Wells Planning Board Advances Four Subdivisions, Hears Water Concerns

[0:06] Planning Board Chair: Everyone, to the Town of Wells plan and board meeting for Monday, September 28th. The first item for discussion this evening will be to review the minutes of September 14th. Did anyone have any questions, additions, deletions, or alterations to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8? Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion to accept the minutes as written. So moved. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. The next item this evening will be a public hearing, how we conduct our public hearings as we allow the applicant or its representative to come forward, tell us, the people in the audience and the people at home, what they plan to do. Once the applicant is done with their presentation, you have the opportunity to question the applicant through the board. Once the public hearing is closed there's no further public comment. This evening you can correspond through the Office of Planning and Development. So the first public hearing is Brookside Farm 2 subdivision. Good [1:38] Jason Vaughty: evening, Jason Vaughty, developer. Craig Burgess, civil engineer with Acorn Engineering. Welcome. Would you like to tell everybody what you're proposed to do please? Sure. Proposed is a 19 lot single-family subdivision. This is phase two of Brookside Farm. So phase one originally proposed 25 lots. Phase two proposes 19 lots, but it's going to require two of the lots in phase one to be reconfigured. So the total amount of lots is 42 at the end of the day. So where this is shown here in the red, those were two lots as part of phase one. So those will be absorbed within phase two. About 1,500 feet of dead-end road is proposed as part of this to serve all 19 lots. Each lot will be served by an individual well and a subsurface wastewater disposal system. Underground electric will be extended in from the Phase 1 development. The Phase 1 development has their electricity and telecommunications and all that extended from Meeting House Road. So essentially underground utilities will be extended into phase two stormwater and for infrastructure proposes three Wooded buffers to treat stormwater and Yeah, those are shown roughly where Mike is pointing out So those will handle stormwater treatment in general conformance with Maine DEP standards About Maine DEP. We did apply for a site location of development law amendment back in, I want to say, June, July. We are pretty close to getting that approval. We have finished the engineering review, so now it's just a matter of some of the general reviews and getting the permit finalized and up to Augusta for final approval. So we're hoping to receive that maybe within the month or so. Also, it requires a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit modification, because the there are five different wetland impacts as part of this project phase one disturbed I don't remember the number of hand here but around 22,000 give or take so this will increase the amount of wetland impact that's being reviewed by both Maine DEP and Army Corps on through DEP require Natural Resource Protection Act permit modification so we are pretty close on getting those approvals in hand there are you can see well you can't really see on this plane but there are several wetland fingers that extend from the south to north so we are proposing wetland crossings over those wetlands there are three unnamed stream three or four unnamed streams on the site which were in the color blue that might just had up on the plan and we are the single family lot development will not be impacting the 25 and 75 foot buffer zones associated with those unnamed streams. All the surface drainage from this site drains to the north to Hobbs Brook. So we did prepare a stormwater analysis that looked at the entire Hobbs Brook watershed as well as the areas to the west of Meeting House Road. So it included all the off-site runoff modeled through the site. It looked at the amount of runoff upstream drain into Hobbs Brook, so we did incorporate that into the model. Mike had some minor comments on that, which we plan to address. We did get a chance to review some of the other comments that came in memos. We feel like the comments that we have in front of us are pretty minor, so what we plan on doing here is once we get the DEP and Army Corps permit approvals we'll plan on resubmitting everything to be back in front of the board for hopefully final approval at that point so with that I'll turn it back over to the board with any [5:48] Planning Board Chair: comments thank you thank you any comments or questions for anyone in the public how big is each for the record please stand up at the podium and state your name and ask your questions, please. OK. [6:03] Barbara (public commenter, 32 Admiral's Way): My name is Barbara. My name is 32 Admiral's Way. And I'm just wondering about the water system, because with 42 new homes, and you're using every house has a well, right? How big is each house? [6:25] Jason Vaughty: It's roughly an acre in size. [6:28] Barbara (public commenter, 32 Admiral's Way): Oh, OK. OK. Okay. I'm just, I was, you were trying, you were explaining how, because there's a lot of wetlands there. Yeah. But we are this, we are in a drought, even though it doesn't seem like it today, but the trend is toward a drought. So you're getting all superficial water, all surface water, right? Just not going down to an aquifer. [6:57] Jason