Kennebunk Planning Board Schedules Site Walks for Three Housing Proposals

[0:55] Bob Janice: Good evening. I'd like to call into order tonight's meeting of the Kedemunk Planning Board. Today is Monday, September 28, 2026. The first item on our agenda is a sketch plan review for a major subdivision at 22 to 28 Water Street. A proposal to construct 22 dwelling units. All right, I'll turn it over to Hannah, and then we'll hear from the applicant. All [1:29] Hannah: right. So the board has seen this application once before back in May, provided some comments to the applicant, and they are back in front of you tonight, hoping to get the board's blessing to schedule a site walk for the application. there are have been some slight modifications to the plan but overall very similar to the first one that you saw the applicant is intending to request a reduction in the landscape perimeter buffer which is something that the board did discuss at the last meeting and will be a topic of discussion tonight other than that there was some discussion in the applicant's application about the presence of scotsman 's brook partially on the property or directly adjacent to the property which i spoke about in my memo a little bit. Other than that, I will turn it over to them for their presentation. Thank you. Got [2:36] Mary Cost: it. Push on. Got it. Mary Cost again, I'm with Bernstein Sure. I'm going to be really brief. I was just asked to speak tonight to provide a little context, particularly with the discussion around the perimeter buffer. So I wasn't at the last meeting, but as Hannah noted, there was a bit of a discussion last meeting about that 50-foot perimeter buffer. And when I was talking to my client about it, I thought it's a very unusual provision. I mean, I do a lot of work in a lot of towns, and you don't see this very often. And we have some minor revisions to the project, and Catherine's going to walk you through those after this, but I just wanted to provide you a little bit of context, especially in view of the state legislation that's been coming down and how this buffer, I think, is going to soon be not able to be applied, but we can talk about that. So with regard to housing, there's a lot of mandates that have come down, and they're encouraging dense housing development and growth areas such as this downtown business zone where this project is located. So the requirement of the 50-foot buffer for multi-family housing does run contrary to the direction in state law to allow dense housing and growth areas. Fortunately, your ordinance does allow for a reduction in that buffer, and as Katherine will show, the new design does maximize that buffer wherever possible. So a couple of comments about specific provisions of state law that I think either are either currently in effect or will be in effect in July that you should really consider when thinking about this project. The first is Section 4364A regarding the allowance of up to four dwelling units. Specifically, we know we're talking about more than four dwelling units here, but I also want you to think of the context of sort of what could potentially go on this property. There's a couple of different scenarios versus what was being proposed. So with the up to three to four dwelling units, there's a specific provision in the law that says that the statute prohibits towns from establishing dimensional requirements for those three to four units that are greater than dimensional requirements for single-family housing units. So if there were three to four units proposed on one of those lots, you wouldn't be able to, and that would trigger multifamily housing because it's three to four units, but you wouldn't be able to have a buffer because that's a dimensional standard that doesn't, that you don't apply to single-family housing. So under that circumstance, you wouldn't have a buffer at all. I know that's not this circumstance, but I'm just trying to set some context for what's going on in state law. And then the other provisions to consider with regard to affordable housing. So affordable housing on a project like this and a site like this gets the two and a half times the density, and also next year we'll get a height bonus. It gets a height bonus of 14 feet and up to, which is up to 55 feet maximum, but in this zone it's 40 feet, so they'll be able to take full advantage of that and go up. So just I just want to lay the ground of like the full context we're talking about and what is possible here under state law, and I do think this is very reasonable considering all the different options that could occur on the slot. So thank you very much. [6:03] Catherine Lerman: Hi, so I am Catherine Lerman with Archetype Architects. I spoke with you back in May when we looked at this project initially. I will try and speak more slowly tonight. We did make some revisions to how we were laying out this townhouse grouping. What we're looking at is a partial reduction of the buffer ask that we had before. Rather than saying we don't want to work with all 50-foot buffers, we want to go down to all 20 foot. We were looking at addressing each side of this differently because there's nothing in the zoning that says it has to be one or the other. So if you look at it now, the discussion as it went in May, people seem pretty comfortable with the idea of the reduction up on Water Street. So that one we're maintaining the ask down to 20 feet. It sets up that street wall that we talked about quite a bit. We're also still maintaining it at the back of the site, the rear, where we have quite a bit of grade change, which helps to separate us from the other built structures that are back at that side of the property. But when you get to the neighbors on Water Street, we already had the 50 foot buffer from the one side, which is still showing us 50.38 feet where the drive lane goes. On the other side, we've removed a townhouse so that we're up to 45.38 feet at our tightest point there. That's also over by Scotsman's Brook and keeping the required setback from Scotsman's in place, but we will speak to that. We have a civil engineer tonight with us to speak to some of the site elements as well. So what this does is it addresses the neighbors. It's still minimizing the wetland impact, although we will also speak to the fact that our access road does go over a little bit of the wetland, so Steve Bushy will speak to that a little bit. The other thing that it does for us, talking about the limitations of the site, when you have this many housing units, we have to get fire truck accessibility in there. This allows for movement within that site where a fire truck can make the turning radii and still get back out with a single curb cut. If we were to push these buildings more closely together, we would have to make a second curb cut on the other side for that fire truck to exit. So if we talk about site limitations and asks for