Limerick Planning Board Reviews Four-Lot Subdivision, Junkyard Concerns

[0:14] Chair (presiding officer): GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE LEARNER PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER SUMMIT, 2026. WE CAN STAND FOR THE FLEX LOOP. DO YOU MIND IF WE TAKE HIM FIRST? IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND GOING TO THE PODIUM AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS YOURS AND GET YOU OUT OF HERE. TELL US WHAT YOU GOT GOING AND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. [1:13] Christian Doyon (applicant): So currently we own six and a half acres on Parsonsville Road in total. So what we're looking to do is on the front portion- [1:29] Chair (presiding officer): Sorry, are you the owner? Yes. [1:32] Christian Doyon (applicant): Okay. Yes, my name is Christian Doyon. Okay. Sorry. I own this with my brother Eric Doyon. Okay. All right. So what we're looking at doing is creating four lots in total. Three lots have frontage on Route 160. The black dots you see by the road, I had staked those off and I had the state come look for a driveway to make sure I had sight distance for driveways and permission for driveways, which is including your packets. And then there's an existing right of way going to a back lot that's currently owned by Casey and Sarah Hart. So one of the lots, that back lot would have access over that existing right of way over this property to get to the back lot. [2:25] Chair (presiding officer): So does that have, does that have, that has a building, a house on it, correct? [2:35] Christian Doyon (applicant): Correct. Casey's does have a house on it. That's correct. [2:40] Speaker C (unidentified): How wide is this right of way? [2:42] Christian Doyon (applicant): The road itself or the right of way? The right of way is 50 feet, but the road, I'm not quite sure how wide it is. I have already started building. So the lot all the way to the right that has the frontage on route 160, I have a permit that I'm building a spec house right now with my brother on so [3:06] Chair (presiding officer): with this we would need to make sure you put the footages of each lot the amount of building area for each lot amount of area for each lot and then a building kind of a building envelope on each lot all right this lot in the back by right should have frontage on a road built the town standard so that would mean that it needs 175 feet of frontage built the towns town spec which is gravel 50 feet wide and then paved [4:08] Christian Doyon (applicant): Paid? Paid. I thought there was a private road standard that it would fall under when I originally started this process. Yeah. This was, so this was once called a private way, it was old lane is what I referenced on prior deeds. And my understanding was that it's a private, it's going to be a private road, not a town down road, which can service many houses in your ordinance. [4:51] Chair (presiding officer): But you're trying to get frontage on a road and you don't have road frontage, so. So [5:04] Speaker C (unidentified): The lot behind is not conforming already. [5:08] Chair (presiding officer): I don't know how that one got out there at that point. I can't speak to how that got there. That came off the original lot, did it? [Speaker D (unidentified): Or maybe] That's what happened? Did that lot become, was that part of this lot? Was that all owned by him and then they subdivided that off? Yeah, no, the Casey Hart lot, that was owned, or not, I know you wouldn't have owned it, but I didn't know if Michael owned it, and that, I was just trying to figure out how they got a building permit up in there, but it seems like I can remember it, I can remember it being built, so or [6:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Being there. With K.C. Hart, their address is Parson Field Road? That is correct. [6:54] Chair (presiding officer): That's not the lane that they logged on, is it? They logged the back lot off with? No. No, that's farther up here. That's the pasture lane. Yes. [7:08] Christian Doyon (applicant): If you're talking about recently logged, then yes. [7:10] Chair (presiding officer): So there isn't any actual stone wall laying there on both sides? No, on one side, yes, but yeah, there isn't on both sides. [7:23] Christian Doyon (applicant): There is up top. At one point there may have been. [7:26] Chair (presiding officer): You can see it was up there. [7:28] Christian Doyon (applicant): That's the width of the lane, I would say. Okay. It was called Old Lane on the deeds back in the, I have to look at it again, back in the 60s or something. In my initial conversation, I was looking at that as a private road, which would be a gravel road. I didn't see you guys had changed this. I had started this a year ago. I don't know if that changed, but it was a private road ordinance that allowed a certain amount of houses before becoming a public road. Do you know what that one is, Dan? [8:17] Chair (presiding officer): I'm trying to find that. where are they under subdivision street design or road standards is does that make a spaghetti lot if you do that if you come in off the road 125 feet and 50 the so the right away is 50 feet wide the road is 50 feet wide but it would need to be connected to the back lot no not in this not in this description here is it is yeah it triangulates to create that