Gray Planning Board reviews 53-lot Durgan-Wood subdivision plan

[11:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Check, Charlie. Check, Charlie, can you hear us? Check, Charlie, can you hear us? There you go. Charlie, I've allowed your mic, so you should be able to unmute yourself. We can't hear you, Charlie. So up at the top there on your mic, up at the top right, you should have a mic button. Melinda, can you hear us? Charlie, you can hear us, correct? [Austin Fagan: I can't.] There we go. Okay. I can't. Excellent. Charlie, we still can't hear you. You are in, Charlie. We can see you. You are in. I can't. I can't hear what you're saying, so you have to take your [14:43] Speaker C (unidentified): mute button off, Charlie. Looks like you're muted. You are, you are in the [14:50] Speaker A (unidentified): meeting, Charlie. We can see. It sounds like we're going to get started. We have our quorum. [15:33] Planning Board Chair: All right, everyone. We're going to get started. Thank you for your patience. Are we live, Jordan? Okay. All right. Good evening. Welcome, everyone. On, I'm going to call the Thursday, October 8th Planning Board meeting to order. Thank you for your patience. We had a couple of Planning Board members that are remote and had some difficulties with the link and getting in, but we, and we need at least three to have a quorum to have a meeting, and we have that, so we can go ahead and get started now. So I'll start with roll call. David here, and Melinda here, and Charlie, are you able to hear us yet? Okay, so we're having challenges with Charlie, and I'm Dan Cobb. I'm here, so we have at least three, so we're gonna go ahead and get started, and we'll include Charlie if he's able to get in. All right, first up is approval of the minutes from the September 10th meeting. Did anyone have any comments or corrections? Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. Is there a second? Melinda, second. All in favor? Aye. That's an eye, and I heard an eye from Melinda, so yes, I from me, that is approved. Okay, next up, information exchange. Looks like Kristen, you had a few things the [17:34] Town Council liaison: Town Council had a presentation from GP cog the other night on October 6 on the new housing study, so I would encourage the Planning Board to take a review of that. It would be in the packet for the October 6 council meeting and is available to the public and to the board to take a look at the data they put together regarding current housing and housing projections for the town of Gray. The DOT will be in town on October 13 to host an open house on the village transformation project, so the Public's encouraged to come to that too, and I would also encourage the board. Last time they had the large plans set up in this room so you can really see what's proposed, and that can be a good time to be able to ask questions directly of them as well. And the council will have a workshop on October 20 to discuss some potential amendments to the growth management ordinance. Just as a heads up, that's chapter 409, the new growth management ordinance that was retained, but they may be considering some changes to it. And I believe that was all. [18:38] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, thank you. [18:40] Planning Board Chair: Does anyone on the board have any information to exchange? Anything from our council liaison? [18:48] Christian (Town Council liaison): Yeah, Christian talked about a couple of things I was going to mention, but I'll just add that the council did not adopt the new water quality protection ordinance that the resiliency committee spent two years working with the lake associations and town staff to create. That ordinance, because it was, it was defeated, it can't be brought up again in this session. The resiliency committee is going to take a look and have some conversations and see if some modified form can reach agreement with the majority of the counselors after the next council is seated next June. So that's tabled for now, or at least, you know, off the table for now, I should say. I think that's it. Okay, thank you. All right, we'll [19:33] Planning Board Chair: continue on. So new business, our first item is to approve the 2027 meeting schedule, which we got a copy in our packet, and does anyone on the board have any comments about the [19:51] Speaker C (unidentified): meeting schedule? Melinda and I just would say, I'm not, I do not know of any conflicts and will try very desperately to avoid conflicts so that I can be there in person and not have all of these teams shenanigans, but life happens. So I'm curious if they're offline, maybe I'll talk with Kyle and see if there's a way for this to be easier than it was today. So yeah, okay. [20:23] Planning Board Chair: So I had one thing for discussion, and if it turns into a lot of discussion, maybe we can table this until next month, but what I wanted to put out there for an idea for us to talk about is our meetings are scheduled for 7 p.m. And they have been for quite some time. The council, I believe, has moved to 630 start time, correct? That's correct. I wanted to propose that for us as well. We have hard-working staff like Kristen that has probably started her day quite early, and to hang on and have her waiting until 7, you know, I think it would be nice to get started earlier. Of course, we need to give people, you know, time to get home and have dinner and stuff like that, but when to hear what people thought about moving our start time up to 630. I love the idea of 630. [21:18] Speaker C (unidentified): Six o'clock would be Melinda. I like, I like 630 very much. I think six will be tough if I'm coming in from Portland, which I typically do on Thursdays, but I could totally manage 6 30, and I would be absolutely game for that. All [21:39] Planning Board Chair: right, so the question is, do we want to wait and hear from Charlie and vote on this next night? Oh, that's great. I'm, I can see everything, [21:47] Speaker H (unidentified): and I definitely would. 6 30 would be excellent. Okay, so I'll make a motion that we move the [21:54] Planning Board Chair: meetings from now on from seven o'clock to six thirty, and that we accept the schedule as proposed by the planner, and that we accept the schedule as proposed. Is there a second? I second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Hi, in favor. Just waiting to hear from Charlie. Yes. Okay, that's 4-0, so we've got a schedule, and we have a new start time. Okay. All right. So next up we have one item of new business, and this is a public hearing. This is a preliminary plan review of the Durgan-Wood subdivision. This is a request by Andrew Gervais of Durgan-Wood Development, LLC, represented by BH2M Engineering for Planning Board Preliminary Plan Review of a proposal to create the 53 lot phased Durgan Wood subdivision on the 144 plus or minus acre Gervais property at tax map 41 lot 13-20-01 to include a portion of the abutting 25.28 plus or minus acre Alex Rogers property at tax map 41 lot 13-20-02 off Ramsdale Road in the rural residential and agricultural zoning district. This proposal is subject to major subdivision review. Come back, thank you. So you've been here a few times, so we don't need to hear everything, but let's focus on in particular what's new and different, and as before we'll walk through the planners comments and the engineer's comments and try and do it in a stepwise fashion so we can make sure we track all the comments and all the needed changes. Sounds good. Start with an [23:58] Austin Fagan: Overview would be great, thank you. My name is Austin Fagan. I'm an engineer with BH2M out of Gorham here, representing Andy Jervis of Durgan Woods development and Alex Rogers. As we know, this is a proposed now 53 lot subdivision, the difference being a remaining land parcel that is being proposed still going for 42 cluster Lots and 10 conventional Lots, and as well as open space that is required for the cluster development. There are four roads that are still proposed that has not changed. We have gone through and done a full design of the project, the four roads being a connector road that would based on we originally had a loop road going from Ramsdale back to Ramsdale, and then based on staff recommendations we have designed the road to tie into Tamarack Way. I know the applicant has worked hard with some of the butters in order to grant access to that, so in order to limit the number of dead end roads in the town that connection is being proposed. The site has been reviewed by many sets of eyes in order to come up with this set of plans. There's been a high intensity soil study that was done by Mark Hampton Associates. Wetlands and vernal pool studies were done by Manley Soils. A hydrogeologic assessment and nitrate study was done by Scentsy Geology Inc. and a traffic study was performed by VHB. All of these reviews show that the project will not create adverse impacts to the abutting properties or the subject property, that being the nitrate study and hydrogeology looked at capacity of wells on the site and in the surrounding area, as well as how nitrates from septic systems will impact those, and it was found that they will not. Soils and wetlands were all reviewed to make sure that we're not impacting any protected natural resources or are within the guidelines of the impacts that are allowed from the state and the federal reviews. The project is not only subject to review by the Planning Board, but also the main Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers. I know something we talked about at the previous meetings was a big look at how traffic is going to impact this project. As I said, VHB did a traffic study of this project. They have come up with a conclusion that there will be no major impacts to either the surrounding area of Tamarack Lane, the intersection of 202 and Ramsdale Road, or any other area. The study found that in a peak hour, there would be a creation from the whole project of 46 trips in the a.m. and 59 in the p.m. peak hour. So this would mean an average of, you know, a car a minute in the p.m. peak hour, in the a.m. 17 of these trips would be directed towards Tamarack Lane and 23 would be to put directly on to Ramsdale Road. The intersection of Ramsdale Road and 202 shows a potential queuing increase of two vehicles in the peak hour. So from what there is today, it would anticipate that due to traffic loading there might be two extra cars in that line. No [27:39] Planning Board Chair: comments yet. There's opportunity for public comment and we need to hear the presentation for us. Thank you. The [27:48] Austin Fagan: traffic review was also reviewed by a third-party engineer that is contracted through the town and they agreed with the study that was performed. We have received comments from both town staff and the third party review engineer, of which you folks have seen. We plan to, after tonight's meeting, where we get the public's input as well as board input, to address all of those comments, make sure that everything is up to par on the requirements of the ordinance, and move forward in the meetings to come. I know there are likely a lot of questions that everybody has. I will leave it at that, and I will answer everybody's questions as best I can tonight. Thank you. All right, thank you. So we're going [28:40] Planning Board Chair: to step through all the details, but any initial questions from the board based on the new presentation? [28:50] Speaker I (unidentified): We have questions. Let's see, let's put these, are, I can get to the specifics