Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[2:31] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Recognize that. Well, I've done that when I didn't work there either. So are we done, Jersey Mike? Can I open on me? So hungry. All right, I'd like to open the Thompson planning board. Could you
[2:45] Speaker B (unidentified): please take the role of Josh? All right, Don's fan present. Scott Libby present. Larry Brand present. Ron Bisson. Present. Kerry Bickford. Present. Marilyn Hunter.
[2:59] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Present. And Doug. Yes, present. So we have a full board, great. Approval of the minutes of the act, or the August 27, 2026.
[3:14] Speaker C (unidentified): Do I have a motion? We'll make a motion. We'll accept the minutes and consider those. All right, I'll second that motion.
[3:21] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Great, any discussion, questions? Questions seeing none all in favor all right and we'd have what a couple essentials all right then do you have anything item D nope we have no staff to do roll updates right and then none for item D so we're to the public hearing item F subdivision amendment for Union Associates LLC c is proposing an amendment to the subdivision plan before union park to clarify technical delineations tax not new 05 line 047 and sir you're representing that I am can you please come to the mic and state your name everybody
[4:21] Palmer Engineering (Applicant's Engineer): see that all brought up on the screen as well
[4:31] Chair (Planning Board Chair): oh and before he starts this for the board as you know I've recused myself in the past on this project a number of times the reason I refuse to no longer make this there is no conflict so I am not reducing this time unless someone on the board wants more information that's where we stand all right when you're ready sir I gotta connect
[5:52] Speaker B (unidentified): and you're Brandon Bennett that is great oh I don't actually
[6:22] Palmer Engineering (Applicant's Engineer): apologize that took a second guys you want to go from the holders you know do something right
[6:27] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't you want to do it I think we've got all the materials from us so okay oh just give it
[6:36] Speaker E (unidentified): quickly I can go ahead with the paperwork here I move that the planning board concur with the staff that the application materials for the four union park subdivision amendment have been submitted and that the applications can complete such as the board may proceed with a substantive view identification of any further action or information which may be required from the
[6:54] Chair (Planning Board Chair): applicant so we have a motion a second any discussion see none all in favor all opposed all right unanimous all right so go ahead sir so I'm Brendan Bennett I work for a girl of
[7:09] Palmer Engineering (Applicant's Engineer): Palmer Engineering. You're on behalf of four union associates for the minor subdivision. So to give you a little bit of background, there is 183 unit building in the front known as Unit A and in the back we have the existing office building known as B. You guys approved the major subdivision application on May 14th. So I'm back here just for a minor revision, or some clerical information so if you look at the screen not actually the border to the left and it's the same thing but we're really breaking this out for technical information of just getting a complex so I've highlighted this area here it's just a condominium complex line as well as this common element which is a requirement for a subdivision plat that compared to last time we have note number five just some zoning information was added additionally we have note 15 which just says that it was previously approved by you guys and then we took off any site plan application waivers that was just on site plan not on a subdivision plan besides that 's really all that's changed it's more for technical administration anything else so feel free to ask any questions any questions from the
[8:32] Speaker E (unidentified): Board one clarification so this is the line is not a lot like there are no extra lots it's
[8:40] Palmer Engineering (Applicant's Engineer): Really just to break it out or for what was existing you didn't pay the unit B no additional lot lines no additional abilities nothing else nothing on the physical property has changed it's
[8:50] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Really just the paperwork okay so no other questions I'll open up for a public hearing all right now open are there any questions concerns any comments from the audience or I guess do we have anybody all right so I guess here if there's any questions concerning
[9:12] Speaker C (unidentified): Any what do they always have on the board okay I could really do it all
[9:17] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Thank you all right once again anyone have anything all right seeing none public hearings and I'm back to the board any further discussions any questions for the applicant if not I'll take a motion to the
[9:42] Speaker E (unidentified): Motion. I move the subdivision amendment application for U-0 by lot 47. I would satisfy the clinical standards and subdivision review ordinance chapter 191 consulting ordinance chapter 225 is approved with the staff recommended conditions and findings identified in staff memo dated September 24, 2026 and with all waivers granted by the board at the time of final approval of subdivision May 14 2026. Second all right any discussion
[10:20] Chair (Planning Board Chair): See none, all in favor, all opposed, it's unanimous. All right, thank you sir. All right, moving on to item G, performance guarantee requests. Next Generation Developers LLC is requesting to use and bond that performance guarantee security for the ML3 extension subdivision, tax map R01, lot zero one seven. We're
New Business
[10:53] Speaker C (unidentified): gonna make a new business emotions.
[10:58] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Please identify yourself. Sure, it's African, Next Generation Developers.
[11:07] Applicant's Representative: Okay, just if you would just very briefly brief us on what you're. Yeah, so I believe on your town ordinance typically you only accept forms guarantees in lieu of cash and loan or line of credit. I'd just like to ask for a waiver in order to use a bond instead.
[11:29] Speaker B (unidentified): It's not necessarily a waiver. It's just the board has to approve the manner.
[11:34] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Okay, and what does Sam have to say about it?
[11:38] Speaker B (unidentified): So that took a look at it. The applicant, he provided a draft of the bond. The treasurer took a look at it and has no concerns.
[11:52] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Any questions?
[11:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Just a quick question. This has come up a couple times recently. Is this something that we should add? I mean, the ordinance allows us to provide and accrue bonds at the original or subsequently. Is it something we should add as a fourth option or in the future?
[12:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, actually, I think that's a great idea.
[12:15] Applicant's Representative: It's pretty standard in most towns that they accept this, just as good as anything else.