road frontage this line here is part of the back [10:39] Speaker D (unidentified): Lot, yes, against the road. I'm assuming that's what you're pointing at, the right of way through the front lot. This is the frontage on the back lot. Okay, but this here is, that is that [10:58] Chair (presiding officer): So it's a right-of-way not owned by this lot to the back? [11:03] Christian Doyon (applicant): Right now, it is owned by, so the land is owned by the land that I own, yes. And this 50-foot right-of-way gains access to both Casey and to the Knight's own property back here as well. I'll take a purpose on here, but these people right here also own land back here, and this right-of-way extends to his land as well. [11:24] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, it was called one lane. So, at one point. [11:29] Speaker E (unidentified): The lanes have a right of way on these as long as the, I was done 60 years ago. [11:39] Chair (presiding officer): But he's still, they still own the property. So they could, so they technically could make the back lot carry all the way down to the street, 50 feet wide, and then as long as they could get 175 feet of frontage for each of the other lots, plus the 50 feet wide, so that's 175, 350, I don't know if that's enough, is it? 175 times three. It's 525. And you have 573. 50. Yeah, you don't quite have enough to do that. There's not quite enough frontage to make that. Actually, they [12:51] Christian Doyon (applicant): could get the frontage on Old Lane, though, too. [12:53] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah. They could take some of that frontage on Old Lane for that. I'd rather see a driveway come off that road anyway. Yeah. So that is, that is correct. You could do that. So, you could to improve 125 feet of frontage and the 50 foot wide right away and that would meet the criteria wouldn't it plus he could have a driveway coming off to law the I don't know it's not labeled as a lot at this point but I would say one a whatever that first lot come left to right. It's [13:47] Speaker E (unidentified): supposed to be a hammerhead there, too, which isn't just.. [13:54] Speaker C (unidentified):. Where would the hammerhead be, though, because... [13:56] Speaker E (unidentified): It should be between Block 4 and the house somewhere there. Mm-hmm. [14:06] Chair (presiding officer): So we would allow them to build the rest of that road at a private road standard, but they needed to have a hammerhead at the end of that to turn around on that property on the back lot. You follow on that? [14:29] Christian Doyon (applicant): I am. I mean, you can, so the grade lines are shown on here. My only concern, I mean, the hammerhead doesn't make a lot of sense up that close just because of the grade. [14:41] Speaker D (unidentified): I think the hammerhead should go down a little bit. [14:43] Christian Doyon (applicant): I mean, I don't care personally, obviously. It's just saying that just the way that the grade works. But it can't be, it can't be that steep, it levels out anyways. We'd have to put a [15:20] Chair (presiding officer): hammer, it's, it's at some, yeah, on somewhere on the edge of the back lot. I don't, we don't have a lot number at this point, but is it even doable to have to put a driveway into that back lot? Oh. [15:38] Christian Doyon (applicant): Yeah, there's already actually a driveway there just from years ago, somebody an old logging driveway. So we were gonna grab it down. So it's right before the telephone pole. Okay. It drive, it goes right to that back lot and it's cleared up there too. So that's why I was saying maybe somebody logged it at some point. Yeah. So that there, 's a pole there, but it's a sub pole, not a primary pole. So I could not pull power off that pole. [16:20] Chair (presiding officer): I was trying to picture it in my head what it looked like up in, I've never really driven up in there but I was trying to figure that I can't seem like it could be that steep up in there but [Speaker D (unidentified): So it's] Been a while I mean and that's not that this first lot is not that lot is that correct the first lot is the one you actually have something going on building on all the way [16:56] Christian Doyon (applicant): To the right so it's completely separate we're going to call that C from what we're talking about yeah you're right all the way to the left you'll see when you go out there like I said that I can obviously move the lot line. I have more than enough acreage. I think I'm, I don't remember exactly how many I'm over by. So I can put that turn around anywheres and redo the lot any which way. It was just, like I said, when you go out there, you'll see that where this lot is, [17:23] Speaker D (unidentified): Just the driveway gets a little steep. [17:24] Christian Doyon (applicant): Like the Casey has a hard time. There's some grading with the stone, you know, from water running down a little bit right at that point. That's why I was saying that in my personal opinion, and a turnaround a little bit lower would make more sense but I can put it anywhere just trying to figure out best management for erosion and things like that [17:55] Chair (presiding officer): So yeah so you need 5.72 acres you have 6.5 one yeah okay GREG BRUDNICKI Okay. Right, because it's 1.43, right, Stan? STANDIFIRD Mm-hmm. GREG BRUDNICKI Each, lot is 1.43. Is that