when we [28:56] Planning Board Chair: get there. Let's do the specifics as we get to them. Sure. Okay, but I just want to say this was [29:01] Speaker I (unidentified): Because I've only been on this planning board for less than a year, but I was on another planning board for nine years. So this is the most detailed plan I've ever seen, so it's very well done. [29:13] Planning Board Chair: Melinda or Charlie, anything initial that you wanted to mention? [29:20] Speaker C (unidentified): I just wanted to mention it sounds like when it comes to the traffic, which I think everyone know yeah that's a hot issue for everyone. I'd be curious if the developer could explain if the two vehicles in the peak are I think everyone that we've heard from in the comments written comments is said that the current situation is a problem. So while I do appreciate that two vehicles in a peak hour seems quite small, if it's on top of a difficult situation that's unsafe, that still might be a problem. So I'd be curious to know more about the current situation that you know even two vehicles per hour would potentially be making worse. I think that's a likely a hot item for the public and certainly for me as well being familiar with this area and having yeah so that's the number one thing that I think comes to mind when I hear what the presenter spoke out. [30:23] Speaker I (unidentified): Who's that said that? So that's one of my comments that I got. So might as well say that on that. [30:29] Planning Board Chair: We're going to talk about traffic when we get to that. Okay. So I want to separate these out. We'll get back to that. That's my number one concern as well, by the way. [30:43] Town Council liaison: Mr. Chair, with the people here, can we speak a little bit to process? Process. We had some questions about timing of the subdivision and the approval process about it. If you want to hit that early, I just want to mention that just to make sure everyone understands. [30:58] Planning Board Chair: Why don't we do it when we get to public comment and then you can tee up whatever answering whatever questions you got from folks. Does that work? Yeah, [31:06] Speaker F (unidentified): Whatever works for you. Okay, let's do that. [31:09] Planning Board Chair: All right. So you, let's, let's start with comments first town staff so we're just going to walk through each one because there's probably points on each of them. So the first one is related to ram's railroad improvements and I think we aligned on all that in April. Is there anything in the in the comments the staff comments around the local improvements that you're opposed to are [31:47] Austin Fagan: You on board with everything that was stated? We are on board. We have proposed the ditch that was requested long Ramsdale Road in order to aid in some drainage and that has been added to the design plan. Okay perfect. All right now [32:00] Planning Board Chair: We're at the big one, traffic. So you have a traffic study that was completed by a professional engineer. Correct. And it was reviewed by the town's professional engineer. Correct. So I'm skeptical of it just based on gut feel, but I don't have the data is the data, but I'm challenged with the idea that there's going to be a minimal impact, especially at the intersection of Ramsdell Road and 202. Okay, it's it's on a curve, there's an intersection on the other side, left-hand turners coming from the Wyndham West Gray, and we're going to impede traffic on 202 with no real good or safe way for vehicles to get around it. Just, and like I said, I appreciate, I'm an engineer, but I'm not a traffic engineer, so I appreciate there's data and analysis and respect all that, but intuitively it just doesn't add up for me, so I need to hear more about why it's such a minimal impact. I think let's hear from everyone, so that's my comment on traffic. So David, let's hear, I know you want to talk about it as well. Oh, I was surprised when I [33:36] Speaker I (unidentified): heard that one to two vehicles per day when I see assist, I don't, this doesn't say whether it's daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, it just says trip generation estimates based on ITE trip generation manual indicate the development will generate approximately 40 trip, 46 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour, and that would be daily. Yes, you said two, one, two, so I'm not [34:05] Austin Fagan: connecting dots. So that would be queuing, so the line of cars that there may be at the intersection based on when people are coming and going, they predicted that there would be two extra vehicles in that peak hour in the line of cars that are there currently, so that are that are queued up to turn from Ramsdale Road to [34:23] Speaker I (unidentified): these accounts. So this is counting the total before and after. Yes, so it is [34:32] Austin Fagan: saying it will be there will be a net difference of two vehicles in the peak hour queuing in the road, so the difference in trips overall in a peak hour would be 59 in a information, sorry, 59 in the p.m. peak hour at 46 in the a.m. So that would be on average, you know, there might be a vehicle every minute within that hour. Or there might be a few during one minute and then a break and so on and so forth. I myself also am not a traffic engineer. I would be happy to take these questions that you do have and have the traffic engineer take a more specific look. [35:15] Speaker I (unidentified): at these areas as well. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. Kind of misleading, but it works. so another thing I saw I can't find it right now but I didn't mark it this is a 621 trips per day how much is that 's after the development and everybody else so that's only the development yes 621 trips a day which doesn't add up to those numbers I just gave you so where does that number come [35:53] Austin Fagan: from and how does that work? So a peak trip for a day is calculated using a more or less, it's a manual that was put together based on the traffic engineer handbook. They have done state and nationwide reviews of how traffic flows based on different residential uses, different commercial uses, anything you can really think of. The 621 would be total trips in a day, a trip being leaving or coming back. The peak hour trips, it's not saying that every like an hour is going to have the same amount of trips It's saying that in the worst case scenario there would be those peak hour trips of 59 in the p.m. Or 46 in the a.m. Not every, everything else would be anticipated to be less than that. Good. Yeah, okay Belinda [36:55] Speaker C (unidentified): So, as I've mentioned before, I think my main concern, and I think everyone that has ever tried to get in or out of Ramsdale Road, while one to two vehicles queuing doesn't sound like a lot, I have sat there for a very long time. And whenever you sit in a queue for a long time waiting for a safe place to pull out, it makes you behave in a more risky manner once you finally think there's a gap. And some better situation I think could be warranted today with no additional one to two vehicles, and I do appreciate that one to two vehicles doesn't sound like a substantial amount, but it's on top of a difficult situation. Did I guess what I'd be curious about, and it's interesting that our own engineer was also sort of unconcerned, but 55 lot subdivision is very large. I don't know how often Gray has even seen such a large subdivision. And I think while the engineer's input is certainly of interest and I did read it, I don't feel I'd be doing my job as a member of the planning board, not asking for more information and potentially asking for more mitigation for the situation on that intersection. I think we will be sorry if we do not expect and demand safe turning situation out there. It's difficult today, and while one or two additional cars might not make it more dangerous by some book, for the person who gets hit in a t-bone It will be much worse, and I am very worried about that. I don't want that, so I'm quite concerned about that intersection. Thank [38:51] Speaker H (unidentified): you, Melinda. Charlie? Yeah, I certainly agree with the comments from the other board members. I'm just looking at the, at our, at our memo and noting from the 2025 meeting you're saying a traffic study be key element, but we'd have to, we have review from public works and MDOT in terms, if we're looking at any other improvements, do we have that feedback, or would that not be unless we proposed improvements, if you propose [39:25] Planning Board Chair: something? Yeah, so we have, the applicant has provided a traffic study. The town engineer has peer reviewed it, yes. Town public works has not reviewed it. We certainly are going to propose is that, I think MDOT, I'm really not sure how much jurisdiction we have. We can ask them to review [39:48] Town Council liaison: it, but public works and DOT are not traffic engineers, so they wouldn't be reviewing the traffic study in the same way as your consulting engineer. This is saying they'd need to weigh in on if the board says we want a turning lane, we want an island, we want a light, something like that. 'S that's where we need to bring in other folks to review, if that's feasible, if it's, you know, appropriate proportionally and so on. That's what that note is with relation to. Okay, that [40:14] Planning Board Chair: answer your question, Charlie? Yep. Okay, thanks. I have one more question for you on the QA. Can you clarify when you mentioned an increase in queuing, so there's queuing and basically two directions because of right turn and it's not going to queue, so you've got people waiting to leave Ramsdale and you have folks waiting to enter taking left into Ramsdale, correct? Can you clarify specifically each of those two situations and the impacts? [40:48] Austin Fagan: Yeah, I can read from the report. Route 202, Ramsdale Road and to Rod Road intersection, under all scenarios, the Route 202 northbound and southbound approaches offer operate at a level of service A in both the a.m. and p.m. under all scenarios. Route 202 north, sorry, the Ramsdell Road approach operates at level of service C or D, which is the area that you likely see that there is queuing going on. So that's exiting Ramsdell. Exiting Ramsdell. Yes, sir. Indicating that intersection operates with the proposed development remain consistent and comparable to existing and no build conditions without degrading overall performance. So it's saying that there's no degradation of performance between a no build scenario and a build scenario. From existing no build to full build, the 95 percentile queues on Ramsdale Road increased by less than one vehicle in length in both the peak periods, and the Route 202 northbound queue increases by roughly two vehicle lengths in the PM peak hour, which is the worst of the two peak hours. So you're adding two vehicles queuing, yep, at the peak hour on 202, on 202, waiting to take a left. Exactly, and one in Ramsdale Road, yep, to take a left. And do you have numbers for [42:13] Planning Board Chair: how many movements are coming per hour on average from 202 onto Ramsdale Road? Let me, where I'm going with this is if you have two people waiting, by the time, on average, what I'd like to hear is when one gets through, how many more are coming down Route 202 waiting to get in. This is just intuition, but I feel like you can have a constant queue of left-hand turners on Route 202, which are basically gridlocking that intersection. That's again, I don't have data, it's just intuitively