[12:20] Speaker E (unidentified): that's what's there if you don't think of it not just have the three if they can't have to
[12:25] Chair (Planning Board Chair): just use those so can you add that to our list for the workshop
[12:31] Speaker C (unidentified): so back with the appropriate safeguards regarding the rating of the bonding company yeah merchants bonding I know is may invest a plus or whatever so some bonding companies are
[12:47] Chair (Planning Board Chair): not okay if we can definitely get you guys some language on that all right any other discussion we're ready for motion
[12:55] Speaker G (unidentified): but i'm just gonna i need to refuse on this one like who's making your caddies
[13:03] Speaker E (unidentified): all right so maryland will refuse oh well then i will move but the planning board find to belong to the acceptable method of performance guarantee the emily street extension subdivision project approved during the october 9th 2025 play importantly second you can ask any discussion
[13:26] Chair (Planning Board Chair): seeing none all in favor all right and one more choose one all right thank you thank you all right sign mh i will be refusing myself so i'll take a seat we will have it today all right
[13:45] Speaker E (unidentified): All right, item H is the final site plan. Andrew Rollo Group and Kimberly Crew are requesting their site plan, 26 Union Park Road, to add additional vehicle storage area and a second access to Union Park Road, as well as other minor site alterations. Tax Map View Load 5, Lot 042.
[14:08] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): Two. Good evening, my name is Andy Surgeon. I'm representing Mr. Miss Approval on this site band application to expand their vehicle storage area. I don't know if you remember, I think it was the end of last year that we wasn't earlier this spring that we got the initial cycling payment approval for the towing operation 26 year old, and we kind of knew that it was the whole business was, you know, a strong need, and I think the police and the local police and state police knew that ahead of time, and we thought we'd be coming forward sooner than later for an expansion, and here we are. This is such a strong need for this service in the area. So, probably four months now, Josh, we've been going back and forth, trying, not trying to cut corners, but trying to keep it as simple as we could. And we found a few things that needed to be taken care of in this approval. And so we went back and forth from a materials and purview standpoint, submitted packages to the planning staff and got their feedback and hired an engineer. Engineer. We hired the same engineer that worked on 61 Main Street. It was a parking lot. It was expansion, I think. And so he had a lot of familiarity with this process and that helped us get to the point where we submitted a package a couple of times and we got the feedback that we submitted. Met with planning staff, met with department heads, met with Tom's associated engineer who represents the town of Thompson. Had a few issues that we needed to iron out and I feel that we did find those out, submitted the application package, and I did not bring a display with me because I thought it might be on board by the town, but I would hope that you've seen the package and seen everything that we submitted, but we are asking for a few waivers and just don't know how we would like me to perceive from this point. You all need to talk, just shut up for a minute and have you give us, give us some
[16:23] Speaker G (unidentified): feedback. Well, first use some material files. Sure, I move that the planning board concur with staff.
[16:33] Speaker I (unidentified): That the mid-main towing and recovery site expansion application materials have been submitted and that the application is complete, such that the board may proceed with some substantive review and identification of any further action or information which may be
[16:47] Speaker E (unidentified): required. Oh yeah, second though they're moved and seconded, the discussion, all in favor, post picture, all in favor. All right, when the star is moving forward, we'll see if the board has some questions for you depending on this. Hopefully if folks have questions on the site plans itself first and we move on to the waivers, that work? Yeah, Ben, any other questions
[17:25] Speaker G (unidentified): from the second part? I just, so there's nothing new happening, this is to get your site plan in other than the shed, right? Inside of the existing building is going
[17:39] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): to be the expansion of the storage area, okay, and that's going to be with yes three and stone, that's
[17:46] Speaker G (unidentified): it's like you're already expanded some of it, but already got expanded sensor cycling up
[17:51] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): it's well it was an area that we had for storage, but stone was put in the grass area, and that kind of, I think, I think Ruth thought it was impervious, okay, you can find a definition Commission that says it isn't, so we included that area in this just to make sure that we didn't leave
[18:11] Speaker E (unidentified): any loopholes and we're moving forward with a proper segment, but the area is has been about doubled from what was approved right now, okay, yeah, because the original one was behind into the west, actually didn't even move out here, it's just I asked him that night
[18:43] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): you can jump to the website, you got it right on there, yes, initially on the left hand side was a paved area and a grass area, and we asked to enclose was an area that was both grass and pavement, and then the grass was then covered with stone, which developer thought was still impervious because it's large stone, but it technically doesn't qualify, so then we had to include that in the application for this permit here, and we actually had to treat the this stone water just like you know the wood had it been pavement. So we work with the engineer, and work out the details of that. Thank you, Josh. So when you say the right area is double the left area, it really isn't of what's existing. But it is technically when you throw the pad that wasn't covered.