correct? [18:11] Speaker C (unidentified): STANDIFIRD Minimum, yep. GREG BRUDNICKI Size. [18:17] Chair (presiding officer): Okay. Does the board want to accept this as a sketch plan? And we want to let, them come back with a preliminary? STANDIFIRD [18:36] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm okay with accepting it. I think we talked about all the changes that we'd like to see on the survey. That makes sense. And I think once we get out there, I think it'd be helpful to have that site walk can [18:48] Chair (presiding officer): We set a site walk on a sketch plan alone or should we set it on a but then somebody the neighbor not knowing what is the actual so [19:07] Speaker D (unidentified): You have to get go to your [19:11] Chair (presiding officer): Surveyor and get this revamped a little bit, and then come back to us. Can you come back at our next meeting on the 21st, and then we'll schedule a sidewalk public hearing? Do [19:30] Speaker D (unidentified): you need recap of what we'd like to see here? You've got, so just to confirm, the road itself is [19:37] Christian Doyon (applicant): private road standard? You've [19:41] Chair (presiding officer): got, you've got to build that to, you've got to build that to the, not private, not private. I think you're going to build it to the minor standard. Three houses on it, you have to build it to the minor standard for four hundred and seventy-five feet. So what's that? That's three inches of hot top, four hundred and twenty-five feet. [20:29] Christian Doyon (applicant): So it is still paint which is required on [20:32] Speaker F (unidentified): the private road? One twenty-five or one seventy-five. [20:36] Chair (presiding officer): So he can get frontage across the main road, so we can get frontage off 160 for 50 feet, and then he has to build his frontage back in. Is my correct on that? The well, it's actually a minor road that first section. It's my, so it's my feeling that we should make him build to the minor road standard for 125 feet on that for that back lot if he wishes to use those as the frontage. The rest of you think 21? So the only difference in that standard is that it needs to be paved. [22:40] Christian Doyon (applicant): Under the minor it needs to be paved? [22:45] Chair (presiding officer): Under the minor it needs to be paved. That's the only difference. And [23:02] Christian Doyon (applicant): you're saying I have to pave just the frontage for the back block? [23:06] Chair (presiding officer): Which is, you only have to actually pave 125 feet. [23:10] Christian Doyon (applicant): 125 feet? [23:11] Speaker E (unidentified): Right or [23:16] Chair (presiding officer): yeah, or any amount that you can create 175 feet of frontage for each of these, if each of the lots, I mean, you could, you could technically, it makes it harder just to go wider, so it needs to be 50 feet wide, and then you can use 125 feet of that, so I guess that's the best way to do it. The right away, the right away, the road needs to be 50 feet wide. It cannot be included in the acreage, in the acreage of the correct [24:07] Speaker E (unidentified): yeah, so I have the acres, I know that's not an issue, but [24:23] Christian Doyon (applicant): it, so what I'm questioning though, so you're saying 50 feet wide of a right away, but not 54 right road [24:30] Chair (presiding officer): that's right, yes, the right away, the right away, the right away means the right away is the actual area, yeah, that needs to be delineated for the road, yeah, and then the road itself only needs to be what, 22 feet, is this for exam [24:51] Speaker D (unidentified): what, so where does that say that front [25:04] Chair (presiding officer): so says private is 18 and minor is 20, so it's gonna be, so it's got to be 20 [25:15] Speaker D (unidentified): feet, is that correct, shoulders three feet, pretty much gravel [25:25] Christian Doyon (applicant): Well, that's what I mean. Gravel or hardtop. I thought that this was going to be private. Why are we moving it to a minor versus a private? [25:33] Chair (presiding officer): Because you're trying to use it as your frontage for the lot. And in order to have the frontage, you need to have- A minor road? A minor road. I think that's a pretty reasonable cost there to put in basically an access to two lots. But the lot, so if he puts an access off the other road, if he puts an access off this road this minor road he needs to provide a right-of-way to until the first lot to use that to use that land to use that land because the land is gonna go with the back lot so though lot a or one will have to have the right to use that property use that road yeah but it should be part of that deed because it could it couldn't yeah i think we're kind of saying that would be the better scenario anyway [Speaker E (unidentified): well we] we can't we can we can state that 's our that's our prerogative to state that in the in the review so i believe as part of reviewing that we could make that make that request so make that part of the condition so does that clear it up, are you? [28:34] Christian Doyon (applicant): So you're saying that you want the driveway for the lot on the left to also access the right-of-way? Is that what I'm understanding you guys are saying? [28:47] Chair (presiding officer): Yes, unless for some reason, which I don't believe from my recollection of the