I feel like that's what's gonna happen, and I want to hear more about why that's not going to happen. [43:05] Austin Fagan: Absolutely, and I can get that information for you. I can have, I can reach out to the traffic engineer, have them do a specific review of that queuing for a total number of vehicles and so on. So I think you have what [43:22] Planning Board Chair: you're gonna to get right now from the board. I'm certain when we get to the public hearing you're going to get more on traffic, and I think my proposal would be that you take all of that feedback back and respond to it as appropriate. Yes, I am positive that people are going to be speaking to it. Absolutely right, yeah, so we got started and we'll hear more. So Mr. Chairman, yeah, yes. [43:49] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, I raised my hand in Teams, I wasn't sure how to, we don't have a, I don't have a video here on this end, so feel free to interrupt. Okay, what I just wanted to say is I think that it is worth considering whether or not it's possible to get a left turn lane on 202, which does not have anything right now, I don't think, and that's the biggest concern I have. Is it's one thing to be waiting on Ramsdale for a long time for your term to turn, to turn, but on 202, if you are waiting for a turn to turn, that Feels much more problematic have been the state of that road out there, so and anyway but [44:37] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, thanks for that thought. I have to admit I was thinking along similar lines, but I don't want us to get in front of ourselves. We need to hear the data first before we're proposing, like we're not going to propose solutions right now, we're just raising concerns for the applicant to address. [44:57] Speaker I (unidentified): Go ahead David. Yeah, I just want to make sure that I understand, has Maine DOT been involved in this [45:04] Austin Fagan: at all? I don't believe so, this traffic situation. I believe that the review engineer, the traffic reviewer, utilizes DOT information in order to come up with these reports. That being said, I'm unaware of any direct contact between them. [45:23] Speaker I (unidentified): Is that something that sounds to me like something that's pretty easy to do. [45:31] Planning Board Chair: Agreed. Just I want to pause for a second. Hey Jordan, do you think you could turn up the remote participants volume just a bit? [45:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you. I'll try to just a little bit, but we're right, we're right on the edge of feedbacks. Okay, yeah, bump it as best I [45:49] Planning Board Chair: can. All right, let's move on from traffic for now, so permitting, anything, don't think you have any objections here. I'm like just walking through the memo so [46:01] Austin Fagan: it's number three, everything good there, that seems accurate to me, and any [46:09] Planning Board Chair: concerns from the board? Okay, roadway, so this is all referring to the connection to Tamarack. It's probably a good time to hear a bit from you Kristen on this [46:25] Town Council liaison: because I know you did some work here. Sure, the so connections public streets are encouraged for your ordinance and the subdivision ordinance, so that was something we raised, they're not required but they're encouraged, so we're avoiding a town full of dead ends, which in this particular project offered that opportunity to do that, because Tamarack and Unlock are public roads and Ramsell is also a public road and they're abiding both sides of this property, so we did speak with the developers about that at the sketch plan level and they put a lot of work into speaking with the abutter to my understanding to come up with an agreement that would allow them to cross a little sliver to connect their piece in that way, so right now it is proposed as a through way like a full connection. I know there have been some concerns from some of butters who are here tonight who will speak to that, there are you know different options the board could consider if it's something that you definitely don't want to see that's something you're weighing of whether you want to apply that part of the ordinance or not to make connections or if you want both of you want their loop to go out with two connections to ramstel because they would need that they can't have a dead end that's as long as it was proposed so they would need some kind of loop with two exits whether it's ramstel tamarack or two on ramstel and part of that i believe includes some wetland impact which austin can speak to if you're going to switch gears on that. They have been to sketch plan multiple times where this has been on the books, so on the plan, excuse me, so that is what's proposed at this point. The other options would be potentially to have it as a, maybe an emergency loop rather than a full use, or somehow restricted, or other options that the board might want to consider, but that is that. And I have been advised for legal we would not need to go through the amendment process for Ridgeview Forest. So it's a town road and they'd have that easement. So that piece would be, would not be an additional step. There would be some discussions that we need to happen between public works, you know, temporary construction easements, temporary possibly, or other considerations about the right of way. And that's something the engineers could deal with. So the big picture question is what's before you tonight and in the future. [48:54] Planning Board Chair: Okay, thanks for that summary. So for me, I'll start on this one. I certainly understand and appreciate the town's desire, the interconnectivity. I'm going to withhold any comments or opinions. I'm very interested to hear from folks here in the audience what their thoughts are, particularly anyone that is on Tamarack and might be affected. So I have no comments on this at that time, at this time. It's not, yeah, nothing. Charlie, anything now on that? You know, Melinda, same, withholding. Okay, what's your desire? Is it your desire to move forward as on [49:46] Austin Fagan: your plan? Yeah, so we designed the whole roadway connection based on recommendations from staff, and based on the current design we would intend to send it through that way. Okay, all right. [50:03] Planning Board Chair: We'll wait to hear more on that though. Okay, perimeter buffer, I think I felt like we had, yes, there's nothing new here, and you're all good with everything, correct, that we came up with previously? So I'm gonna keep moving unless the board had anything on the buffer. I feel like we resolved that at our previous meeting. [Speaker F (unidentified): Okay.] Open space, I think you did have some comments here, the common park area [50:44] Town Council liaison: is not currently delineated but in speaking with Austin earlier it's It's proposed as that 60,000-square-foot piece in the middle of that intersection? Correct. Turnwoods and Marcescent, I think, was proposed? Yes. So just labeling it as such and having the board confirm that 's where you're comfortable with having it and that you feel that it meets the requirements for the common open space. And the new ordinance requirement is in place now to have a 50-by-50 cleared area within that common park for residents to use. so just confirming that 's where you want to see it and you're good with it as proposed [51:23] Planning Board Chair: and that's where it's been, it's just that it's not labeled appropriately, I believe. So I think it's, there's nothing, right? Yeah, so I think I'll ask the board, but I think we aligned on that location last time I looked at it. Yeah, Charlie, Melinda, thanks. I [51:43] Speaker C (unidentified): just have a question as I'm looking at the plan here, there's multiple places indicated as well, there's the two places indicated as open space, one that's 30 acres and one that's 15, and then there's one that, another open space that's mostly wetlands that's 14.8, which is the one that they're planning to have be to sort of serve as that cleared space, the 15 lot one or 15 acre one, which I'm sorry [52:15] Austin Fagan: which is about 1.4 acres directly at the intersection of mercescent and durgan woods drive it's a small park area that we can propose that would be more centralized on the whole project and the remaining there is about 63 acres of open space being proposed and the rest of that would just be maintained as wooded area okay all right well i 'm at a loss [52:50] Speaker C (unidentified): here because I don't, I'm not quite landing on it, but I'm going to trust the rest of my board members if they're, if it's showing what we talked about the last go-round, which has been a bit, think I'm fine about that, the cleared space being sufficient and in a good location for service on the open space requirements. I believe that it does. Okay, then it does, I trust, and you [53:23] Town Council liaison: believe it does, right? Yes. Yeah, it's centrally located, it's enough space, and the overall open space exceeds what's required for ordinance, just confirming that it's the quality, particularly the topography, you can handle the, it being used as kind of a gathering space. I don't know if you can speak to that. I know it's a little bit hilly, I think, in the middle there, but [53:45] Austin Fagan: That's actually one of the flatter areas, more gradually spaced areas, which are more gradually sloped areas, which is why we had chosen that as a more or less common meeting area if people choose to do so, yeah. [53:58] Town Council liaison: That should meet ordinance one. [54:04] Speaker F (unidentified): Second Melinda, anything else open space? No Melinda, the other thing I wanted [54:12] Speaker C (unidentified): to just flag, which maybe we haven't gotten to that yet, is the trail that is on the open space. Yeah, it's gonna cover that next, that it's gonna cover later. Okay, well it's now because it's next, so go ahead. Okay, I think the biggest thing I wanted to flag is I think a hope on my part and in the interest of creating greenway, there's a really beautiful greenway right now from Thayerbrook all the way over to Hannaford, and this trail easement I would hope and want that it would allow all kinds of users. Multi, be a multi-use trail and not just limited to ATVs and snowmobiles, so that it could be passable by all humans, by foot, by bike, by ATV, by snowmobile, and that it would be cleared, and I think that just would make a really, that was my anticipation when we first talked about that, but it occurs to me that might not necessarily be what is being proposed, and that would be very important to preserve that connection for more than just vehicles that are motorized, that other users, cross-country skiers whatnot, could also utilize this trail. Absolutely, I don't believe there are any [55:39] Austin Fagan: objections to that, yeah. [55:43] Planning Board Chair: That's a good pickup. It's been sort of informally referred to as the snowmobile trail, but thank you for clarifying that Melinda. And one other thing I heard the applicant say, there's no objections to that, so it's a multi-use public access trail connection is the intent. And then [56:04] Speaker C (unidentified): one other thing about that is it looks like at least some spots it might need to pass over some wet areas, and if there isn't a bridge that bridges it, 'll it will, it will end up only being passable by snowmobiles if it isn't crafted initially to manage the crossing over some wetlands. There's definitely some very wet spots, some of it which maybe there's a bridge there now because there's a trail there now, and it's crossing over wet that's been wet a long time, but that would be the other question I have is, you know, what will be the developers commitment to ensuring that this is a trail that is actually passable by multi-use, and I'm really glad to hear that they're game to let it be open to the public for multi-use, so thanks for that. 