[19:51] Speaker E (unidentified): to convert the shore, so it's so it was approved, this is the area that's right, yeah, and yet
[19:58] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): the back area behind the building was approved too, but it was not approved for stone
[20:04] Speaker C (unidentified): correct, it was approved for the storage area of the stone
[20:09] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): And the area to the left of the pavement was approved too, and there was a shed, and then
[20:13] Speaker E (unidentified): it was demolished from the first real segment, and then the other change you see that the additional access to the site, yes, on the right side you've got that new paved area
[20:25] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): that's the only area that's in the public good questions
[20:37] Speaker E (unidentified): on the site by itself, so let's move on to the waivers. All right, the first waiver that was requested was to wait the requirement for a perimeter survey reversal. Any discussion on that wait? No, I understand that there are only just monuments on the property from the last time, for the last time
[21:05] Speaker C (unidentified): so I moved the planning board approved the applicant's request to waive the standard of chapter 175 dash D1 small D that requires a perimeter survey be submitted as part of the
[21:19] Speaker E (unidentified): site when we give application. Second, so moved and seconded. Discussion? All in favor? Post show unanimous. All right, the second waiver to 175 7 B 2, it's required for the applicant to provide a performance guarantee including for the work within the right-of-way and for our site landscape, but
[21:50] Speaker I (unidentified): since they don't want it or they don't think they need it because the project's too small, we still have to go through the motion to deny because that's what, well, if we
[22:01] Speaker B (unidentified): if we're going to them because it was requested. Okay, all right, I'm just curious
[22:12] Speaker E (unidentified): and you know I think we've got the staff comment as far as it'll typically have the sureties for any of these projects within the town right of way and expectation I would think would be that surety would not be
[22:30] Speaker C (unidentified): settled, but I moved the planning board denying the applicant's request to waive the standards of chapter 175-7B2 which outlined requirements for the volunteer teams as sure as for any proposed landscaping and for work to be completed within the right of today
[22:51] Speaker E (unidentified): second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? I'll show you now. And if you're, if you want to discuss any of these when we're talking about, no we, 've kind of
[23:07] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): giving heads up, I mean it isn't, it isn't a big, it isn't a big, it isn't worth playing with. All right, my concern was asking that it was, I know set the standard set impressive, yeah, as well as you've got a new paid apron and so I'm not, it's not, I'm not saying it's not worth
[23:27] Speaker E (unidentified): Arguing for, but in a way it is all right. We'll go on to the next one, 175 9b 1.4, which is requirement for the application applicant to provide a lighting plan. I just want to confirm, I think I read it in the back and I couldn't really tell from the from the drawing, but there are no additional lights lighting proposed for us, correct? Just the only thing we used
[23:53] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): initially was the existing lighting there. For a couple reasons, I mean it's it's not something that the public uses, it's not a parking lot, it's just a place to store a car, you know, while it's being the drivers being, you know, or could be an acumen or could be because they had a violation, traffic violation, but it's not a I think it would just not ruin the area but it might just infringe on some of the neighbors too if you had a lot of light there when you really don't know, I think
[24:27] Speaker E (unidentified): that's right on this in this case that's probably the reason why we if there was more lighting coming we want to plan to minimize the impact on the nation, right, but there's not any need for
[24:40] Speaker C (unidentified): security lane or anything for the total vehicles or there are cameras there on the
[24:48] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): property. What's the area cameras that knows to operate? So I'm going to like you wouldn't see in the 100, you know, until located, you know, also in the night and dark, I mean they operate
[24:59] Speaker C (unidentified): in the car too. Yeah, okay, I moved the play board approved the applicants request to waive the standards of chapter 175-9b 1-4 requiring that the applicant provide a lighting plan.
[25:18] Speaker E (unidentified): Moved and seconded, any discussion? All in favor show your nails. All right, the next one is 17510a requirement that the application can provide a landscape plan subject to the requirements of 13510. The discussion on this questions
[25:45] Speaker C (unidentified): I move the plane board denied the applicant's request to waive the standards of chapter 175-10a
[25:52] Speaker E (unidentified): requiring the applicant providing landscape plan. Second moved and seconded, any discussion? All in favor show your animals. Okay, so I didn't get a chance to give you any input on that. I told you to speak up. I was waiting for my turn.
[26:13] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): I guess that why is this different than the initial site plan approval? It was actually more than escaping existing there already and we sent you pictures of, you know, the existing landscape and what you're really gonna ask for additional. I mean I didn't initially I guess I'm looking for the I think the staff had a really
[26:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Good comment here, and I assume you have that as far as that. I wasn't here at the original one. Oh no, I do not have that. Okay, well, we have it, you know, I'll share it with you, but I wasn't the first one, so I don't know what was discussed with the landscaping. One of it is that yes, you were only on one side. Regardless, I think given the neighborhood you're in and the storage that you're doing there, the slatted fence is probably insufficient for landscaping for the area, and you're also moving to the edge of your lot that at this point on the on the right side is directly viewable from Main Street until, you know, the lot next door gets developed or something happens there. So there's there's, you know, additional concerns as far as the landscaping goes with that lot. I think I think the town codes officer also brought some information up as far as 225. That's some existing standards that would apply to this also. I didn't hear that on our room. I guess everything was good. It was in the staff comments and they were responding. I didn't get those, and the ones from the code officer were responded to by the applicant, so I assume they were read. It stopped comments. He would respond to those. There was this 225 19 29 landscaping talks about, you know, all parking lots should be landscaped for the property boundaries, shrubbery, trees, and other landscape materials accommodate in the in the village center zone a combination of fencing, landscaping, and grade H will be used. So how does how does that process work with this but here do
[28:30] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): we get it's assuming we work do we get some kind of a conditional approval when this is
[28:37] Speaker E (unidentified): not tennis approved or how does that? We have added a condition here do this if we do approve it there. I'll read to you, but yes, it's conditional on the approval. Okay, thank you. And it is prior to signature, the planning board, prior to signature by the planning board, the applicant shall revise the site plan to include a 10-foot wide landscape buffer to include trubs being the standards of 135 10 F2 to be approved by town staff. Okay, thank you, so that is all right place stormwater so 225 34 D to the requirement for the applicant enter into a drainage maintenance agreement with the town or stormwater management facilities something. Questions on that? I have one question, Josh. The memo does state that Tom, I assume it was Tom, said that there wasn't a need for this.
[29:54] Speaker B (unidentified): That was Tom's statement. And that was the staff recommendation.