Vaughty: It's going down into the aquifer to capture the groundwater. It is. So the surface water really isn't part of the, it's not really part of the drop of the wells over time. Likely that surface water eventually seeps through. But we did pay attention to the locations of the wastewater disposal systems to make sure that the wells are at least 100 feet away. Overall, this piece of land is roughly 51 acres in size. It in size so yeah I understand there's a there's a large tract of land also being put into open space but the way that the project is designed for the subsurface wastewater systems and the wells meets state standards and actually one acre of land is actually double the size of what the minimum area needs to be to support a wastewater disposal system and a well so the lot sizes are about an acre in size minimum. Okay, so you think, did [7:59] Barbara (public commenter, 32 Admiral's Way): The EPA check it at all? [8:00] Jason Vaughty: It's, well the project goes through federal review as part of the U.S. Army Corps application. So it is going through federal review under all their standards. That's really focused on the wetlands though, but it does go through a lot of other types of review as part of that wetland. [8:21] Barbara (public commenter, 32 Admiral's Way): I'm just trying to that was my one huge concern is water because I don't want to you know with that many houses and that because it seemed because of the cluster they were and each well is on which is in this one little area not on the whole that other 50% I was wondering if that was going to cause our water level to go down and have problems because I'm right next I'm about I'm pretty close to it so as part [8:55] Jason Vaughty: Of also as part of the site law permit application being reviewed by Maine DDP they do review for water capacity and as part of that we had to demonstrate like well yields in the in the nearby around the subdivision and there is actually a pretty good yield in this area of wells yeah and I don't know if there are any issues that came up during the summer because of the drought I don't know if the town is notified of any I don't know [9:23] Barbara (public commenter, 32 Admiral's Way): It's just all I know is that the trend is going toward drought not away from it and so I was concerned about that being a homeowner but okay any other [9:42] Planning Board Chair: Questions? Any questions or comments for anyone in the public? Any members of the board? Move to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? If that is unanimous, the public hearing is now closed. We'll work on this later. The next item on the agenda this evening is Springer and Sun Subdivision, report site walk results. [10:13] Tom Springer: Good evening, everybody. I'm Tom Springer, project engineer for BH2M. I'm here on behalf of David Springer and Kevin Howard. We had a sidewalk Saturday morning on the 19th to give the board an idea of where the road is located and all lots. I feel like this sidewalk is pretty straightforward as most of the road is located in a very visible area. Area. We went over some site distance where there's some clearing that might need to take place in order to get the required site distance. Got a good idea for the topography on where a potential stormwater basin would go. The only thing I have noted is to protect the 24-inch oak up on lot 4. And yeah, that's pretty much all I have. Anybody else has any questions regarding the sidewalk? [11:06] Planning Board Chair: Mike, would you like to go over the results of the sidewalk, please? [11:11] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yes. You covered the general conditions we saw out there. The road was very well staked out. The center line was staked out. Locked corners were flagged. So it was very easy to see the lots. A lot of the property is open lawn area, so it's very easy to observe it. We looked at the site distances at the road, and as mentioned, there's a few limbs and whatnot in the front. But that's probably the location for a storm water pond that we discussed, and so that area may be cleared for a storm water pond anyways, which would take care of those trees and site sylipic distance conditions in this direction. The other direction was wide open, long distance for site distance. The other area we discussed potentially for a storm water pond was in the middle of the cul-de-sac. It was described that it is going to be a cul-de-sac with an island in the middle, so that might be a good location to send the stormwater from the road. The lots, as I said, are large, full-size lots. The slope varies maybe 2% to 3%, maybe 4% in this area. So a gently sloped area, very good soils in that area as well. So stormwater concerns from the individual houses aren't really a concern. If you focus your stormwater analysis just on the pavement from the road and treating and detaining that would be satisfactory. No wetlands on the lot at all. There was discussion on retaining that 24-inch tree. It was, did have a split trunk so it was an item that maybe we don't put on the plan that it's to be remained but I think we're selling it a lot and this is there's plenty of potential for a house that would be far enough from the tree that would be safe. So it was discussion about not putting it on the plan to be preserved and leave that up to the lot owner. We also talked about there's a shed encroachment over in this area. I guess it's very old shed easy to remove. So the Who's gonna talk to the abutter and