property, that would be burdensome to have the driveway off that lot. lot because I think the land's pretty well sloping all the way across so I don't think that [29:04] Christian Doyon (applicant): would be a problem yeah it's not it's it's not a problem you know for the lot itself the what I'm trying to so I do a lot of affordable housing so I built another house down the road that was an FHA single mom a couple kids the house I'm building here is a multi-generational home it's just all these you know I thought that we're this is going to be a gravel road going and that's why I was asking about that by tiring it just increased the cost my expenses to you know pushing me out of trying to do affordable housing when these things add up if i have a driveway coming off this right away now on this first lot that means there's now three houses acting that accessing that lot and then when the knights want to use that access in the fourth house at that point does it go to a major and now he's looking at a huge road upgrade because of the requirement of putting the driveway there versus route 160 which the state of maine already said they were fine [30:08] Chair (presiding officer): with i mean i'm just asking these questions i don't see that being i don't see that being something that you have to really be concerned of and i'm not sure why it would make any extra cost so we'll look at it when we go on the sidewalk and go from there but i think when you put the building envelope on it i 'm pretty confident from my recollection of the property that it wouldn't hurt to have the driveway off the off that road on the on the left there so do [30:43] Christian Doyon (applicant): you have the box all staked already? I didn't have a stake. No, just because I didn't know if there was going to be a lot of changes. So my understanding, like I said, let's just do this [30:52] Speaker E (unidentified): for preliminary and then once you get the next set of plans. So [31:06] Speaker C (unidentified): length of each lot, building envelope size of each lot, including the right-of-way or not including the right-of-way, lot one and lot four, and then the hammerhead if you can include that and draw you [31:30] Christian Doyon (applicant): want the hammerhead on the back lot, we [31:33] Chair (presiding officer): decided would it be at least on the back side of the lot? It should, it really should be on that back lot somewhere, and some that's where they're going to need to get turned around at the end of that, towards the end of that road, because if there's, unless the driveway came off, I don't know. All [Speaker D (unidentified): right, so] you're all set with that, you can help him get through and get the information to us for the next meeting. All right, so I guess we'll go with that one, thank you. The August 5th meeting minutes are, what was that for? It says final transcript. What's that, what's the August 5th meetings, meeting minutes? Or is that something, this is final transcript of, what did we do on August 5th? Do we want to make a motion that we approve the meeting minutes for August 5th? Second. Okay. All in favor? So we're waiting on a corrective plan for one of the other subdivisions. Stan, are you ready? You stay within the proximity of the building, you can get punched in the morning. I [34:39] Speaker E (unidentified): don't have cell service. So first thing that I have is to recap Brian Austin and he did send, which I sent the board, his summary or inventory. He's saying that he currently has 30 vehicles on site, and he also said in the artist fifth meeting that he would do his used car sales if that's what the board wanted to do. The concern is with that many vehicles and there are more than 40 is whether or not he has an automobile graveyard or a junkyard, and I try not to combine those two because a junkyard is a little more vague. than an automobile graveyard. So but my recommendation is if we can coordinate with Brian is to have the board do a site walk so you can actually get a view of the entire property and what I see and then you can form your own opinion. But I think at the very least is he does hit on the gray areas that he does have used car sales law. He doesn't actually do some of the extensive sales and processing of the titles that most used car sales lots do, but he is selling them for other people. So again, 40 vehicles being serviced at one time to me again doesn't jive, but I'm not a service repair person. But I thought if I had 40 vehicles in my yard, they're all being worked on, I'd probably be broke before I get to the first one. But I just it's there's a lot of vehicles. There's been a lot of concern from a lot of people going by there that there's an excessive amount of vehicles. Again, my opinion is I'd like the planet board to coordinate a site walk and actually see what he's doing on site. He does own the property it's all one property but if you go up further and to the right brian lives there 's some more vehicles there that's his hobby AREA, BUT THERE WAS THE LAST TIME I WAS THERE, WAS 10 OR 12 VEHICLES SITTING THERE AS WELL. So what [37:25] Chair (presiding officer): I'm trying to think how the board can conduct a sight walk without an application or. [37:37] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, you're actually reviewing something because they originally had a used car sales as well as a service auto