[29:58] Speaker E (unidentified): nation i hadn't seen that in the packet what his memo was because i just saw the one from public works talking about drainage issues but i didn't put anyone yeah but tom 's good any discussion on this one before we have a motion i guess drew's online is he able to
[30:24] Speaker B (unidentified): go on that yeah it's up to the chair if you'd like to open it public comments
[30:35] Speaker E (unidentified): or judy yeah okay yeah okay
[30:40] Speaker C (unidentified): i'll stop sharing
[30:49] Speaker B (unidentified): drew you should be able to speak if you want
[30:52] Applicant (Property Owner): to yep can you guys hear me now yes we can okay on the right side of the property where you guys were concerned about the landscape issue there's like fully mature trees that run 70 of that property line on the right hand side and there's no there's a vacant lot that runs from my property all the way through to main street and that was going to have privacy slot fences on it those privacy slats are about six thousand dollars so if you don't think those are sufficient efficient, can I... I was willing to pay for those because they're much more decorative and they're color matched to the siding on the building and things like that. I mean, you still want me to put up those privacy slats as well as put shrubs all the way down the right side of the property? I mean, there's no residents of butter or commercial building or anything. Yes, you can see it from 201, but privacy slats hide everything. Shrubs, don't so you guys approve the shrubs i mean the privacy slats all the way around the property where i have multiple of butters and i just i guess i'm not understanding the landscape plan when i we submitted this josh asked for where all the trees were and we actually have mature fruit trees all in front of the street between the street between the structure and the street and now you guys want me i guess i'm just i'm struggling with why you would want me to put a hedge down the side of a six-foot privacy fence with very expensive privacy slats that look very nice for those of you that have driven by the building you know what i'm talking about
[32:36] Speaker E (unidentified): yeah we think you know part of it is that this is you know what is the in the ordinance you're coming back with a modification to the site plan and we've made the determination and landscape plan needs to be put together and approved by town staff what that landscape plan entails you know is between you and the town staff to finalize it you know it the having the slats on the fence is certainly part of that plan and can be a majority part of it you know I think the other thing is and it has Been brought to, like, yeah, there are a lot of mature short trees, which is fantastic that they're there and they're staying, but those don't provide the visual buffering that shrubs or lower plants do. And I guess the main, the
[33:32] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): main item here, I guess, true what he's trying to say is that there's an opportunity to maybe come up with a hybrid or something that, as long as it satisfies the planning staff and meeting the spirit of the landscaping. So I think it's something that.
[33:51] Applicant (Property Owner): I mean, I have no problem doing it. I just wish I would have been informed of this earlier. I've spent $28,000 in engineering and site plans and going back and forth. And if I would have known, I could have just inserted a row of shrubs on this plan and gladly planted them for you. I just hope that this doesn't hold it up because we've been going back and forth for five months for me to put a fence up and crush stone. It just seems, it seems excessive, that's all. I'm just asking for a little grace here, I
[34:23] Andy Surgeon (Applicant's Representative): don't think people will hold up the process, so it's definitely
[34:28] Speaker C (unidentified): and my concern is, yes, that's a vacant lot right now between that and 201, but will always remain a vacant lot. You're
[34:41] Applicant (Property Owner): right, it would actually be commercial office space that would actually block my shrubs. You're right, if that lot ever got sold, the zoning for that particular lot requires, you know, things like storefronts and parking and things that would actually make it so you wouldn't even see my property at all. Let's
[35:02] Speaker E (unidentified): move on to back to the drainage waiver. Did you have something on that, Drew? Did you want to say the drainage waiver
[35:08] Applicant (Property Owner): this before no i'm actually i hired somebody to do that 's so far out of my league i
[35:12] Speaker C (unidentified): can't, couldn't even tell you. Okay, all right, thanks. All right, we have any discussion, we
[35:18] Speaker E (unidentified): did vote on the landscape? Yeah, we did. Okay, hello, strike, yes. Any discussion on the drainage? That's
[35:25] Speaker G (unidentified): any motion? I move that the planning board approved the applicant's request to waive
[35:31] Speaker I (unidentified): the standards of chapter 225-34d 2b requiring that the applicant enter into a drainage maintenance agreement with the town for its proposed storm water management facility.
[35:42] Speaker E (unidentified): Second. Though, okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on that? All in favor, show you nanos. All right, and then the last one on 225 34e requirement that can provide a chlorides management plan. Any discussion on this one?
[36:10] Speaker C (unidentified): Let me make a motion. Sure. Or did you just make it?
[36:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Or did you just make it? No, all you.
[36:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. I move that the Planning Board approve the applicant's request to waive the standards of Chapter 225, 34E, requiring that the applicant provide a Core Rights Management Plan as part of their application.
[36:29] Speaker E (unidentified): Second that. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Opposed? Show unanimous. Unanimous, yes. I should add that too. And it was so affirmative. Thank you all those times. All right, so any other discussion on the site plan final motion? Sure.
[37:00] Speaker I (unidentified): I move that the final site plan review application for 26 June Park Road, Tax Map New 05, Block 42, having satisfied the applicable standards in the site claim review ordinance Chapter 175 and the zoning ordinance Chapter 225, is approved with the stack staff recommended conditions and findings identified in the staff memo dated
[37:22] Chair (Planning Board Chair): September 24th 2026. Second. Yeah, discussion on that. All right, all in favor?
[37:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you very much to
[37:46] Speaker E (unidentified): adjourn. And you want to do that or someone's going to do that? I'm going to second it, chart. All in favor? We're going to adjourn to a workshop on anticipated participated 2027 Maytown meeting vote updates.
[38:05] Speaker G (unidentified): Like Marilyn have seen from voting on the book? No, I was just thinking we have another item but I forgot that it was a workshop, right? Yes, we've actually adjourned to work. It's something in the eyes. I don't know what it is, but you've got to wind it down. I'm like, you're actually intimidating people. They're going to get a huge thing in their mind.
[39:59] Speaker B (unidentified): And it's kind of like saying, like, what's those things?
[40:01] Speaker G (unidentified): Word, author, e-mail. Oh,
[40:06] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah. Processing. Changing. All right. Okay.
[40:14] Chair (Planning Board Chair): We've adjourned to workshop. Are you gonna lead this, start it? But Tom has the need of the discussion. Okay.
[40:22] Town Staff (Planner): So at the last meeting you guys asked about potential code updates for May 27th and we have two that are kind of being written ready to go. One is the shoreline which Tom has some questions for you on how I'm going to look forward with the final mapping aspect of that and the other one I just wanted to update you on is the battery energy storage system ordinance that the energy committee has been working on. I've seen a draft of it, my department provided commentary on it and we expect that to be able to come to you January 27 so that's ready for May 27 town meeting. I'm also planning for it. That wouldn't make sense. And then the other thing, there have been state legislative updates around housing causing density. Keeping an eye on those. There's some rulemaking going on right now and I'm kind of waiting to see where we get back because there's potentiality for deadline changes, which if there are, it will influence how we do it. So I'd say that's what I have for you guys for what could come in May of 27 and Tom can speak to you about the shoreland details. That sounds good. Okay.