's that's it on that. [56:59] Planning Board Chair: For me, okay, thank you. So yeah, my understanding was there's a bit of relocation happening with the trail, correct? And some of the relocation is [57:08] Austin Fagan: moving it to a wet area. That part is not correct. That's not correct. So the only area, and I was asked to stay in one spot, so I'm going to point from here. There's a red portion up on the upper left. There's Copper Ridge that comes up, and then Beachwood, and that name will be changing, but the only portion of the trail that will be changing is that red line. It comes up adjacent to wetlands but not crossing them. The only wetlands that are currently being crossed by the trail are towards the beginning of the trailhead, and there is an existing culvert that crosses, culvert and I guess land bridge if you will, that crosses over that area. Okay. [57:51] Planning Board Chair: So we're not, you're not creating any new potentially impassable trail, correct? [58:01] Speaker F (unidentified): That correct. Okay, and [58:04] Austin Fagan: in terms of part of that question or comment, I believe was responsibility of the developer versus whomever, and I guess we would look for board guidance on what you'd like to see. You know, we could clear a path or, you know, stump it, make it, make it passable. Would be open to suggestion by the board. I think the applicant's intent would be to clear it and leave it more or less a natural surface, but would be interested in hearing what the board has to say about that. I think that would make sense. There's also in [58:37] Planning Board Chair: the memo some clarifications around whether it's a formal easement, who it's to. Can you speak to what [58:45] Austin Fagan: your plans are there? There are no objections for who gets it. I know the Snowmobile ATD Club are the only people that have reached out to us, I believe, at this point. There may have been somebody from one of the land trusts that reached out during the original phase of the project. Like I said, I don't think there's any objections if the board would prefer it be deeded to the town, and the town can have their choice of who can access it and things of that nature, who maintains it. I don't really think there's any standing issues with that. [59:14] Planning Board Chair: Has staff considered that yet? We have. [59:18] Town Council liaison: We've spoken a little bit with the Open Space Committee. We have a couple members here tonight to speak to that for some input because they deal with that sort of thing. So they've been here tonight to speak to that. End. I think the preference per our discussions, I believe, was that it would be a easement to the town for that level of control, effectively like Austin mentioned, who can use it, making [59:40] Planning Board Chair: Sure that it meets the board's intent. Are you going to be looking for board input on that tonight or later? [59:51] Town Council liaison: Oh I think we've got time for that. Yeah it's no we're not we're not quite there yet but it can be approved tonight so right it's just something that needs to [59:59] Christian (Town Council liaison): be kind of on the list we're just gonna maintain. Yes point of information. Yeah I think I'll need to bring that as well to the council which I realize I have not yet done. Yeah okay all [1:00:13] Planning Board Chair: right any other concerns about staff comments on the material connections? Not at all. Street trees, so we may require them. None are proposed. I'm quite certain we're gonna be asking for them. Okay. At least I know Melinda will, and I will. [1:00:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, indeed. That's the main reason why I jumped on this call. I'm like, I've got a type for my street trees. Yes, street trees. Get [1:00:47] Speaker H (unidentified): get them on there Charlie input on street trees I will defer to you on that seems the other members are strongly in support so okay David I have no input no input okay so [1:01:07] Planning Board Chair: you have at least two that have a strong feeling so do with that what you will when we get towards [1:01:13] Town Council liaison: voting thank you yes point of clarification are you talking about the main drive only the Durkin woods road or all of all of them or do you want him to [1:01:23] Speaker F (unidentified): propose that I mean so [1:01:30] Planning Board Chair: we're referring to the ordinance for a 1 13 6 a 4 does [1:01:37] Speaker F (unidentified): that required on what's the scope of that I don't think it gets that specific it we can take it up yeah i mean i 'd [1:01:56] Planning Board Chair: say for now whatever the scope of that ordinance is where we would ask for them but I think we also need to recognize this is sort of rural and already wooded so it's not like we're this isn't like a field that isn't there's nothing so I think we need to be you know reasonable with what we're looking for here we don't need to reforest a forest. [1:02:22] Town Council liaison: Right, and the language is geared toward that where the proposed subdivision traverses open fields, the plan shall include the planting of street trees, shall include a mix of tall shade trees and medium height flowering no more than 50 feet apart. So I think that isn't intended for the areas that end up being cleared. So there's no specifics with regard to the road. [1:02:45] Planning Board Chair: I think we're not going to be looking for complete line of street trees but if you have less wooded areas or entrances land along Ramsdale things like that I think there's there's probably some key areas where [1:03:03] Austin Fagan: there should be some I think would be the feedback okay thank you yeah Mr Chairman [1:03:08] Speaker C (unidentified): The one thing I would add, and I agree that I don't need to have necessarily like trees on every single lot, and certainly to the extent that there's a tree of some significant age that can be preserved and it makes sense, but usually when you're building a lot like this, you know, you just clear them all, and while there's no field now, there like is going to be something field-like, and I just, I think maybe lean into your landscape architect or someone to sort of try and add a sense of trees along. Maybe not two per lot, maybe one, maybe not even every single lot, but trees are just really transform a space and are helpful in resiliency and cooling and warming, and it's just, I'd like to, I'd like to make sure that we don't just build a bunch of houses out here and not add any street trees, so definitely open to what makes sense, as the chairman said, we're not suggesting that you need to re-wood a forest that's already foresty, but building these houses is going to transform this space for sure. Thank you. Okay. [1:04:25] Planning Board Chair: Next up, the hydro, hydrogeological study, there's a request to clarify the number of dwelling units proposed, revised studies as necessary, is that, didn't work out, that is something. [1:04:41] Austin Fagan: That we plan to move forward with, we wanted to get all the staff comments, all the public comments, and work those all into a response for you for your next. [1:04:47] Speaker F (unidentified): Mission. Okay, so. [1:04:53] Planning Board Chair: This one is interesting, this has never come up on a subdivision application before, the concern around serving solid waste generation, never. [1:05:07] Town Council liaison: Seeing this, and all right, this one is, was large enough to ask the question, I do not have an answer for you tonight yet, I need to check in with John about that, but there is a provision to try to deal with a larger development solid waste wise if the transfer station can't handle it under the current contract or permitting, I don't know, I don't have an answer right now whether this project triggers that at all, if it even comes close or. [1:05:36] Speaker F (unidentified): Not, but I will follow up with that for you. Okay, do you have anything on that? Have you looked into. [1:05:41] Austin Fagan: That one yet? That is something that will be reviewed as part of the site location review with the DEP, it's not something that's been covered yet, we're waiting on a pre-application meeting with the DEP in order to start that part of the project. Okay, and then a few questions from. [1:05:56] Planning Board Chair: Staff around your plan on mailboxes, street frontage, and some notes about the phase one. Do you have anything there? Are you just planning to incorporate. [1:06:12] Austin Fagan: All that? Yes. We will add that onto the plans. In terms of a cluster mailbox, I guess that would more or less be the preference of the postal office, so we'll reach out to them and see how they would like to deal with it. Okay. And then for street frontages on the cul-de-sac, things of that nature, I know something we've done on other projects is just specifically listing what the frontage is for each lot, and that's something that we can also do for this project. phase one will need to show and that 's more or less just a plan update [1:06:44] Planning Board Chair: For future plans. Yeah, all right, so that brings us to the end of staff comments. Does the board have any comments or input on any of the staff comments? Or we all aligned to everything that's in there? Aligned. Not hearing any additional comments there. Okay, so next up is the consulting engineers review. So I'm sure you received that and reviewed it. Yes, everything that they asked for or [1:07:20] Austin Fagan: Do you have anything that you want to review with us? I believe that we will work with them. I know the purview of the vote, the board, is to make sure that the third party engineers is content with the design, so that's what we will do it [1:07:32] Planning Board Chair: Is, but I'll ask them as well, but that's the general assumption is that we're looking for what they are looking for. We're not going to overrule engineering judgments from the town representative, but I'll ask if we're aligned to the town engineers review. Oh yeah, I'm lying. Okay, not hearing anything from Charlie or Melinda, so keep moving [1:08:00] Speaker C (unidentified): Yep. Oh, go ahead. Agreed. Okay, I just wanted to just say yes, what you said. Yes, engineering [1:08:10] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, all of them need to be followed. Thank you. All right, thank you. So no waivers [1:08:17] Planning Board Chair: Thank you for that. All right, so this brings us to the public hearing. So this is a chance for the public to speak on the project, give the board any input as well as ask questions, or input or questions to the applicant. The way this is going to work is we'll hear from everybody, so it won't be a, it won't be a question and answer back and forth with the applicant, but what I'll ask the applicant to do is take notes, listen, take notes, and respond collectively to all the comments at the end. I'm sure There's going to be a fair amount, so and many may overlap, but do your best to address them tonight, and then obviously you need to take them back with you and respond as appropriate. A couple other process things, we probably should have covered this earlier, but just for folks