repair shop. They took the used car sales out one, they might have decided they weren't going to do it anymore, but mainly because at the time the process going through the planet board, the planet board had a bad reputation, so nobody really wanted to do that two-year renewal. And so I think with all of the stuff that you guys have done in the past few years and tweaking and organizing and being consistent, that's changed that reputation. But again, it is what it is. And I don't mind, and Jay is also, or Brian rather, has also offered in the August 5th, and it's in the meeting minutes, if we wanted to take a walk or you wanted to see what's there that he would do so. [38:43] Chair (presiding officer): So I guess I don't I don't mind taking a walk and basically we're reviewing an existing conditional use permit. Yeah. Okay, that will be our authority to do that. [38:57] Speaker E (unidentified): Again, it will help me decide whether or not there's a significant change from what the conditional use is now. He did add a bay. I didn't feel that it was significant, so that didn't go back to the planner board, but he did increase his business to that extent, but the quantity of vehicles and what's happening there may, on an overall opinion, raise some other concerns or questions or maybe even a different type of regulation, but it's going to be more consistent. [39:33] Chair (presiding officer): We asked him to kind of keep track of the vehicles, on-site vehicles, and you said that, is it 60 days? Is that the, what's the time a vehicle can be on-site? [39:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Temporary storage is 180 days. At 180 days, if it's still sitting there, then under the statute, to all fluids and hazardous materials need to be removed from the vehicle or the vehicle is going to be removed. Did you send us that list you said he sent you? Yes, yep, very small print, but that's what it looks like it. [40:29] Chair (presiding officer): Seems like we need to track that somehow really carefully, and then that's an awful lot of work for you. I'm just trying to figure out how to, that's probably my biggest. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT, WELL, I'VE GOT TWO CONCERNS. ONE IS THAT DOES HE HAVE AN AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARD, AND TWO, IS HE DOING USE CAR SALES WITHOUT HAVING A CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW? I MEAN, HE'S CERTAINLY GOT WAY MORE VEHICLES THAN WHEN I'VE REVIEWED THE CONDITIONAL USE PROGRAM. [41:01] Speaker E (unidentified): Right, yeah, and in the past the conditional uses for service garages, it's been a limited amount of vehicles that can be there in one given point in the front yards or whatever, but my biggest concern here is unlike uptown auto, which is on a impervious surface which is paved or concrete, creek, we're on an impervious surface here, and that impervious area has been expanded too, so. [41:35] Speaker D (unidentified): So why. [41:38] Chair (presiding officer): Don't you make contact with them and see if the board could maybe propose some times that we could meet? [41:47] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, maybe before meeting or early enough before it gets done before you. [41:57] Chair (presiding officer): Start for a meeting, I'm fairly flexible, but I know other people have jobs where they need to, so what, once you reach out to them, see if you can find out when we could do we. [42:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Need to advertise that? You only need to post that you're having a SIDEWALK. IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO ATTEND, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GO, BUT YOU ONLY NEED TO ‑‑ WE CAN JUST POST IT AND ADVERTISE. [42:30] Chair (presiding officer): IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT. [42:33] Speaker E (unidentified): TIME CHANGE IS COMING UP. I'M SORRY? TIME CHANGE IS COMING UP. YES, IT IS. SOONER OR LATER, I SUPPOSE. SO WE CAN START AN HOUR EARLIER. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THE NEXT SUBJECT IS -- AND I'VE had many,, many conversations with Mr. Girard regarding 41 Range E Road. Again, and I did get confirmation today that Eric Hamlin has spoken to Stillwater, and Stillwater has received information from Mike Lalonde. But repeatedly, I have asked for something more solid, whether it's a piece of paper or a Lalonde survey or whatever of progress being made. So I haven't gotten that as of yet. He has not done anything on the spillway or the stormwater runoff because, again, Stillwater has had previous commitments. Mike Lalonde apparently has done the survey with the elevations, but that's an ongoing thing and he is aware that there was some leniency as long as progress was made but he also referred to in my last conversation that he would do the spillway in the spring so I find that he is in violation whether the plan board concurs with that but this seems to be a habitual habit that it's but we'll wait another month we'll wait another month and then we end up into next year so there has to be in my opinion something more solid something either in written commitment from stillwater or sean gerrard to hold him accountable for but he did agree that he would get it done with the WHAT WAS IT, 60 DAYS, THEN 90 DAYS, AND NOW WE'RE INTO OCTOBER AND POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT SPRINGTIME BEFORE SPILLWAY IS DONE. [44:51] Chair (presiding officer): SO STAN, WE GAVE HIM 60 DAYS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN. WITH A PLAN, YEP. AND THEN THE TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION? [45:01] Speaker E (unidentified): WAS 30 DAYS AFTER THAT. [45:03] Chair (presiding officer): SO 90 DAYS TOTAL. Yeah. Okay. So we're past the 60 days where- We're in the 90 days now. Okay. So the way I see it is the board issued findings that gave you 60 and 90 days as your deadlines and Sean's deadlines. guidelines. At this point, he has not met those commitments and he's in violation of those commitments. It would seem as though our options are for you to issue a notice of violation and at that point, you can negotiate with them on the details to come into compliance. But the only way the board can change the condition is to reopen the findings, to re-advertise and re-hear the case from Mr. Gerard and we're already under an appeal on this thing. So I don't feel that we should open that record at this point, unless we're advised by the lawyer to do so. Well, [46:39] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm glad you brought that up. But again, the notice of violation at this point does, well, the violation does exist. So the notice of violation and the only way I can either he completes it to mitigate the violations or satisfy it or he has to enter into a consent agreement which is binding and then if I end up in court then the town will do it and then at his cost. So that's the only way that I can foresee resolving this part of that. But since you brought up the other issue, Sean Gerrard and the attorneys haven't talked. They're going to be talking this week. Ben was out for over a week, so he's just gotten back on Monday. But Ordway and Ben will be talking. talking, Sean is willing to drop the appeal with the condition that Aaron ceases being partaking in anything to do with either of his properties as far as decision process. The other condition is that the plaintiff board drops the fence. But again, as Aaron has just mentioned so I don't have to explain that the board would have to reopen it would have to go for a new public hearing and that process on those two subjects would have to be done legally there is nothing that would be binding there is no contractual legal agreement or anything that could be done to force anybody to recuse so that is a process that you guys did very well the last time it is something that each and every one of the board members has to consider whether or not they could be closed-minded or not open-minded or pre-judged or decision-making before any process is done so that you guys did so you cannot the town cannot and there is no court that can force any one individual to recuse permanently that 's something that's done at each meeting and that is something that each and every one of you do on your own but the fence again it's going back to aaron being a relative of an abutter and aaron preferring it but the fence was there before and in the minutes I find that the notice of decision the conclusion of law and the minutes of support what you guys decided to do and I think it's very solid and I agree with Aaron at this point without legal advice I would not budge and if that's the condition of the appeal being dropped I don't see where it really has any legal stance. It's more of a negotiating tool and we've already tried that route many times. [50:00] Chair (presiding officer): Marilyn, in the end, I'll give you a second and we're going to go through. Go ahead and finish your report and then I'll give Marilyn a minute. [50:09] Speaker E (unidentified): But so that is it on 41 Range E Road again, you know, the other subdivisions or the sub, the subdivisions on hold until we get more solid information and accurate mapping. Black Bear Burgers, as you've seen in your communications, they're lacking a new revised subsurface system to comply with the new subsurface laws. I did speak with the site evaluator to make sure the only exception to an external grease interceptor is if it's unreasonable. So with that being a pumping and I know the property I asked the site evaluator, he said it is not unreasonable, it actually would fit perfectly in line between the foundation and the holding tank. So they have to comply with that before you can move forward with that. [51:10] Chair (presiding officer): So, do you think that they need to do the plan now or do you think that we can make that a condition of approval? [Speaker E (unidentified): Well, again-] I mean, it's one or the other, but if they wanted to come before the board and have us hear their condition of use application and make that a condition of approval, that is a possible way to do that? [51:46] Speaker E (unidentified): It is possible to do that. And again, that way they're not putting any money up front for a new site evaluation. We already know that it will be accommodated if they get it done by a site evaluator, but then they would have to install it before, so designed [52:06] Chair (presiding officer): and installed before, so that just gives, so let's say we start reviewing it and we come into some trouble, there's something that's not going to work for some reason, they haven't spent that money to do that, and so I don't care either way, but I, it seems reasonable that could be