[41:29] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Okay, and then I had a couple of thoughts, but you go ahead.
[41:34] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Okay, you need me up there.
[41:36] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Not really. No, it's the workshop you want to stay there. That's fine. I can use it as long as you can hear us, and we can hear you.
[41:44] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): So it really came down to you know we are right yeah. So we got through the shoreland. I think we most of you were in presentation. presentation we had I'm not sure who wasn't here we got through all the text and now we went and pulled on the map maybe and just so you're aware some of the mapping it's going to be received as major changes. We already had feedback on that and a lot of it is just correction to just align with shoreland. This is one of the things there's a couple of things. The other one is the streams we're going to talk about too. So maybe we can pull that up now. So Josh you picked up the stuff probably the blue name of the maps
[42:37] Chair (Planning Board Chair): so what I'm doing is the mapping is getting realigned to correct it started it so
[42:44] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): So, what you're going to see is just no detail. This is our current map and you can see the limits of the shoreline zone. This is. Taking out as much of the other stuff, and this just leaves the shoreline zone left. And the preliminary follow up map. Is this and all this map does is to pick the limits of the shoreline zone. So. So if Josh scrolls back and forth, you'll see it looks like substantial changes in certain areas. You see the red reduced down to the green. And that has been taken as we're just rolling back the shoreline zoning, and it's not the case. The issue of our current map is it's out of scale. And I have one good example. For example, Josh had emailed you something while I was upstairs.
[43:43] Chair (Planning Board Chair): So we have a way to put one on top of the other. Yeah, I could because there's going back and forth. I can't tell much.
[43:49] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, I don't have a way, this was the best time to come up with zoom in like if we look at this area. It's very far out from the stream and then we come down to the same area.
[44:01] Chair (Planning Board Chair): You can see how it's hugging the stream there. Can you ask Tom Saussier to do that?
[44:07] Town Staff (Planner): No, that's a GIS issue. We need to work with our consultant because she was on vacation last week.
[44:12] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Yeah, it has come, so in order to move forward though, that's kind of why we're here tonight.
[44:16] Speaker I (unidentified): And that one, the other one, the red one, there's an area, yeah, we have there on the left, is that
[44:22] Speaker G (unidentified): gone? Yeah, they never should have been there. That's the issue, so it's just a correction, it's a
[44:28] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): correction, but you're going to get feedback that we're taking it out, and we've already had feedback from a person that really should have known that was taking it out, and I, Josh didn't find that email, I got, I had zoomed in on one example, there's plenty of them.
[44:46] Applicant (Property Owner): Well, he's looking at, is anybody removing maps off of the website, because R2 is gone right now, R2 is gone. Yeah, R2 is not on the website as the GIS or the tax, the actual tax map PDF.
[45:00] Town Staff (Planner): Maybe Justin does the tax maps, perhaps there was like a glitch when he was updating
[45:04] Speaker G (unidentified): them, because he did update them recently, he did it yesterday, but I found an old file that had an
[45:08] Town Staff (Planner): R2 and I just used it. Okay, yeah, we'll try to remember to let him know, but if you ever see that tax map issues in the future, you can just email the assessor, Justin Hennessey, about that.
[45:17] Speaker G (unidentified): Yep, all
[45:25] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): right, this is an example, so and here's what I think happened, so this is both a hatching of the current map in our GIS and it shows the resource protection hashing, it also shows floodplain, that's why it's kind of molded together, so it's the red line, the end of the measurement is the actual limit of the shoreline zone, so on our maps it's shown over a thousand feet out, if you just, you zoom up, yeah, the limit is over to the right, what I think happened in our resource protection, you can opt to include areas of flood flow and town did, but what that, it's only areas that are within the shoreline zone that should, the map is resource protection, not areas beyond it, the limit of the shoreline zone stops at 200 feet, here it is a hard one really, and I believe what happened was the maps were extended to the
[46:33] Speaker B (unidentified): whole extent of the floodplain, that's what it looks like to me, it says no delineation
[46:38] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Yeah, so well the limit of the shoreline here is it's non-forested wetland where it butts up against forested wetland. And this is an evening, that's why I picked this one. You can pretty much see the tree line, so that would be the measurement where you start the measurement of the shoreline zone, 250 feet. And this is how DDP says that we should, just you don't do field surveys, you take GIS and you can map it to the extent when it becomes close, it's you can build measurements and so on because you have property. But anyway, just so you're ready for it, this is going to look like rolling back all kinds of, how long does that, yeah it's correct, it's current.
[47:24] Speaker G (unidentified): What was it done, I just took it off before the meeting, yeah about the floodplain, all right, that
[47:31] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): that was, yeah, that I think we were updated a few years back and that's all FEMA stuff, that's accurate, yeah it just doesn't have the floodplain will stay, what will, what will roll back is the, what's shown is the resource protection area, you just need another shade or something, yeah so that's the difference between the two maps or the one that started right, yeah but if there's a way
[47:58] Chair (Planning Board Chair): to show a before and after again, just like kind of like a red line, right, and if we can get do a bit before and after and then here's the reason for that, right, then at least in the next
[48:10] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): page Josh is where I just passed out of the ordinance, this is the resource protection, every zone has its own description and this one you're allowed to use following areas within the limits of the shoreline of the resource and one of them is floodplain, but it's all when they occur within the limits of the shoreline zones, they're just that's that's it, we can use this
[48:36] Speaker G (unidentified): as a tool, but I when I looked at them I thought that I hadn't been mixed up, so I thought that just yeah when we sent them along I got what you're saying, yeah all right so that was just my first
[48:52] Chair (Planning Board Chair): first point and then the other was streams, yeah well
[48:58] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): the other thing with resource protection, if you want to go back to our map, you the intent is to preserve areas that are undeveloped and our RP covered a lot of developed areas and there's a lot of opportunity, there's opportunity into the ordinance to split that, so we're all familiar with the river banks and we have that goes out where the houses are and then it goes to a steep slope that the intent of shoreland was to make that a split zone, the housing would be in the LR and then the steep slope areas greater than 20 would be in the resource protection so they wouldn't be developed there's a lot of we have a lot of areas that are mapped all within the rp and it's been trouble for any homeowner trying to put an addition or just develop parts you know put a deck on if they have to reduce sizes some places cases they can't so i just i want to get into the detail where the actual limits of the rp should be for the orders and that's undeveloped areas so that will be a change from our current as well. That was number or two. If there's any discussion along the way in here, if you don't like the idea, just let me know. I'm pointing this out. We could keep them on that too. We could, I'll keep everything in our new bones because it's not, it's a disservice to the body. It really wasn't intended, you know what was that. We leaned up 10 streams, we've
[50:45] Applicant's Representative: got a lot of ground on the streams.