that aren't sort of in tune with what's happening here at the Planning Board, so this is a preliminary hearing. Nothing's going to be approved tonight. This is, it's not the first time, but it's kind of the first formal time where we're getting close to a final plan. The applicant is proposing fairly large subdivision, and they're proposing to build it in phases. It's five going to [1:09:53] Austin Fagan: propose five phases, right? It's moved to four. Okay, yeah, the first phase was originally just to be lots one and two directly off of Ramsdale Road. In the interest of, you know, just getting the project moving, those have been added into phase two, so we're now down to four. Okay, and how many are in phase one? Phase one would be 15 [1:10:23] Planning Board Chair: months. So first step here is a preliminary approval of the entire plan, and then the applicant will come back. I don't think you're going to do it, you're not going to try and do it at the same time, are you, or are you? No [1:10:40] Austin Fagan: it's, we're gonna do phase by phase approval, right? So you're gonna, you'll [1:10:44] Planning Board Chair: come for preliminary approval for the entire plan, and you and they'll come back separately for a final approval of phase one, and then there's no more phases until phase one is complete, built out, and approved and signed off by the town's code enforcement and whoever else needs to approve any of the work, correct? So just that's for information for folks of kind of how this is going to happen [1:11:14] Town Council liaison: Anything else? I think the only other, I think key piece to understand about this is the, that it's a mix of both our cluster subdivision, which is our residential open space subdivision, and our traditional subdivision. So this project has some lots that are that meet the zoning ordinance in that area of 80,000 square feet or more, and there are some that are closer to 35,000 that are part of the cluster section that have the associated open space that's required. But if anybody has questions about that, we can talk after or during business hours, whatever works for you, but just so there's an understanding of that, this one is a mix, which is why you're going to see some lots that are [1:11:58] Planning Board Chair: Bigger than others. Okay, I'll just also note before I open it for public comment, we did receive two letters that hopefully everyone got from the board. One was from the gentleman that oversees the land trust on the other side of the road, and he brought up a number of points around open space and trail connections for the board and for the applicant to consider. Second letter was from a gentleman I think he lived on Tamarack of room as I remember right, and most of his concerns were around traffic volume and speed and safety at the intersections. So we have both of those in our packet, and I did want to acknowledge that we received them and read them. So with that I'll open the hearing to the public. Is there anyone that wishes to speak? Please step up to the mic, let us know your name, and hopefully in three minutes or so let us [1:13:01] Alice Gouge: know what you have to say. Yes, hi, I'll be brief. My name is Alice Gouge and I'm a member of the open space committee, and I just a quick comment based on what I've heard this evening about the trail and the proposed easement. I want to say thank you on behalf of the of the committee, and we look forward to working out the details as the process continues, and perhaps the chair of our committee would also like to speak, so I will hand it over to him. Thank you. Thanks Alice. [1:13:41] Al Schaefer: Thank you Alice. My name is Al Schaefer, and as we've already been told I'm the chair of the open space committee. I've been with the open space committee since its inception, and I forget when it was, a little while ago. I've been a Gray resident for over 30 years, raised two kids, went through Sad's 15 school system, a retired vocational education instructor. I'm a forester, and we trained kids for logging safety, heavy equipment safety, and truck driving. I'm also a GIS consultant part-time, but on behalf of the open space committee I want to express our, we appreciate the opportunity to offer input to the planning board regarding what happens in Durgan Woods, and also I want to mention that we appreciate Gervais, the company, setting up this easement and building it into your plans. The open space committee, as outlined in our open space plan, our one of our visions, to develop a system of parks, trails, and open space that contribute to Gray retaining natural habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and trails. And this is a well-established snowmobile trail. It's been there for quite a while, and it interconnects with a lot of other trails, not just here in Gray but other towns as well. Okay, we would like to recommend this easement be passed on to the town of Gray to guarantee public, continued public use of this long-standing trail. Other open space areas in the town of Gray, a majority of them are not available to the public, and if that were to happen here where the trail crosses the open space, that trail would no longer exist. Okay, be shut down in a short period of time, whereas if you stab it has an easement and town takes over, it would be there hopefully for perpetuity. And we realize too there's a lot of physical issues to be as to be dealt with in that trail where it is a snowmobile trail, which means it's been used in a winter time. There's wetlands and stream crossings and things like that, and I would like to express our efforts. The open space committee will be willing to work with whoever the town Gervais, whoever, to get this trail established and to work out arrangements as far as maintaining the trails. It's basically right up our alley. It's a kind of thing that we're set aside and meant to do, and I guess it just to what I want to say tonight is that we're here and we're, we're willing and able and looking forward to it. We have quite a bit of gis data available and we have a gis platform that we use to try to do stuff like this. I'm looking forward to working with everybody involved. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? First [1:16:33] Wes Libby: off, I'd like to apologize to the board for my outbreak earlier. My name is Wes Libby. I live at three Tamarack Lane, my wife Susan. My concern really based is on safety, I guess. I've, I've lived there for 43 years. I'm at the V, which would be where their connections going to come in to if they come that way, and my concern there would be the traffic. He's saying a car a minute. I can't imagine. We have kids on bikes, we have people walking their dogs. I just in, you've got a daycare center at the end of that road. To me that's just, that's a disaster waiting to happen to me. That's just the way I see that. I mean, I can't imagine a year ago I was out. I had to walk in the neighborhood. I had open heart surgery. I had to walk every day for a mile. I can't imagine a car medical by me. I just, I just can't. The other side of the coin is, that when you come out of our road, if you eat no matter where you connect, if you do the loop and you come back, you know, to ramps the road, you're still gonna have the same amount of traffic trying to get out to two or two. I'm here to tell I don't know where your survey is. I'm not disputing all I'm saying is I've lived here. I've been retired seven years. I'll tell you what I've sat there 15 minutes and I can't get out of that road and I was a plow driver for the town of Falmouth for 20 years. So I know what it's like to have to be deal with that kind of traffic but it's it's gotten to the point where speed has become incredible as far as 202 is concerned out of Wyndham they're all right the a left-hand turn and coming out of our road we have two major trees on the left that have been there for 43 years and you can't see past it and you can't see down that road. So no matter what you do the traffic is still going to have to come down that road. So it is a concern I mean again I guess the safety aspect of it meaning we're gonna have to is it going to be more you know the Sheriff's department are they coming through going to be more there than they are now CMP same thing I hate to tell you got a single you know you got a single phase line going in there 50 some-odd houses that's not going to carry it tell you that right now. So somehow you're gonna power out the yo-yo unless CMP comes in and changes out the way they have you know changes their lines. So you know these are just things I guess in my mind I'm more concerned about the safety aspect the kids the walking making [1:19:14] Speaker M (unidentified): that connection with Tamarack yeah I mean I just that [1:19:18] Wes Libby: to me doesn't make any sense. I mean the whole reasoning for me to move where we are 43 years ago was a nice quiet neighborhood very nice and yeah we have some you know the traffic has been added houses and stuff but this is going to be that's major to us. I mean that's just to me I'm submitting myself backwards so that the new development gets to get what they wouldn't need but I get you know kind of get the back end of it. I don't I guess I pay my taxes too so it's like that would be very flustered so I'll leave it at that I don't know like I said I get frustrated easy and I try not to be but that's an awful lot of you know some safety issues that I think that really everybody's talking about the land and this and that and that's all well and good but I 'm concerned about somebody's gonna get whaled and that's that's a bad traffic place there has been for years and it's just gotten that much worse you're gonna add almost 75 cars to it that's a lot of that's a lot [1:20:26] Speaker F (unidentified): of cars, so anyway, thank you for that. Thank you. I just wanted to know the guy [1:20:33] Speaker M (unidentified): that did the traffic count was like, where did he sit and how long was he there for? I mean, because if you aren't there for a couple of days at least to see what the actual back and forth traffic all day long, it's just unbelievable. I mean, the other side of it too is [1:20:52] Wes Libby: speed yes and i think it's been mentioned a couple of times people coming down ramster road coming off the lake if they come off the dirt road to hit the tar yippee i.o how fast can i drive from there by the time they reach ramster road i mean henlockville i mean we stick a nose out and you've got to stick your nose out yeah a good two to three feet because you've got the trees on the left-hand side you can't see you just can't and i 've i've said it in ns times just pray to god somebody doesn't get Tebow in a slam there, so but anyway, thank you for your time. Thank [1:21:25] Speaker F (unidentified): you very much. Go [1:21:28] Mark Fenton: ahead. My [1:21:32] Ken Timmons: name is Ken Timmons and my wife and I, Diana, own this piece of property right here. You guys talked about trails and that's all well and good, but that, we allow snowmobiles, the ATVs have been shut down, you can't get any place once you get beyond our property. The bridge is almost impassable, I went over it today with the four-wheeler, but I've already got people showing up from who knows where. I'm out in the yard working and people walking dogs, and I don't know who they are, and they all of a sudden take a right down into the field. And I go, where are you going? Oh, we're going to go this way. They go, you do know somebody owns this, right? So the thing that I have a problem with is 53 people with