take care of that 'd be something I think the board would want to see taken care of before the plans actually approved to eliminate that encroachment but now it's very easy site to look at and good land out there thank [13:29] Planning Board Chair: you any other comments for any members of the board you're all set this evening [13:35] Tom Springer: awesome thank you guys you're welcome the [13:40] Planning Board Chair: next item on the agenda this evening would be Brookside farm subdivision hello again please tell everybody who you are, in case they just tuned in. Jason LaVallee. [14:01] Jason Vaughty: Welcome. I'm a civil engineer with Acorn Engineering. [14:05] Planning Board Chair: Welcome again. Mike, you have comments for us on this? [14:09] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yes, the first item in the memo was to just discuss any comments offered at the public hearing. I think the main concern was impact to wells. I did want to point out there was a hydrogeologic study done by a hydrogeologic engineer, and it considered both impacts for the septic locations AND LOOKED AT NITRIC PLUME GENERATION FROM THOSE SEPTIC LOCATIONS TO MAKE SURE THE WELLS ALSO MET THAT CRITERIA ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 100-FOOT DISTANCE THAT'S REQUIRED BETWEEN THE SEPTIC AND THE WELL. THAT SAME ANALYSIS DID QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL THAT WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION AND HAD AN ESTIMATE FOR THE WATER GENERATION THAT WOULD REPLENISH THE AQUIFER AND ALSO LOOKED AT THE WATER DEMAND FOR THIS NUMBER OF HOUSES WITH FOUR bedrooms in every home and the mass analysis done for that showed that there would be no impact by the wells to the aquifer especially based on the fact that the flow that goes into the septic also gets placed back into that the aquifer Eventually too, so there was a whole separate hydrogeologic analysis done of that. Didn't have anything else to comment on from the public comments unless the board has had time to think about any. As mentioned, the stormwater analysis, I did review all the stormwater. It's all sent to level up spreaders, which is a great way to treat stormwater both for quantity and for quality control as well. I had a couple of minor comments on adding some culvert inverts to the planet profile design, but the overall analysis for pre-development versus post development showed a reduction at all storm events, so that meets all town ordinances, and that was done based on a 50-year analysis. Had some minor comments on the Homeowners Association document that's been proposed. We'll send that to the town attorney to review as well. Had minor comments on the cost estimate and the community impact statement that was provided. We had some plan revisions we had marked up from the last review, but as mentioned, we'll just look at them now. We have more review comments. You can compile them all as one revised plan. We did have a staff review committee meeting on the project as well, and the fire chief looked at this being served by the existing cistern that's to be constructed as part of phase one. He felt that cistern could handle all the new homes in the area. He had one question on if a fire truck was parked at the cistern, there is a paved turnover, so with the fire truck parked there to pump from the cistern, there's still adequate turning radius for other fire trucks to get in and out of the road for the new cul-de-sac, so that was provided to us as well for information that helped the fire chief in reviewing that. There were only a couple of items that the board could actually make determinations on. One was the can for the board to consider that shared driveways are not necessary. This is all on a private street far away from a meeting house, so we recommend the planning board determine that shared driveways are not. Yes, sir. [17:40] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. [17:45] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: The rest of the compliance review, some compliance determinations were already made at preliminary review regarding the buffers that are around the subdivision. So those were already deemed to be suitable by the board at preliminary stage. We had one question. Have you talked to the Postal Service at all about whether they want a community mailbox area? Barrier, that's something you want to check on. They may allow individual mailboxes, but a lot of times they will only let you do a common mailbox. And if that's the case, you'd want to choose a location. I don't know if you had a one central location, both for Phases 1 and 2, or if they'd allow a common mailbox in Phase 1 and then want a Phase 2. But that's something you'll have to contact the Postmaster about and find out how they want to do a reveal out there. [18:41] Barbara (public commenter, 32 Admiral's Way): What about in the central mill block [18:43] Planning Board member: center? Is this how we'll be doing all the projects? [18:45] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: That's usually what they like to see. Yeah. So, in this case, you'd want to pick a spot somewhere on phase one. [18:54] Planning Board member: The unisex should be best right next to the cistern, but [18:57] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: we'll... Yeah, that would be nice, because you already have a cave pullover there. [19:01] Planning Board member: Right,. So, we'll probably end up just putting it there, but yeah, I mean, we'll try to get ahold of the postmaster. That's kind of a I mean, it's like a lunar eclipse. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it's pretty special. [19:18] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: I've tried to get a hold of a postmaster a few times, and it's difficult to get a good person. Yeah. [19:25] Planning Board member (Mike referenced as staff): Jason, I have a question on the grading plan. Mike, can you put the grading plan up? If you're coming up towards the cul-de-sac, It looks like there's quite a bit of a change in grade there. Is that, yeah, it looks like most of the grades go around most of the driveways, but there's one driveway that, is that going to require a guardrail along the edge of that? [20:09] Planning Board member: I don't think it's that steel. What's the slope on that group? [20:13] Jason Vaughty: The grading right now is showing it all with three-to-one slopes. Are we looking at the one with the wetland crossing as? Yeah, I mean, what's the DOT requirement like? [20:26] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: DOT is pretty flexible on guardrails. If you have a 3-to-1 slope on a rural road, it doesn't trigger any DOT thresholds for a guardrail. I think in the past, the board has looked at it, and depending on the drop-off amount there, if it's like 6 or 8 feet, you've always required a guardrail, even if there's a 3-to-1 slope. I think this is only about a 3-foot drop, maybe a 4-foot drop. [20:50] Jason Vaughty: So that is a two-to-one slope at that driveway actually with at the wetland crossings. We do have to Yes, [21:01] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: yes, I [21:06] Planning Board member: mean we're only talking three to four foot per of the ditch from the height of the road Which is pretty standard in most roads [21:14] Planning Board member (Mike referenced as staff): Reason I was asking was because if you had to put one around the cul-de-sac it might impact the fire truck radius But if you don't need one, it doesn't matter. [21:24] Planning Board member: Yeah, I don't think there's anything really super steep out there, so like we designed this road, I actually designed it with my GPS actually kind of going out and just kind of seeing where the best place is so you don't have any big hills and stuff like that and everything. So, like on the plan, I mean, what's the percentage of that road slope? [21:47] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: The slope itself was, I think, was it maybe 5%? [21:50] Planning Board member: Yeah, so I mean you only get a five percent slope in the road, so I think it looks [21:54] Planning Board member (Mike referenced as staff): steeper than it really is, but so what about that driveway that's across from the one that has the steep slope there that looks like it's gonna wind up having a [22:07] Jason Vaughty: drain pipe underneath it, is that, yeah, okay, most driveways will have a culvert going, yeah, well but we didn't really necessarily show those culverts because we want to provide some flexibility where the driveways are actually located, but you did note on the plan, yeah, yes we did, we did note that, right [22:30] Planning Board member (Mike referenced as staff): Thanks, we're [22:33] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): gonna have to pull open space stuff [22:35] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: using phase one, not using phase one, correct, that primary approval the board determined that it would have to be two separate HOAs and that each HOA would have, okay, grandfather that made one open space the way it was today. So that's actually the comments I had on the HOA declaration, but most of the comments were that. To see how the two HOAs who are interacting with each other, to make sure that all the costs are identified, because phase two is going to probably share the cost of the cistern, because they're both going to be sharing the cistern benefits. It looks like phase two is going to pay for the even though they cross Phase 1, Phase 1 is going to take care of its own power for Phase 1. And the open space management will be separate across each HOA, too. [23:30] Planning Board member (Mike referenced as staff): So, the second HOA, which is Phase 2 HOA. So, I guess I'm just wondering, Phase 1 HOA, be happy with the people? How's that going to work with people crossing? [23:47] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Crossing their roads. They're going to look at it as this is our road, it's not yours, you're starting to cross it, so you're not sharing the cross with them. That's one of the comments I have. It might be deserving of a road agreement from one HOA to the other to share some of that, but it's whatever way you want to... [24:06] Planning Board member: I thought we had it so they're all sharing all the costs. [24:10] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Right now it's two separate HOAs, and that each one is only dealing with the cost of their roads. [24:17] Planning Board member: I'll have to reread it, Tom. [24:18] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yeah, you can do a separate road agreement between HOAs. [24:21] Planning Board member (Mike referenced as staff): That might be a smart thing. [24:24] Planning Board member: Yeah, no, I think it should be. All the costs are going to be shared equally between all 40 smart yield lots. So I'll have to reread that, because if you're reading it differently, then you definitely