[50:48] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): I really don't have a personal feeling, but I just want to make everyone aware. So this map here shows streams as required by the shoreland or zoning ordinance there, and those are typically inversions of two horse. First, I'm sure a lot more stream protection area, so yellow and blue. Yeah, blue would be the stream areas and yellow on the other map, two different colors. Yeah. That comes down to the definition. It comes down to the definitions, right, Larry?
[51:32] Speaker C (unidentified): Yep. Yep. And what you're showing on this is the NERPA.
[51:37] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): This one here is straight shoreline. So this is what the mall ordered by the founder. Yeah. The other one. So did anybody have a chance to look at the three stream definitions? If you understand this, there's three definitions. The Pobson ordinance. is which the highlight there, the definition is based on physical characteristics that the case of development need to be field verified, so it's 100 field verified. So this map technically by our own ordinance is incorrect because it shouldn't show anything as far as the street because everything has to be field verified, and the national resource protection act that would cover the first order, it would be more in line with our current map, but one of the points to that they tie in mapping in order to start the process going, so we our current ordinance relies 100 on field verification, ddp under the nap, the week with the delta maps gives an option to start with the gif geological survey map broken blue line, so they are, they have the determined streams are a different
[53:03] Speaker I (unidentified): I guess size but so how long does that take field the field bearer attention to have it accurate?
[53:12] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): so if you to do this right it's just never been done i mean that's been my i've been trying to try and make that point that i don't think i've been very well at it hasn't ever been done so how do you do that so if anyone built everything how would we know that you don't have a stream there it has to be field verified well it has to be done by somebody qualified in weapons i'm not town hasn't had anyone before me in this is and we haven't required the applicant to hire somebody in every case and You presume it theoretically in every case you want to build a shed or a deck or anything you've got to submit to the town that you do not have a street money problem because it has to be filled with a terminal that's the burden. Maybe that's why it just hasn't been done under our early ordinance so I'm trying Just to go with the state minimum that they require so streams are always really regulated. And then they rely on the town to pick up the second order streams that are always have always have water, and they can be easily mapped update our current ordinance to the state minimum. Minimum yes so a language change yes okay yeah but it's always been a discussion so I won't allow you to discuss them but I just need to know so we can move forward with the maps well it sounds
[54:49] Speaker I (unidentified): That sounds like it makes sense I mean if you have a lot that's completely dry and it's pretty obvious
[54:55] Speaker G (unidentified): You wouldn't want to be requiring everybody to have to do that I don't know how else to do it
[55:00] Speaker I (unidentified): And the expense and all of that but if there's a minimum that's set by the state
[55:07] Speaker G (unidentified): I don't know it just makes more sense then we have something
[55:14] Speaker C (unidentified): The development off of 196 that would clutch up to the ivan hole area where there was the question about the string on that property and the butters were came before us with concerns about what the impact was going to be on that stream area and but that was that determined to be a stream or was that just because it was a wetland not only I'm trying to get my memory back but it's gone so right so I think when
[55:57] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): projects come for the board they're always mapping them based on the more strict which would be the nerve definition yeah and i know in every case they start with the they look at the map geological survey map because they can just pull the battery off that they don't go you'll get it first yeah so they start with the map determination and that leads them to the field as a follow-up probably so yeah in a few things cases we've had areas that didn't show anything that turned out to be streams and we've had streams that did show and turned out they didn't. I've had DDP I didn't know, right. And I think today's went 50 yards down the what I would call a stream before they determined it was because then they finally found it bought again once it took them. So it's it's it's a you need some extra expertise in order to do it based on wetland determinations only if you use the map and you start here you'll notice the NERPA one it has to meet two out of these you know five criteria Well, the map's always a given, so that's always one, and you know the town or this doesn't have them now, so you don't have one, you don't have that whole card right there, so with the NERPA
[57:30] Speaker E (unidentified): end up with a map, I assume, I mean obviously the top one at least your maps is based on our organs evidence, the bottom one is based on the state minimum, right, would NERPA fall somewhat in between
[57:43] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): these two, NERPA would probably be more in line with the current because I think the map was taken off the surveyed app, it just included the first order stream there, I mean I just
[57:56] Speaker E (unidentified): wonder, you know, we were concerned about the public outcry of seeing the change in the short shoreland zone from right the pink to the green, you know, if we can have something like genera that has a map to be the starting point as point A and then they you just have to have one of these other two, right, we'll continue to keep the streams on there which of you know majority of them are in less developed areas in town, it might make the change a
[58:35] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): little more palatable. Again, it doesn't matter, but in order to get past A and then you're looking at it, do you have to have, yeah, B3 define northern staff pass, so the bird is still going to put on the app, I don't see how I put them down, and if you get if you have the application and what level of extra team is what you require, because my office probably be consistent with that, it's probably a professional, so you've got to consider that as well, yeah, so I still come back around what makes
[59:15] Chair (Planning Board Chair): sense to you because you know all these ordinances better than any of us. The mandatory shoreline
[59:23] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): zoning awareness was geared so the CEOs could with without additional, oh yeah, expertise. That's
[59:31] Speaker G (unidentified): the state one that you were talking about. Yeah, well they're all, they're all right.