teenagers and kids all using this trail. That trail is going to get shut down if this gets approved. And I don't care about open space. The stuff that I find in the woods when I'm out there, it just, it's frustrating because I don't know any of these people. They just show up, I don't know where they're coming from. So we boarded this really close right here. The other thing I worry about is wells in the area. Everybody's gonna have a private well, there's no public water right as far as I know. So you got at least 20,000 gallons of water a day that you're going to yank out of the ground. There's going to be at least 17, 18,000 gallons of discharge for a three-bedroom home. If these are all working, where's the water coming from? We live up on top of the hill and you take a year like this year, you know, this is concentrated too. So all your nitrates, I know you did all your studies and that's all good, I've been a builder for 40 years, I've done all this, but everything's concentrated in all these Brooks all feed in. We've got a wildlife sanctuary right across the road, I worry about the wildlife. We fed 39 deer up to the house one winner nobody gives a thought about that. Just gonna clean everything out and put houses in. I hate to see it turn into Wyndham because I'll tell you right now, there's 685 permits that haven't been used yet that have been approved for in Windham. And this is where Gray's going. This is a agricultural, rural residential area, and I know you say you approve it, but it's supposed to be agricultural and residential rural, not a cluster of houses. So I know you spent a lot of money on it, but if I want to put 50 houses over here on this property I won't be able to do it because you guys all want to make it open space and you all want us to pay the taxes for open space but you don't want us to shut down trails and all that, the snowmobiles thank us every year for this for the trails, but what I don't want is a hundred people using it, coming up next to the house. I've seen vans parked down on our road. We don't know who people are. They get out, they start hunting. You put 53 homes in here, you know, you think about when somebody shoots a rifle at a deer and they don't know that development's there because some kid's playing with white clothes in the woods. So I worry about the wildlife, I worry about the trails and the impact of the people. That traffic study is not even close. And you're gonna have more accidents at the end of Ramsdale Road and the state will make you put a light. And on any given day that traffic is backed up a whole the way to house. Going that way and it's Russian roulette getting out of that road. We do it a lot so, you know, this work needs to be done. If you look at a family, a three-family home, if they've got a three-bedroom home, if they've got any teenagers, that's four cars. There's 200 vehicles coming in and out of there. And you're right on the straightaway. And you've got a park right across the street. So I just worry about impact and what it's going to do to the water, to the pollution of all of these wetlands around here. You've got septic systems everywhere here. I know you did your studies and all that wonderful stuff, but my well went dry this year at home. It's been a really dry year. In a year that we get rain, like we had two years ago, and it rained six inches in one thunder shower a lot of these places are going to be swimming so that's my [1:26:48] Planning Board Chair: take on development all right thank you very much anybody else wish to say [1:26:56] Christian (Town Council liaison): anything Kevin [1:27:03] Unidentified public commenter (Johnson): Johnson live at five Hemlock Lane several concerns to be honest more that have come up just sitting here but I guess I'll start with the traffic reiterating what's been said 202 and Ramsdale is a hazard now if you're coming from Wyndham turning left onto Ramsdale hold your breath cross your fingers and it's not it's either the cars coming behind you 're gonna hit you or you also you can't see cars coming the other way either you know you might be able to see the first car but if there's a line of traffic you're you're gambling turning in there and then getting out you know there's two three cars you know busy times already getting out of Ramsdell Road someone said it may have been Melinda about doing things that you're not my wife and I do it all the time not if the kids are at the car then we say to each other I wouldn't have done that if Amelia wasn't sitting in the backseat or if she was sitting in the backseat I wouldn't have done it so that's a major concern Ramsdell I think Everybody knows that coming out of Hemlock there's was there three mark oak trees this big around you cannot see again you're you're gambling every time out of that road to add all this traffic coming down there either coming out if you're connecting Tamarack coming out of there plus coming down those trees have to go honestly regardless sorry if you guys like but they have to go regardless if you put a development in or not like it's dangerous I'm surprised nobody's killed themselves so that's A major concern as well there you know I'm myself and Mark and Kim there are the two houses on the end of Hemlock if we're connecting Tamarack it's so much extra traffic if they're coming through all there through there I don't I'd like to know why it's necessary other than the town has a you know ordinance or whatever saying that they like to not have dead end roads that doesn't mean like why do we have to have our lives changed dramatically just because we don't want to have a dead end road You know it changes our lifestyle the way we live you know my daughter my son are the kids that they're talking about going down the hill there riding their bikes going with their friends they both have kids that live on the friends that live on the other side of Ramsdale they have to cross Ramsdale every day to see their friends another issue if you add that extra traffic there it's already dangerous enough for them going across we'd like them to be able to keep that neighborhood feel that we Already have without adding in such a large development right next door. So again, those are some of my concerns there. Again, he brought up the water sewer septic system issue. You know, I grew up in Portland. This is a subdivision you see in Portland where you have public sewer, you have public water. it can support that sort of thing but you know what 's happening to my well what's happening to everybody else as well when we add all this extra development into the area I can't you know I haven't visited every residential area in gray but I can't think of any place where there's a development like this that is not on grace public water system that comes to comes to my mind I made sure there probably is one but i can't think of it so again you know what are those impacts going to be don't Want to jump around here, but I did remember one other thing about the traffic. The study was done in May, I believe. I'd like to see what the study looks like in July when there is significant traffic from the lake and the summer, you know, summer traffic from Massachusetts also going fast. I'm sorry, I know everyone is very interested and [1:31:45] Planning Board Chair: engaged on what's going on here. I need only the person at the mic to speak so I [1:31:51] Unidentified public commenter (Johnson): think a big, you know, another study I think would be important during the summer months, you know, July peak time frame, because there is a difference, there is a difference from, you know, winter versus the summer lake traffic coming through. So all major concerns, you know, I'd say the safety and then just the connection to Tamarack. I don't, I'd like to understand why that's necessary outside of just the town likes to have it, you know. I understand if there's an emergency need or something like that. I mentioned it when I walked in, you know, can it be, can it be gated access or something like that where, you know, yes, there's a way to get through, but it's only if it's, you know, [1:32:44] Planning Board Chair: absolutely necessary. Thank you, thank you, appreciate it. Anybody else like to speak? [1:32:53] Speaker F (unidentified): Come on up, let us know your name. My [1:33:00] Mark Fenton: name is Mark Fenton and I live on the corner of Hemlock and Ramsdale. My concern was what, how is it going to impact the town? Are we gonna have to buy more school buses at a fire department, fire trucks, ambulances? Who's gonna pay for that? Is that gonna impact our taxes, which I'm sure it would. So that's the questions that I have, so that's it, thank you. Come [1:33:33] Speaker A (unidentified): on up. My [1:33:40] Kim Penton: name is Kim Penton. I own two properties on Ramsdale Road and I own a property on Hemlock Lane, so I have three properties. Two are rentals which have children in them that can only ride their bikes in the yard. Ramsdale Road is a speedway. We tried to walk down Ramsdale Road, you can't, you can't walk down Ramsdale Road anymore. I've lived there for 46 years, I built my house there so my kids could grow up. My daughter lives in one of the houses on Ramsdale Road and it's dangerous for her to come out of Her driveway, it's dangerous for us to come out of Hemlock Lane. I mean, you have to inch out to get to see who's coming at 60 miles an hour down Ramsdale Road. You take your life in your hands. I go out at six o'clock in the morning to go to the gym, and it's the same way. And in the summertime, with the people going down to the lake, wherever they come from, I know they're enjoying their time, but it's, it's, it's, you take your life in your hands. You really do. And to have more cars from all these houses that they proposed to put in there, what's going to happen with the new Fairbrook little place that they put there for people to go in there and walk their dogs, or and those people coming out, trying to get out onto Gramsdale Road, it's horrible. I mean, even the school buses, you see the school bus going down the road, and they all go so fast. It's a 30-mile-an-hour zone. It's like a speedway. They just paved it, so now it's even worse. It was great with the bumps. At least they slowed down. But it's very dangerous. It really is. Thank you, and I hope you all consider probably than I need. [1:36:01] Planning Board Chair: Anybody else wish to speak? [1:36:07] Speaker R (unidentified): I just got a quick question about we're on the other side of Mountain View going up through, and I know that when Ramstow Road gets really busy or there's accidents or anything going on, they have everybody go down around Ramstow, which is all private drive, very. I grew up here, I rode my horse there every day, and it was all dirt roads before Tamarack and all that was even built in there, and I could canter all the way around the lake, no problem. So I know that change in 45 years has really been tough, but now when the traffic pattern with this much development going on everywhere since, I know, 45 years, there's no place for them to get out. So they're going through private drives, and they're ended up around, our camp one time had what, back to back people because Ramsel Road was closed, and they put them all down through Mount View Road, and it's just not made for that. And so they had big trucks hitting the side of the corner and taking out electrical wires. There's just no place for them to turn around if there's an accident, so I know safety is an issue in both sides, Mountain View 2 and Campbell Shore, so I just want to say