done. The other question I had was on traffic and do you? [52:39] Speaker E (unidentified): Main DOT did revise the entrance permit to accommodate a business, so that has been there. That I do have in the file. I just don't have a revised sub-circuit system, but I do know from the site evaluator that a external grease extractor will function properly there. [53:03] Chair (presiding officer): And adequate parking and turning and all that stuff, there's plenty of room, there could be plenty of room there? [53:11] Speaker E (unidentified): They do have some parking in the front area, but they can't expand because again, they're right on top of the river. It is, I don't know how much traffic they will generate, but if they had more than, I would say five vehicles on top of there too, they probably would be scrunching for space, so. [53:37] Speaker F (unidentified): I think there's some substantial flat land over there. [53:43] Speaker C (unidentified): And some parking behind the building. [53:47] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah, so but they'd have, they'd have to make a gravel parking area and [53:57] Speaker E (unidentified): They'd have to deal with the storm water, right, and they won't be able to expand too much of their footage because, again, they're they're on top of the shoreline and they're within the, well, they're going to have to go through Soccer River Corridor, too, but they can't expand too much further than they already are as far as their driveway goes. It literally drops. I [54:29] Chair (presiding officer): mean, I would expect they would have to have somewhere in the 10 car range parking. [54:35] Speaker E (unidentified): It would be very tight. That's just a guess. But there's a possibility beyond their house there is another area they used to have a fully contained motor home there while they were building the house so there is a little bit of additional space back there. Then Route Five, I want to give you 366 a coquist to give you an update, there is currently a violation now because he still has not done his water sample and he had ample opportunity to do so at this last storm event which would have been a perfect time to do so especially after the drought. So that is going to be, that is an active violation. There's ongoing issues that we will have to stop bringing up when we start reviewing, which is the concrete pad, and he has mentioned and committed that it would be done before the next two-year review and both the Select Board and the Planning Board, but right now there is a current violation with no water sample. Other than that I don't think I have anything else, Stan. [56:03] Chair (presiding officer): I have one question for you. Do any other communities require ground like well water sampling on site for junkyards or [56:25] Speaker E (unidentified): automobile graveyards or that? I've been looking into, there are no, there's nothing at the top of my head, but again I'm looking into whether or not that would be a reasonable request that the boards can do because it's been brought up at both board meetings and there is a concern. If you've followed this, several emails with Eric Hamlin and Mr. foreign, then you'll notice there's been a lot of conversation about the soils and the contamination. So if there's any doubt that the soil is not contaminated, you're fooling yourself. It's very heavily contaminated. The question now is what is underneath that pad, but there is no pad, it's broken and pretty much gone, but that's, but the soils are already heavily contaminated. The depth of soil samples that were done was not extreme, so was more surface soil sampling and the water samples that are being taken in a more not surface water but from the runoffs or the checkpoints so again the water samples if you had done it after this last storm event would have been a good prime thing because anything that's been sitting on the surface would have washed into the retention's area and to the outflows so but and i had that conversation with dep as well so [Speaker C (unidentified): Kidbury and Bucksport.] And the other conversation is in the bottom line which I have been preaching right along and it's confirmed is the town it starts with the town the town has the enforcement. So whatever we agree to, whatever we permit will allow other departments or other areas in the state or federal government to issue permits beyond that. So we're starting to hold him to the accountability and we need to do that because if you don't you're saying he's compliant and if he's compliant he'll be able to extend his tires which he's aware of if he doesn't maintain that well which he is not then when it comes for review the town has the authority to limit the tires to 2,000 right now with the size of that permit he could actually have 35,000 tires there at a six foot height level, not the 10 that he's permitted now. [59:21] Chair (presiding officer): So would this need to be an ordinance or is it something that I would think that would be something that the board could decide to do should we wish to? [59:41] Speaker C (unidentified): As in, it doesn't need to go to a town vote? [59:43] Chair (presiding officer): So as a condition of approval, we could do it, or it could be a town vote where all junkyards and all the graveyards need to have monitoring wells. [1:00:02] Speaker E (unidentified): There is different