[59:38] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): The state one that the towns need to do, yes, they're mandatory terrain and it's not sky, it's not so deep. NERPA still exists, these useless, yes, right, yeah.
[59:52] Speaker C (unidentified): I think you take all the blue off of the map from the first map to the second map, take all that little wall, you're going to end up with a very large human cry for, oh, there are streams that should be somehow protected in town. I don't know, we get people talking about all the
[1:00:22] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): time. Yeah, I'll add though, to be consistent with our current ordinance, there wouldn't be any blue
[1:00:27] Speaker E (unidentified): period. Well, I understand them. Is there a way to modify something to NERPA, add a F? I mean, we don't have to say it's NERPA, right? I mean, these are goals we are, ours is not NERPA, no, ours. So could we, they can we pull something like NERPA that starts with the USGS map and has some of these other criteria that maybe add some criteria that are less, you know, ecosystem hydrologist
[1:01:01] Chair (Planning Board Chair): expertise space. Yeah, something doesn't require even more money spent, right, getting all this stuff done. I guess let me just ask a question, right, is this really a policy question if it, if it is, and because we're saying what about the app, right, I think we should be doing what we think is the right thing by the ordinance and by what the requirements are when it comes to how it's going to be received. That gets in the policy for me and that's for a selectman, yes, right. So maybe I don't know what this board thinks, but so we asked the selectman to tell it, give us their at least input on what they think we should maybe do here. But I still kind of lean back to the guy that knows this better than anybody in this room is right there, right, and you've got the experience both in the field with all the witnesses. It was something that you think makes sense from a standpoint of what you've seen and what's enforceable and what we
[1:02:04] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): can do with it, think that this way. So you're all subject to the audience, everybody in town is right, so whenever, when everything, any orders has a violation piece, it's their orders has to be written so that anybody subject to a canola, yes, following.
[1:02:30] Speaker C (unidentified): Up on what I think Scott was saying, if you had something that referenced, reference the USGS maps showing, you know, a screen and I know, you know, there's the ones that are 77.5, 15, I can't remember what the scale is, but if you reference them particularly so that somebody can look at the GS, USGS map and say yes, okay, I have a stream, I can see it on the USG map.
[1:03:06] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): just reference the line and not do b c b or e yeah of the nerve but the issue there and I'll point out NERPA allows permabar rule so if you if you're within a stream action area of 75 feet you can submit paperwork maybe it used to be just a form and a fee and now it's more forms than a bigger thing but you can get an automatic reduction in almost every case so would that
[1:03:34] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Really put that rule out for a minute, right, so call the person I rule, I know, I know, but would.
[1:03:39] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): That rule that out if you go down, yeah, so by the street, by the town's definition it rules out, so anybody with a stream that's first ordered and they have, they've gotten their DEP reduction to 25 feet, but I've come in and then said you don't get it through the town when you're stuck at 75 because there's no mechanism to reduce, so on the first door once DDP has determined that we can go to 25 feet, do some paperwork and photos and.
[1:04:17] Town Staff (Planner): I just wanted to clarify that, you know, all those streams that are on the top map, you know, they're showing blue that are then not on the bottom map, they're still all protected by Europe, the DEP and the states that are, they're still having all the protection intrinsic with that, it's just not on MOM, which doesn't have wetland delineation surveys and that's not being added to his job description, you know, we don't have this and I think funds probably to hire someone to do that, we're trying to. Simplify things so staff can do what they're here and trying to do the state who has this expertise.
[1:04:50] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Expertise and you were there trying to do so that would, that takes us back to over the state, which is the state minimum so to speak, and that's what both you guys are saying.
[1:05:13] Speaker G (unidentified): It's that would create more consistency, it would become consistent, yeah, don't make the town regulate things that other agencies are regulated, right, so right now if there's an issue.
[1:05:24] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Issue I make a phone call and it's easy, somebody else takes care of them, they have the issue, it went to town as the book on the books, we've got to take care of them, yeah, so are we all okay with.
[1:05:36] Chair (Planning Board Chair): That, yeah, right, we'll go with what you two are recommending, okay, we'll go, we'll go forward with.
[1:05:43] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): The maps and detail the areas. There's no detail in these now. It's just the limits of his own.
[1:05:48] Town Staff (Planner): Yeah, I don't know that, and we should be able to do what you're asking, Don. And we wanted to get the GIS files because Kevlin can do a little bit for us, but our consultant who has the files
[1:05:59] Speaker G (unidentified): has on vacation. All right, all right, so
[1:06:06] Chair (Planning Board Chair): other items did you don't say rest. All right, I think I mentioned at the last meeting, can we pull some of, I'll call it whatever, red lines develop. The was I'll call it the timeless, and we bring the timeless forward with red lines and carry that forward to tell me.
[1:06:33] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): I think there's there's a few things on list. This one added to the list, and I think we're looking at one or 2 other changes. So we'll bring it forward, but not in such a bash.
[1:06:48] Chair (Planning Board Chair): However, you want to package it, but there were items on your list. I think we can carry it forward. Right? We, in some of our other meetings, we talked about, you know, if this is too hard, tell me. But when we, I share recuse, but when the increase to John Wasilewski's enclave buildings was approved, right, in height, that then did something to what we had for heights along here, and I think it was where it was measured, whether it was to the cupola or whatever, I don't remember, but basically we ran into that. That again I was recused with the aroma Joe's and we had a height problem. Yeah, you're probably more familiar than I am, but I was told that we never won or that it needed to be corrected. I don't think we've ever corrected that, but you need to tell me what that is and can we bring
[1:07:52] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): that forward and correct that. Yeah, if you want. So what happened in the original height definition was to the peak and then it went to the mean average of the roof slope, which is consistent with the building code, so that's the difference that if there was a minimum height it increased the building size based on that. The other thing they did they were cleaning up now is it made us inconsistent with sure on his own because and then I know of another town that ended up a court because they did the same thing. Right, my definitions are so whatever you just said fix that whatever
[1:08:26] Chair (Planning Board Chair): whatever you just said can we fix that stuff if we want to go back to peak. So well I can't remember what the issue was but I can't all I remember is I heard that we ended up with the aroma Joe's building higher than it would have been had that not occurred right and yeah I almost I
[1:08:47] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): don't think in other buildings may not have and
[1:08:52] Chair (Planning Board Chair): It's not picking on anyone approved or not approved. What I'm trying to do is if there was a problem that was created when we passed one change to the ordinance, we should go back and fix whatever that problem was. I'll have to go back.
