people in our direction, not to sound cocky, we just take a lot of pride in what we do, so we believe we do it exceptionally well. We understand that there are outcomes of that, but to change what we're doing, we don't know how we can quite honestly do it much better than we do now. Yeah. Mr. Walsh, anything else? [1:39:04] Mr. Frank: No, I'm good. Mr. Frank? No, I'm just looking at the things that are still needed. Not tonight, of course, but, you know, the full set of engineering plans and blah,, blah. [1:39:24] Chair (presiding officer): I'm sure these have been shared with the engineer. Okay, thank you. Yes. [1:39:29] Mr. Delaney: Colonel? I was just going to say, I know that this, I was on the committee when the original expansion came up, I think in 20, you just mentioned 2024. I think we did a site walk at that time. I don't know if folks would be interested in doing a site walk, but we could, we hear about all these things and it would be great to see it in person, so I would find that helpful. Yeah, I would welcome you [1:40:09] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): to see the site whenever staff wants to set it up. The other comment that was on there was about the snowmobile trail on the Portland Water District easement. We are not going to impact that easement whatsoever, nor could we, so that won't move the snowmobile trail whatsoever. Anything [1:40:32] Mr. Frank: else? Yeah, just on page four, right at the end here, from the Conservation Commission, they thought he talks about the 2016 sound level review. And he says that the sketch plan shows that the expanded area is south of the existing quarry. Is that? I thought it was the other way around. The [1:41:04] Mr. Delaney: expansion is to the north. It's north. So the? [1:41:08] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): that? There may have been some confusion because the Portland Water District is to the south. It's down at this end of the site. So we're north. That's [1:41:24] Town Planner / Staff: what I'm seeing. All right. DAF can help provide some clarification to the Conservation Commission at the next meeting. Okay. That was the only [1:41:33] Mr. Frank: other thing that I said. Okay. All right. [1:41:39] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you, Mr. Frank. Could we have a signature on who's, was that Mr. Marino or someone? I'd like to identify perhaps whose comments these were. Does that help, Mr. Frank? [1:41:51] Mr. Frank: Yeah, I mean, whoever wrote the thing is kind of basically proof. [1:41:58] Chair (presiding officer): Well, you know, sometimes if you go like this. [1:42:03] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): Engineers have to read upside down all the time, right? [1:42:06] Chair (presiding officer): Depends on which side of the table you're on. [1:42:08] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): The table you're on, exactly. Thank you, thank you. [1:42:10] Chair (presiding officer): or north of the equator here again. Well, it's a inside joke with design people. It is, I apologize. And Mr. Walsh is with, I think we're all good. This is just a discussion, there's no voting. [1:42:25] Town Planner / Staff: Proceed with caution and yeah, we'll reach out with a doodle poll to schedule the site walk. I imagine it would be in early to mid-November, but we could potentially move that up depending on your timeline. [1:42:42] Owens McCullough (Sebago Technics): We would like to try to do it as soon as possible. We've got everything in play at the moment. Looking to get back to the board pretty quickly. The hydrogeologist is working on it. The noise folks, we're moving pretty quickly through all of this. [1:42:58] Town Planner / Staff: The board does have another site walk. We're looking to schedule for the end of October. What's the board comfort with potentially doing another? I don't want you to be too busy with, I'm gonna throw [1:43:10] Chair (presiding officer): this is a operation, it's, it's a daily operation, so maybe you need to tell us best [1:43:18] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): times might be available and see who can, I mean, we're, I'm there all week every day. Please send something back. Yeah, so I mean I can tell you folks, I mean, just let me know what works in the next week or less or more. We'd like to do it in October because our plan is, I mean, we have this basically ready for resubmission at this point to submit. So we'd like to get the sidewalk in so we can submit. I'm looking at a straw poll. [1:43:49] Chair (presiding officer): Is a morning, anyone available in the morning or only in the afternoon? [1:43:54] Mr. Benson: Last week of the month is good for me, morning or afternoon. Last week of the month? Last week of the month. [1:43:59] Mr. Frank: Yeah, last week of the month and then afternoons, so after I get out of teaching school. Yeah,. [1:44:10] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): So if staff wants to send me the dates that work in that time frame, I'm available. I'm telling you that right now. [1:44:18] Town Planner / Staff: We can send a short, fused doodle poll, respond in the next 24 to 48 hours, and we can get that on the schedule. [1:44:26] Lee Pratt (Shaw Brothers Construction): No, I appreciate that. You, I'm not trying to put undue pressure, it's just I mean like I said I live there, so whenever you guys want steel toe shoes, no, not necessary for what we're doing, and we'll have hard hats and vests for everyone, we'll have the PPE that people need, don't bring your own or you can bring your own if [1:44:48] Town Planner / Staff: you want, so yeah we'll get that scheduled and then we'll keep both contacts you Mr. Proud about details about where to park and where to go to [1:44:58] Mr. Walsh: it just double-checking with Mr. Frank, are you looking for 2 30 and after or 3 o'clock and after? 3 works better, good [1:45:15] Town Planner / Staff: 30 to be pushing it, we'll try not to schedule it the same day as your other site walk, ideally we'll split 2 and 2 or [1:45:23] Chair (presiding officer): 3 and 3 or something, whatever, okay we're all set, thank you very much for your presentation, I appreciate it, thank you for your time, we'll be in touch to coordinate that, okay folks I think, I think we're winding down, I think we've addressed everything on our agenda, other business, is there any other business to come before us? Please review the proposed [1:45:56] Mr. Walsh: 2027 planning submission dates when we give it to you in November. Did you issue it if we [1:46:03] Town Planner / Staff: haven't already? Yeah, we may be able to provide it for the second planning board meeting but it'll [1:46:08] Chair (presiding officer): be on its way to you soon so you haven't issued it yet no but okay i 'm like okay to give you a heads up it's coming your way to review sure thing and last but not least are we still planning to meet october 19th yes we are we although we don't have anything in [1:46:32] Town Planner / Staff: hand there are three I there's three additional items we had preemptively put on that we are writing the review memos that 's a yeah that's your you're looking at the agenda for this meeting this is a draft we had we'd use when we had split up okay the items that were submitted so there's three additional items okay I just wanted to double-check I didn't want to [1:46:58] Chair (presiding officer): make any plans in case we're going to be celebrating before actually there's an [1:47:05] Town Planner / Staff: additional land design. Well, we'll make sure that we send you a reminder and that agenda for the October 19th meeting. Okay, I've penciled in anyways. [1:47:15] Mr. Delaney: Any other business to come before us, Mr. Chair? According to the rules that I read earlier tonight, I can make a motion to adjourn and it has to be addressed, so I'm going to move to adjourn. Thank you, Colonel. [1:47:31] Chair (presiding officer): Second. Mr. Walsh, thank you. Any reason why we don't want to adjourn? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you to Ben Dyke. Thank you to the planning department.