verbiage, but yes, Aaron is correct. Correct. The other thing that triggers water sampling and soil sampling is a transfer station or demolition. So there are criterias that will trigger those. And any changes in those does give each board an opportunity to reopen or add more stringent or even less stringent conditions depending on the circumstances. [1:00:40] Chair (presiding officer): Put that on your list of things to do. [1:00:42] Speaker E (unidentified): I got somebody with ants in their pants so I got to get out of the way before I get run over. [1:00:47] Speaker C (unidentified): Does the appeals board no longer have enough people on the pants? [1:00:55] Chair (presiding officer): I don't know yet. [1:00:58] Speaker C (unidentified): Just wondering if that's even on the table anymore. [1:01:02] Chair (presiding officer): Marilyn, did you still have something? Very short. [1:01:39] Speaker F (unidentified): Because you talked about issuing a notice of violation for the lack of having completed the SWEP plan and the get to approval and the construction. There are other materials within your conditional use permit. And I believe you should be including in your notice of violation because these are concrete. And I believe from conversations with Mr. Hackett that at least verbally, Mr. Girard has been educated. But you can see looking at the first three photos that there is a trailer within the fire lane that is persistently there and I think the criteria in your conditional use permit by discussion was 24 hours was the longest you should have anything in a fire lane. You can't see it, but right behind that trailer is something flat on the ground, and I just for one item, I didn't bring my computer in to blow it up, but you can see the outline of it if you look closely behind that trailer towards the west or left side of the picture. On the ground is a long, the first one, 10-4, but it is on the other 9-20 and 9-22. But there's something that's there. It looks flat. It's on the ground. I don't know if it's a portion of fence or what it is. And then there's the pile of wood that exists at the end of that lane, which at least when Stan and I talked about it, He said that was obstructing the lane and that has been there, that pile has been there all the time since the conditional use permit has been renewed. So that's pretty black and white blatant problem with what was put in your conditional use and wasn't given a timeframe. It started on day one. Equipment in the front of the fencing, which is the first 100 feet, that is, again, state statute that for a automobile graveyard, junkyard, you cannot have any equipment or material in front of that 100-foot mark, which is really the fencing on the left. For some reason, there was a big exception made on the right-hand side that as long as is behind the fence that's been permitted but the dozer is there you can see it on multiple pictures i know he was doing construction when you see the low bed there on the last picture but since then the he completed filling in his hole and actually adding more fill which is what it is but that dozer has no reason to be in that location there's plenty of land to put it somewhere else but there's also if you Remember on the right-hand side of the house, that is 39 Rangy Road, where this foundation is, that he has a trailer and I don't know what else is in it. Let me see yet trailers and it looks like a Comex box and a tractor. That is only 65 feet wide, I believe, Stan, that lot. And we talked about it, that to the right, that finger of projection of land comes from 41 Rangy Road. And so at least one of those trucks and probably one and a half of those trucks is in that 100 foot area. That has been there consistently also since you've issued the renewal and you can't see it very well but to the right hand side of the gate is another piece of equipment it's a snowblower I think I can't be sure but from what I can see when you blow it up that has been there also for months so that's a violation of state statute and I really believe strongly it should be in the notice of violation the gates open nightly and again state statute says that it's the operations are not to be within ordinary view so when he's not there at night or non-operational hours the gate should be closed it's also probably adds to safety and security so I don't know why it's not important last is a housekeeping issue which has been a conversation I've had with Mr Hackett and he's specifically told me that if you look to the right of the building in the rear there's a pile of material there that should have been cleaned up and that apparently has been discussed also Mr Gerard but it persists I don't know what how things are defined as to when it should be out of there and it's just junk because it is a junk yard that is more like construction demolition stuff because it's no longer functional and usable but it sounds like there was a concern by the CEO that I think should be put it put in writing in that notice of violation and that's the end of my misery for you guys thank you unless you [1:07:30] Chair (presiding officer): have a question I do not I didn't think so thank you thank you so anybody else anything for tonight our next meeting is the 21st of October I'll entertain a motion to adjourn no second I think we have the 21st is our next meeting right okay so Thank you and have a good night.