[1:09:06] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): When it came around it probably was trying to fix the problem that the lesser, okay, the peak definition. So I don't know if you don't mind, we can throw them all out.
[1:09:19] Chair (Planning Board Chair): We also over the last few workshops or whatever we've gone through different things and made some changes, which I think there are a couple of things in the lower village right. For those changes just strictly as a result of recode or were those changes that still need to be done and make sense? Yeah.
[1:09:44] Town Staff (Planner): I was approaching them as part of recode. I don't.
[1:09:46] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Know if there were a lot of changes that the current show, the current doesn't wouldn't drive.
[1:09:52] Town Staff (Planner): Any of those. I don't think there's a lot of problems in lover village right now. Okay, I need.
[1:09:56] Chair (Planning Board Chair): To look at it was doing it all through the recode. Yeah, if it's all, it was all just recode, then we'll at least keep it where it's at, and then we also said we went through a long discussion about the X and batch plant in the industrial zone, right, and that was a something that's been carried forward for a long time, and I think we kind of said all right, we think that this is the right way to approach for that. Can we pick that up along with some other items like that we know have been, that are that. Need correcting on the use table.
[1:10:37] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Blank spaces, we want to build a blank space, that'll be a big topic. Okay, can we add that?
[1:10:45] Town Staff (Planner): I think yeah, let's, I think probably to be able to easily divorce it from recode without getting into like combining uses and dimensions, that would probably would just be well, I think.
[1:10:58] Speaker C (unidentified): I think if you're divorcing or you're defining batch clamps, then at least in my mind there's the difference between and the impact thereof of what say like an asphalt batch plant versus on the auburn concrete type batch plan, you know, as far as the impact, it's not more potential impact with regard to other properties. I think two definitions, you know, the light industrial advanced plant versus the more.
[1:11:31] Town Staff (Planner): Heavy industrial batches. You know, Marilyn might know this better than I do, but there's, I believe there's two uses currently for concrete product manufacturing. Currently, I was getting the impression that those are current, that those are very important to recode, so I don't know if that's what you're getting at, Larry. I think if the planning board would like to discuss batch plants in the industrial zone to bring forward for May 27, we can do that. I will have public comment to share review when you discuss that. I have received some and I'll give it to you. That's that's more than.
[1:12:02] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Funny what I'm asking is I've been told that has been a problem since 2020, right? And if it has, let's fix it and let's fix it right. But it doesn't sound like it's the only problem. If there are other blanks, which is why I said are there other blanks we should address, not just specific.
[1:12:20] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Specific to that, right? Another blinds, the blind spaces originate probably back to an error, but the error has gone on so long it doesn't matter anymore. They are what they are. Yeah, there.
[1:12:31] Town Staff (Planner): Are other blank spaces under other uses. We can bring you the use table and in relation they.
[1:12:35] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Were created because new zones recreated, but how benefit of working not being at all trying to be.
[1:12:42] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Critical, I'm just saying we've had different discussions on different things in a lot of our workshops, and if some of this is stuff that we could have ready for that meeting, I think we should try. Yeah, so that I don't want to speak for the whole board if the rest of the board.
[1:12:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Disagrees, please. Nope, all right, I think I think there's something talking about one pointing to Andy, but I think Eddie mentioned something somewhere about the blanks in the or in the use table. All right, you have potential opposing assaults.
[1:13:17] Chair (Planning Board Chair): I had one other but it's going to get too hard, so I'm not going to even bring it up. But does anyone else have anything? Do you guys have any attention, Andy, you or don't?
[1:13:35] Speaker E (unidentified): The only thing that I thought of and probably not worth conflating it with the battery, the battery proposal that we're looking at adding as a use, is obviously data centers are in the news all the time. I don't know if that's something we want to tackle at the same time, not that there's anything any poses that I know of, but it's on a use, right? We need to see that out of.
[1:14:03] Town Staff (Planner): Bottom for current uses or.
[1:14:07] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Is it, is there, is there such a thing as data center as a use?
[1:14:12] Town Staff (Planner): It could be, it depends. Warehouse or so, without it defined in our ordinance, it would fall under something. I don't know what that would be, and I don't think, Tom, we haven't talked about this or even really thought about it. So we fall under something, but we could for sure make a data the center use the same way that we have amusement facility or paper drinking, I think, I guess.
[1:14:36] Chair (Planning Board Chair): We'll at least take a look at that, maybe see if there's anything out there that would give us any.
[1:14:42] Town Staff / Consultant (Shoreland Mapping): Well, it, if concerned, it should be defined because, okay, you know what, I say it could be appeal and then, you know, yeah, if there's something that could be something, well, they're set to go on appeal so.
[1:14:54] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Can you add that to it if we're going to look at the battery? Let's take a look, there's also.
[1:14:58] Speaker I (unidentified): A data center advisory council that's been meeting since June, and they just had their final meeting, so that's all on the EUC's website. So if you want any information from the state on that, they did convene on back in June. They had four different meetings and public comment and all that, and they split it up into four different sections, environmental impact, consumers.
[1:15:26] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Members and two more. Okay, all right, thank you. I mean, anyone else? Are we good with second adjournment tonight? Vote for adjourn to go home. All right, thank you.