that too. Thank you. Yeah, anybody [1:37:32] Planning Board Chair: Else I see a couple more. All set. Okay, I will close the public hearing then. Austin, I'll invite you back up. You have a lot of input. I think I'm gonna ask you to answer every question. I think some of them are gonna take some research. Absolutely. Probably a couple in particular. I think you could answer, if it comes to mind, the question around the process of the data, where the data came from, would be very good. One of the gentlemen made a very good point about the time of year that the data was, that your input to your model was collected because the summer traffic is, I think, significant. Absolutely. So at least those are two things that stood out to me. Yeah. And you may have, hopefully you're taking a lot of notes and what you can answer now to provide feedback would be great. Sure. I'm really, I'm hoping that you're willing to spend some time, I'm sure folks have a lot of detailed questions and that I'm hoping you will share your contact info with them and be able to have some one-on-one conversations that facilitate progress a lot [1:38:58] Austin Fagan: Yeah, quicker and easier than in this formal setting. Yeah, something I think would be beneficial. You know, as you know, there's a lot of hands that come in to put these projects together. I am more or less bringing everyone together in order to put a product for all of you to see. I think it would be beneficial to have the traffic engineer here to speak to all of you directly so that you know me, I'm not up here just seeming like I'm talking about something that I may not have all the information on. I would plan to do that the next meeting. I can, I can bring forward all of your concerns to these people in terms of timing of the, you know, the reviews, things of that nature, looking at some additional areas, and then get it straight from the horse's mouth, if you will. There is a lot of concern on traffic, completely understandably, and I will not downplay that, and I think that the, qualified party should be the one to ease your concerns and take additional review to it. So that is more or less my thoughts moving forward on traffic. If that's all right with the board, I think that's fine. I [1:40:10] Planning Board Chair: mean, you've heard from us, you've heard from the neighborhood, and what you're hearing is conflicting with your report, so we need to resolve that. Absolutely. I mean, you have real life [1:40:23] Austin Fagan: Experience that you're hearing here, so absolutely, and that's to be considered. We will absolutely reach out to the traffic engineer, have a another look taken at this, and see if we can come up with information for you folks. So in terms of the trail, it seems like Mr. Kimmons correct, there is a lack of want for additional foot traffic being brought through the site. So that's That's, I guess, more or less an issue with the wants and needs of the planning board and open space committee and conflicting with an abutting property. There's not much in our hands for private landowner rights, so that's difficult to deal with standing out front of you. I don't know if there's some sort of a... I understand not wanting people on your property. [1:41:23] Speaker R (unidentified): There's been no discussion with us either. [1:41:29] Ken Timmons: We got the letter a week ago, fresh news of this whole development. [1:41:34] Speaker R (unidentified): So we didn't know anything about it. [1:41:35] Austin Fagan: Yeah, and it was brought up at another meeting about reaching out to everybody. And that being said, this is really the way for the public to figure out about the project. It's an iterative process, if you will. You said you're a developer, sir, so I'm sure you know the process of it. We're bringing this project before everybody in order to give you some initial information. We take your concerns, the town's concerns, a third party review engineers concerns, and we put this all together in order to come up with a clear concise picture of how this is going to affect everything and how it's going to be handled, and we plan to continue on that path moving forward. So if you know if there is a path forward to work with both yourselves and the town in order to have responsible use of the trails, I'm sure that's something that we could all get together and talk about, but once again it's a private landowner rights versus wants of municipality and different entities. Yeah. [1:42:35] Planning Board Chair: I'll just add a bit of context for the abiders on that point. As the board, we can only review what's in front of us as a proposal, and when they came forward there was a recognition that trail was a long-standing trail major, you know, connector through town, and from our perspective we didn't want this project to be the one that broke that connection. So we asked them to maintain it. Of course it has, you know, imposes nothing on anyone else along the entire trail, but our desire was to do our part in Reviewing the project that's in front of us and worked with them to not hopefully be the ones that closed it down. I certainly understand any of your concerns, and those are separate and different, and we have nothing to do with them. [1:43:36] Ken Timmons: I'm going to throw up. I've had two dogs come at me from a guy walking one time. They almost bit me. I mean, I'm out in the woods working. [1:43:43] Planning Board Chair: I get it. I'm just saying that from the board's perspective in reviewing this project, which is all we can look at, we ask the applicant to maintain the trail. So that's some context since you weren't involved earlier. And that's, that's fully up to you, but we're asked, we're going to be asking the applicant to maintain it, and they've offered to maintain it as open, and we hope there's a continued connection, and we have some great folks from the open space committee that are here that would desire to maintain that, and we've worked hard with the snowmobile trail, snowmobile club, so hopefully it can all work out, but our piece is only this project, so thank you. I'll leave that at that, and you know, I hope you all collaborate together to come up with a solution. Any [1:44:46] Austin Fagan: other responses, Austin, for now? You know, there was, there were multiple comments about septic and wells. As it was stated, there was a hydrogeological assessment that was done looking at both groundwater quality and quantity based on the draw and requirements of output for nitrates from septic systems, drawn wells, drawn the aquifers in the area. All I can do is rely on that information from those professionals. I understand there's concern, there's these are adequate, not adequate, these are real concerns. That being said, like I said, for most of, most of these projects we're bringing these professionals in to do their reviews. Their reviews are saying that there will be no adverse impact on the aquifer or, you know, nitrates going on to abutting properties, and that is what I have to rely on. So in terms of the oak trees on Hemlock Lane, that is, it sounds like an existing issue that they need to be taken care of. I'm not sure if it's within a public right-of-way, if it's on someone's private property, things of that nature, something that could talk about with landowners, Public Works, things of that nature, in order to try and get some better site distances there if necessary. [1:46:13] Town Council liaison: Could I just briefly, the folks who are talking about the oak trees and the site distance, if you could please leave me your contact information before you leave, I will, as staff, I'll follow up with public works on that and confirm whether it does, that would be a town, a town issue, whether or not this project ever came to us, that's something we need to follow up on. Yeah, well I'll follow up with you separately, so I just make sure I get your contact info. I [1:46:53] Austin Fagan: think we understand the, you know, just going through more traffic concerns, that will be addressed. In terms of more public infrastructure for, you know, safety, taxes, things of that nature, realistically, these homes coming in will be assessed. Their taxes will be spent on things. I know more children in the school system doesn't necessarily equate to just those people paying for it, but it is the nature of the beast, if you will, of any new homes, whether it be in a subdivision, the lots that are split with no planning board review, if there are more houses there may be more children and things of that nature, in terms of speeding, school buses, more presence of police. It sounds like there may also, there may be a need right now for more police presence if people are going 60 miles an hour down the road. And rather than, you know, it's good to have this aired on a public forum so that, you know, potentially there can be some additional enforcement brought down to your area in order to slow people down and discourage speeding, whether it be non-summer months, non-Massachusetts people, or whatever was brought up. But completely understood. The buffers, so the minimum buffer along the perimeter is, in areas adjacent to existing homes there's 75 feet that would be left completely wooded, if this, so this is your property right here, there's about 700 feet between the nearest lot and where your house would be or where your property line would be, and then in areas with no current, no current houses it's 35. That more or less brings me to the different questions that I think were brought up. We know once again traffic is a big concern, we will Take a second look at that. I'll have the professional engineer for that portion come and then speak on behalf of what their review was. And I think moving forward, we would need direction on are we where we're getting access for this project. Like I said, we have put a significant amount of time, resources, and effort into making that connection based on staff requests, and we wouldn't really like to leave it to [1:49:41] Planning Board Chair: be in limbo. Mm-hmm. Well, we'll return to that one. Okay, any other? I [1:49:52] Austin Fagan: think that more or less covers. Okay, I think right now, yeah, and I'll just add a bit of [1:49:58] Planning Board Chair: context for folks as well there. All the feedback is important and relevant. Unfortunately, not all of it we can consider as the planning board. It's just not our purview. So you know, the questions around like school impacts and things like that, 's it doesn't, we're not able to consider it as a planning board. There are real impacts and they're true and they happen, but what we're given are a set of ordinances or laws or much kind of like a judge, and the applicant is able to submit a plan or an application to the town, and it needs to be in compliance with the ordinances and the laws of town has, and then our role is to judge whether the application meets those ordinances or not. So we may or may not agree with what are in the ordinances, but that's what we have to work with, and that's what we have to judge it to. So I would definitely encourage you to, if you have questions about the ordinances or how things work, reach out to Kristen, and she can help explain some of those things like speeding for example. Obviously very important, very detrimental, not something that anybody wants, it happens everywhere, but it's not a decision point for us and judging the application of that makes sense. It's it's a concern and it needs to be addressed through a different Avenue than the Planning Board. It's just not our just not our jurisdiction. So