got to reread that. But it should be all shared costs. So, because you're right, because they're sharing, I mean, you know, we got a common trail that goes from phase one to phase two, you know, so if there's going to be any expenses, you know, if anybody's going to be maintaining that or whatever, it should be a shared cost between the two. We have a fire system that's a shared cost. The people in phase two will be using phase one, but people in phase one, if they're going to go up the trail, they're going to be walking back through phase two to get back to phase one. On, so even if they're not using as a vehicle, they're still using as a walking path. So to me, it's, they're all still sharing quite a bit of it. So you need to put it, yeah, it should be that way. It's a blurry reader, because obviously, right, Mike's reading it differently than, well, my attorney should have had it set up as. So I want to, I'll reread that. [25:32] Planning Board Chair: We're gonna figure it out. Any other comments, Mike? Make a motion to continue a workshop for up to 90 days. So our second, all those in favor, one day, that is unanimous. All right, guys. Thanks. You're welcome. The next item on the agenda is Perkins Pasture Subdivision Amendment. [26:12] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: You're welcome. You're welcome. It goes to Florida. [26:16] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): Number one. L.A. hit 70. [26:21] Planning Board Chair: For the record, would you like to tell everybody who you are, please? [26:25] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): Mark and Kelly O'Brien, owners of Perkins Pasture Subdivision. You're welcome. [26:32] Planning Board Chair: Mike, do you have comments for us? Yes. [26:34] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yes, the first item in the memo is to go over the results of the site walk. We had a site walk September 19th at 6.45 AM, sunny, 45 degrees. We had several play board members present, we had applicants present, the owners of the lot present, the builders of the house on the lot were present as well. I was there and no butters appeared at the site walk. We looked at the site distances at the constructed driveway, and they looked good, except for a couple of tree questions we had, which have now been answered on the plan. We looked at the 50-foot-wide required buffer to the assembly direction. That's an area that's a vegetated buffer, part of the old cluster of evidence requirements. And there's all these tools to allow for the septic system in the 50-foot buffers and the graphs. But in an area closer to Quarry Road that was thinned out, that three evergreen trees were proposed and the board of the sidewalk thought that would make an adequate buffer replacement up in that location. We also looked along Coyote Road itself. Because we changed the cluster subdivision ordinances, the town now requires a two-inch of buffer along the town road, which of course can't be met by this lot. It becomes an entire lot. But to make it less nonconforming and account for the cutting that did occur there,. A 15-foot wide vegetated buffer was discussed along the front and we showed on the plan now, but we don't want to interfere with site distances, so at the sidewalk it was discussed about just having lower shrubs and grass in that buffer area, which would still meet the ordinance and make it less non-conforming. Also discussed was a potential buffer along the open space strip of land to access to the open space, but the board at the sidewalk didn't feel that anything was necessary in that area. It's currently being used for some temporary construction access, but once the house is done that won't be used for access anymore. They'd be using their proposed driveway. If the owner wanted, he could put up a fence or plan things on his own, but the board at the sidewalk didn't feel anything else was necessary in that area. Buffers in general just had very minimal impact to abutters. We looked at the existing of the proposed drainage system too to replace the originally proposed one with the drainage easement. We have a full engineered drainage design now and we have it shown on the plan. We have a nice profile. All the inverts have been provided. All the pipe sizes have been provided. Staff review committee was reviewed. Public Works was THERE AS WELL, AND THEY AGREED THAT SYSTEM WOULD WORK. SO I THINK THAT WAS ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE SIDEWALK, UNLESS SOMEONE THERE HAD SOMETHING TO ADD. ANY [29:39] Planning Board Chair: COMMENTS FROM ANYONE ELSE? NO. GOOD REPORT. SO WE'RE GOOD ON THAT? NOW THE WORKSHOP PART OF IT. YEAH. [29:50] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: So we did get a revised plan that I believe was in your packets, very close to the one that's up on the screen right now, and we've addressed all of our completeness items that we had, so we would recommend that the planning board deem the application as complete. [30:07] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. [30:12] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: With that done, the board is to determine whether a public hearing is necessary. The public hearing is not required. [30:20] Planning Board Chair: Second. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous as well. [30:24] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Our next item is into the buffer requirements. Do the playboard like to determine that the 50-foot buffer along the sunny side with the three taped trees [30:35] Planning Board Chair: is suitable? So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. [30:40] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Also, would you like to separately determine that the proposed quarter row buffer is also suitable? [30:45] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. Sorry, we talked about all this on Saturday. [30:51] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): Yeah, we did a lot at the sidewalk. We really did. [30:56] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Next item is for the board. Because the drainage goes through the open space and it's in use for the open space, would the committee board like to consider allowing the drainage to be directed over the open space? So moved. [31:07] Planning Board Chair: Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. [31:11] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: The driveway does come out to a town road, and that requires an on-site turnaround. Around on the plan they've showed and where the garage doors are going to be and there is an additional 15 feet or so a driveway that extends beyond that so it looks like they can back out of the drive out of the garage back into this area and then drive out but the board needs to review and approve that if that sounds reasonable move that the suitable second all those in favor that is unanimous as well and the new driveway itself on the plan is noted the site distances they can be met with the removal of some of the trees that were seen at the site at the site walk so there are actually three trees in this direction and the southerly direction that would need to be removed and one tree the tree with the vines on it needs to be removed in the other direction so with those eliminated site distances can be met and the board could determine that the new driveway location is also suitable. So moved. [32:14] Planning Board Chair: Second. All those in favor? If that is genanimous. [32:20] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: We had some slight drainage changes that were made to the plan and that we just received on Friday, but I reviewed them. They addressed all my drainage comments I had. I think it's at the point now that the board's made all those determinations that it could be up for final approval at the next meeting. We just would need the final plans with stamps, the original signatures on it. And now that the board's made those determinations, we can finish our findings of that too. The board would like to continue it for 30 days. But so moved. Second. All those in favor. That is unanimous. We have back-to-back meetings, so our next meeting is next Monday, and we'll put you on that agenda. That sounds good. If you need to stand plan, planned Friday. Nice to have them on Friday, but... [33:15] Planning Board Chair: But if they're there Wednesday, there's no excuse to not be ready by Monday. [33:19] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: I might lose them between Wednesday and Monday, Las Vegas, whenever. [33:24] Planning Board Chair: Good turnaround on getting everything in. [33:27] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yeah, amazing that you could draft the plan and get those changes done that quick. [33:30] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): I'll help Kelley with the company. Yeah. [33:35] Planning Board Chair: The next office will have it. Yeah. You're all set. Thank you. Thanks for your time on the sidewalk. The next item on the agenda is Goodale subdivision. Hello. [34:02] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Mike, you have comments for us. Yes, we got an updated plan. I think at the last meeting the board determined that access to the open space areas proposed would be satisfied by 10 foot pedestrian easement, and that's all been added to the plan. So off of Goodale Farm Road, there's a 10-foot easement to get to the stream side open space. It also gets to the middle open space. And there's also an easement along the stone wall to get to the open space at the far corner in that direction. So that's been addressed. And at the previous meeting, the board felt that the three proposed opening spaces could be dean suitable as long as access was provided. So if the board would like to make two different, one that the access is suitable, so move. Is there a second? All those in favor. That is unanimous. Now you've done that, you deem the open space is suitable. So move. Second. All those in favor. That is unanimous. We have some minor note changes that have all been addressed. Everything on the plan is compliant now, so we would ask the board to deem the application as being compliant. So moved. [35:24] Planning Board Chair: Second. All those in favor? That is remembrance. [35:28] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: The only two outstanding items we had left were just some changes to the road association agreement or road maintenance agreement that your attorney is going to get to us like by beginning of next week. [35:41] Tom Springer: Can I get a copy of that, please? [35:43] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: You gave me a copy several weeks ago, but the only change on it was adding one road name to it. And there were other changes to be made to it. No, the attorney hasn't given me the road agreement at all. I think the last the version I got was just from you. Oh, there wasn't much for changes. I think it was it was just to add no parking along the road and that the road would never be accepted as a town road. I think those were the only two red lines. So the attorney did say he'd get it to us right away and the only other item is just to get what signatures on the plan so the registry. Yeah, he didn't work last week. Yes, I'm like a vacation so yeah he [36:31] Planning Board member: tried to rush it today but he did get it stamped. Yeah, I [36:41] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: mean the board could wait till next Monday to take your final vote and go through the findings or we could go through the findings tonight and you could vote to sign it at THE NEXT MEETING, BUT TYPICALLY YOU SIGN IT THE SAME NIGHT WE GO [36:55] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): THROUGH ALL THE MONTHINGS. YOU NEED TO HAVE THE AGREEMENT FIRST. RIGHT. [36:57] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: AND, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT FINAL VITAL, EVEN THOUGH THE CHANGES WERE MINOR. MANY OF US COME BACK ANYWAYS TO BRING US TO PLANS NEXT WEDNESDAY. DO WE NEED AN EXTENSION OR ARE WE STILL ON TIME? STILL GOOD WITH THE PREVIOUS EXTENSION, SO KNOW IF YOU'RE THERE. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOOD? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK. ALL RIGHT. [Planning Board Chair: Yes,] they were up for an extension, but they also had another question too. [37:36] Planning Board Chair: And I believe they have an applicant here, or representative. [37:40] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): Yes, Chris Wilber with Adder Engineering on behalf of the City of Kingsley Management. So, I guess I apologize. Things got a little bit off track with respect to just where we were at on this. And I had submitted some plans that I believe were responsive to all of Mike's last set of comments and the issues that were brought up during our last board meeting. And then one of the CB representatives had a question about possibly adding a pool onto the property. And, you know, I kind of wish that they had spoken with me first, but they're looking at their residents there and trying to do the right thing for them and so forth and offer them a lot of recreational opportunities there. But the long and the short of it is that one of the issues that came up was a minimum lot size or unit size for each camp area, right? So we've got a dedicated space for each one. And what we ended up with was 1,000 square feet for each one of those units. And when you do that, multiplying it out across the entire park, it really takes up any excess impervious area that we had. So even with that whole nine-acre Coggeshall piece, it really didn't, you know, after we get done mitigating, there just wasn't that much left over. And, of course, when you say, all right, each site is going to have 1,000 square feet, there's nothing there. [39:37] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yeah, because if they wanted to add a pool up in this area like they were talking, it's like, wow, it was included in this amendment, and again, it's not in approved form, but our one question was, as long as they had enough lot coverage. Yeah. That was our only comment, really. [39:53] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): Right, so I think if you look at the set of plans that I had sent along, Mike, you'd see that they had like 0.2% left, so it's maybe a kiddie pool. [40:04] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: I didn't know if they were going to remove some somewhere else and swap it. [40:09] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): It's very limited. Yeah, if they do that down the road. The other thing is, you know, by the time you look at all of the buffers and stuff like that, there's not a whole lot of space for, you know, if you co-located, you know, parking and stuff like that, then you can probably do it. But it's tough. Tough. So what we did speak about was, you know, trying to do some low-impact recreational things, walking trails, stuff like that. And there's a couple ponds on the Collier Shull track that they might be able to do something with there. But as far as something with impervious area, I don't think that's certainly not before us right now, before you folks right now, and it'll be down the road before they get to any of that. [40:55] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Okay, so that'd be just something they would visit if they could have any possible effects. Okay. [41:00] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): And so, other than that, you know, I guess we need an extension to kind of re-go over the stuff that I had submitted. [41:09] Planning Board member / compliance reviewer: Yeah, because we took a quick look at it, and what you submitted looked really good. We just, when we found out that there might be a new cool fall, wrap it in. We can. But... [41:19] Planning Board Chair: We'll continue the workshop for up to 60 days. Second. All those in favor? [41:28] Mark O'Brien (Perkins Pasture Subdivision owner): That would be great with me, Mike, if that gives you enough time to kind of review these things. I know you have a lot of stuff going on. All right. [41:47] Planning Board Chair: You're all set? All right. Have a great night. You too. Is there any other businesses, anything, Mr. Mike? [41:55] Planning Board member: No. Making motion to adjourn. Second. [41:58] Planning Board Chair: All those in favor? That is unanimous.