if you don't see more conversation about certain things, don't, please don't feel that you weren't heard or understood. It's just that we can, there's only certain things that we can consider that are within our within our scope of jurisdiction, so please understand that. [1:51:59] Speaker I (unidentified): May I add something to that? Sure, go ahead. So these concerns that you have for our speeding goes and the trees that are in the way, like maybe adding sidewalks, like the chairman said that's beyond our scope, but it's not beyond the town council scope. So I would encourage you at one of the town council meetings, have them add that to their agenda that you can go and speak, or you, I think they allow you to speak, and you could just bring up those concerns there, which is a more proper place to bring it up, because we really don't have any power or control over those. So that's what I would do if I was on that road. I'm surprised that with the amount of concerns you have about traffic and speeding that you haven't already done that, but I highly [1:52:51] Planning Board Chair: encourage you to go see the town council about that. Thank you. All right, awesome. [1:52:57] Christian (Town Council liaison): so I wanted to say council meetings are the first and third Tuesdays of the month normally started 630 and there is a public comment on non-agenda items so anybody's welcome to come speak you could speak about traffic then sorry [1:53:11] Planning Board Chair: Thank you. Perfect. All right, I didn't want to return back to the connection. So like I had said, I appreciate and understand the town's desire to maintain connections and public safety and access and all that. However, I also appreciate and feel that it is extremely unfair to folks that have owned properties on a quiet dead-end road for a long time and being turned into the access road for a new large subdivision of being that connector. I don't feel like it's something that anybody reasonably signed up for when they moved there, and my initial thought is at a minimum this would be like a gated Knox box kind of situation that's available to the town for emergency use only. I don't really love it as like a main access point. It's kind of my, where I'm at right now, but I would like to hear more from the rest of the board. I know basically everyone kind of deferred until after a public comment. Hmm, like to hear Melissa's. Okay, yeah, first she's very good at this. Melissa [1:54:44] Speaker A (unidentified): is no longer in the call. All right. [1:54:48] Planning Board Chair: Well, Melinda had comments. She, I'm not sure you can get them after the fact. It's interesting, we've not, she could probably provide them in writing, I think, to the board. You could probably provide them via email. So let's ask her to provide her feedback in email to the board and the applicant on that. I think that would be a reasonable way. That'd be [1:55:13] Austin Fagan: great. Thank you, Charlie. [1:55:17] Planning Board Chair: Or David from Melinda, I guess you can write an email after her if you want. I guess I could, I mean, soon we need to, we need to give them guidance because, you know, unfortunately they put some investment in this direction at Towns recommendation. I've never really loved it, and I believe, but I don't remember, that I stated it, and unfortunately we didn't have really any public participation up until now at any of your meetings, which is really unfortunate for you because I kind of knew this was going to be a big deal, and folks that lived on the road started to engage, but I recognize that we owe you an answer on a direction because it's a big swing. I would just add that, oh, Charlie's here, sorry, I didn't realize you weren't here. Yeah, go ahead. [1:56:22] Speaker H (unidentified): I was just saying that, I mean, if we have sort of the ability to go in either direction, I certainly want to consider the impacts on the, on the folks who are living there, and I mean, I don't think that the original plan even wanted these connected, so I mean, I would, I would be inclined to listen to the feedback from the residents that did not want it. Thank you. I'm [1:56:56] Planning Board Chair: sure. Have you, we don't need to get into design here, but you've probably thought of alternate entrances that [1:57:05] Austin Fagan: don't include that connection? Or no, we originally had proposed a second access on Ramsdale Road. As one gentleman had said, it doesn't really change the traffic condition on Ramsdale. If a gate would be an option, I'm sure the applicant would move forward with an approach like that. I'm not sure if the board would be comfortable with, you know, com, having us have a conversation with public works, things of that nature, try and get it worked out from a, actual functionality standpoint, or I can help follow [1:57:50] Town Council liaison: up on that piece if that's the board direction. I just think, but we have been a sketch plan four different times with this shown as a connection. I think, I recognize, I recognize [1:58:00] Planning Board Chair: that we need to be fair to the applicant. Just one second, that, you know, they've been here several times and it's been on the plan each time, but this is a big deal for the people that, you know, signed up for a certain way of living. Yeah, so I'm kind of at a, it should be gated for emergency access only. I'd like to see if I can explore that. It's [1:58:35] Speaker I (unidentified): just, yeah, I like that, it's good recommendation. I just want to ask Kristen, why did the staff feel that Tamarack was the best option? Well [1:58:46] Town Council liaison: Feelings, my job is to apply the ordinance, and your ordinance in the town, Anna Gray, encourages connections to the public roads and to not have the dead ends. So Tamarack Hemlock is a dead end right now. And this is one of the opportunities I spoke to earlier where there are public roads on either side of this parcel where the development would happen. So looping it to both the public road of Ramsdale and Tamarack is an option here and looked like a way to meet that part of the ordinance. [1:59:17] Planning Board Chair: So it's in our ordinance to promote loop roads instead of multiple dead ends. And since Tamarack abutted, it made sense from an ordinance standpoint to propose that they interconnect to it. [1:59:30] Speaker I (unidentified): So if we gate that, you're saying to gate it at the connection they have currently? [1:59:37] Planning Board Chair: I'm proposing it would be like a public works access kind of gate. Okay, so that would have like a key box that only fire rescue can access, so it's not, it's not that it wouldn't be used for day-to-day transit by the new residents, but if there were some fire emergency, if the other entrance were blocked off, Public Works could open it for temporary access for people to leave, things like that. Any other input you need from the board tonight? Nope, if I [2:00:23] Austin Fagan: may, is there a sign sheet for everybody that was here tonight so that we can get [2:00:29] Planning Board Chair: I'm not sure everyone used it, but I would encourage you to hang out in the back with your plan and put a paper out. Yeah, I'm sure they'll be happy to give [2:00:39] Austin Fagan: you their contact information. If everybody wouldn't mind stopping by the back table on your way out and put down your name and your email addresses, it would be greatly appreciated, that way we can, so I guess that would also be a question for the board. I know that everything we do based on this project is supposed to be seen out front of the board, so it's public record. Is there an appropriate situation to do a like a workshop if need be or something like that, or should we just be having all communication through the board? I mean, I would [2:01:12] Planning Board Chair: you can work on the plan as much as you want on your own, like it's the review that's, that's public. So I would encourage you and everyone that's interested, the more work that you do with them ahead of time before engineering work goes into what they come back to us with, the better for everybody, because you're more likely to get what you want before it costs them money to engineer something that you don't want and it comes to us and we're in this public forum again and they've already done work And it's, you know, the ball is rolling. It's much better if you can spend some time with them, work it out ahead of time as much as you can, and then get to a point, you know, everyone's obviously not going to be happy about everything, and it comes to a point where it comes to us, and if it meets the ordinances, it meets the ordinances. But I know we're gonna, we've heard loud and clear from the residents on some very important issues, and we're going to represent that understood vigorously. [2:02:19] Speaker I (unidentified): Yep, thank you. I had one more thing, that's the charity, it was a, it was about the wells, so I wrote, I wrote these notes down, it, I don't have a question for it. I just, well, maybe one. So four lots are at two gallon per minute. Four wells are at three gallons per minute and one well's at one gallon per minute. I think there's a two in there too. [2:02:42] Ken Timmons: There's not enough there. [2:02:44] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, one gallon per minute? I'm pretty sure, somewhere along my life, I'm not an expert by any stretch of imagination, but it was like four gallons per minute. Might be okay. With the one gallon per minute really struck me as odd. [2:03:02] Austin Fagan: So that all depends, it wells are unique on where you hit veins, things of that nature. You can go deeper with wells, the more, even though you have a low gallon per minute, if you have a lower gallon per minute, you need to have a deeper well so that there's more of a volume of water to draw off of. That's all something that's, that's done by the professional well drillers, you know, fruit. You don't know what you're gonna get out of the well. I have a well that gets six gallons per minute, my neighbor gets 50 gallons per minute, it all depends on the veins you hit, and they have, you know, formulas they use for how much water you're going to use in any given time, how deep your well is going to be in the available capacity of that water, so that's really something that gets taken care of after we've made the realization that there is an aquifer in the area that can support that many wells, depending on, you know, volumes of the wells, so it was it was part of the hydrogeological assessment okay [2:04:04] Planning Board Chair: Before you step away, I'll just remind you there was a long list of items that clearly need to be done to meet ordinances and laws that you're at, you taught that at the end of the demo, right? Yes, so we don't, we don't need to go through all those. It's related to fire protection and all sorts of things that you know you need to do, so yeah, just go ahead and do them. Sounds good. All right, I think that's it for tonight then. You've got a lot of input. Sure do. Please go off and consider it all and we'll see you back here when you're ready to come back. Thank you for your time. All right, thank you. Appreciate everyone's time and your patience with the late start and all the comments. We don't often have lots of engagement from the public and it's important and he's your man, so work with him to get what you can. So I think that's it for tonight. Do you have a motion to adjourn? I make a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. I just wanted to clarify.