Setback, we do have a wetland which we are trying to respect as much as possible, neighbors, which we have added more buffering into respect, and the fire truck access. Next slide, please. I'm not sure, so again, this is just a 3D graphic that was modified from the last time showing that idea of the townhouse style architecture, which we believe is more harmonious with the surroundings than other styles. It approaches the street appropriately. It allows us to take our parked cars and hide them within the site rather than place them up at the streetscape. It also creates a courtyard within our site allowing us to green it up, and it, that allows also a comfortable separation between the townhouse buildings themselves. Some of the other things that were discussed last time, obviously there was the discussion about not reducing the buffer, so we started to do some investigating. What does it mean to maintain a 50-foot buffer around this entire site? We were also asked, are you going to include any affordable housing? And as Mary said, there's legislation that has been approved that's going to go into effect next spring, which not only encourages the affordable, but it gives us other ways that we can achieve density on sites like this. So if we go to the next slide, this site could go to a large box building in the middle, maintaining that 50-foot perimeter around it. It's still maintaining the 25-foot setback from Scotsman's Brook. And if this is using LD 2173 and LD 4364, which through the affordable housing move give you an increase in height, an increase in density, and it also decreases your parking requirements. Next slide, please. So this is not a design by any means. This is a quick graphic just to show where moves are going in these growth zone areas in terms of what the state is encouraging in terms of allowance for density. We are still interested in our townhouse proposal here tonight, but we just wanted to talk about how you maintain that 50-foot buffer and you still get density. Next slide, please. At this point I'm going to hand it over to Steve bushy. He's a civil engineer and he's going to speak to some of these site aspects that I was asked about last time and I don't have the knowledge to speak to, but we also had a formal survey done since the last meeting that map everything good. [10:34] Steve Bush: Evening, the board. Steve Bush, you with the LJB Inc., formerly Girl Palmer, up in South Portland, and Catherine has said here we have new boundary and topo survey done by Collier's Engineering and Survey for us, so that is helpful to lay out the area. The topography going from the back of the site, which is high, comes down towards Water Street, so towards the east side, we have the Kennebec Light and Power, I believe, site, just a couple of sites over. There's several residences as well to our east. Each of these four lots has a structure on it today. And as we go to the west, where Scotsman Brook is located, and honestly, I had looked fairly hard online to find out Scotsman's Brook. What is that? Where is it? And so forth, until I finally found it on your Shirlian zoning map, which it clearly identifies it there. So the question mark, though, that raised to me when looking at the Shirlian map and then reading within the ordinance as to the definition of streams and then within the Shirlian map as well, if I'm reading the map correctly, identifies a blue line, which Scotchman's Brook is labeled as a blue line, as a perennial stream, and I looked up the definitions within your code as well. Well, perennial streams defined as a blue line that would be showing up on a USGS map. So I looked up the USGS maps, and at least the maps that I found online didn't have anything for Scotsman's Brook showing up. That's not to say that perhaps when your shoreline zoning map was done in 2009, I think, roughly, perhaps USGS maps were there. I didn't go that deep into a dive to find that. So, jurisdictionally, I guess I had a bit of a question mark there. We had wetlands mapped here by Longview Partners. So Bill O'Connor works with Longview Partners, established wetland scientists and so forth, and probably done a fair amount of work here in Kinnemunk. So they did the delineation there. I suppose there's a question mark, because I think out of the staff report, a question as to the total size of the wetland, and I'm assuming that is trying to establish, well, off-site area included, would that wetland area exceed an acre or not? And I don't have an answer to that. My gut says probably not. I think we have about 6,200 square feet on our site, as you can see. So that's considerably less than an acre, and we'll have to confirm and verify that offsite acreage or size would not bring this to over an acre total. So we'll figure that out, but assuming for the moment that it's not over an acre, as I understand it, there wouldn't be much for jurisdictional pieces there. We'd like to keep wetland impacts still though to as little as we can. Right now I think the concept plan that Catherine just presented had less than a thousand square feet of wetland impact just on the edges there for our driveway and so forth, so we'll continue to work with that. I think that wetland, as best as I can tell topographically, and the reason it's there, is that there's development activity just downstream of it, so to speak. From what I could tell today, just arriving here before the meeting, the flow of water is going down, reaches the pavement of the light and power parking lot staging storage area next to their warehouse, a couple of catch basins down to Factory Pasture Road, I think it is. So that's where the water would flow, and we would ideally, in the sense of a design development, you have to design for that stormwater management and the like. We have over an acre of area here, so that will have to come into play. Back to the Scotsman's Brook piece, though, we do have a 25-foot setback from that under the terms of it being the regulated shoreland zone area. I suppose the question being relative to, well, it's on the map, but is there a mechanism if we say, well, we're not quite in agreement because a stream has to be a perennial stream showing up on a USGS map, and this does not. Longview Partners, in responding to my request and question to it, said it's a man-made ditch and we don't qualify it as a regulated stream. So I don't know the history of Scottslands Brook. It obviously shows up on your mapping, so I'm assuming that there is a history there. I'm just reading through how things are defined and happy to be told perhaps more background to that. But to Catherine's point about the layout, abiding by the 25-foot setback is something we could probably do without too much of an issue there. It just is interesting to understand more as it relates to when I read the Shirlian map and then I read the definitions, how that all plays out. Understanding right now that Water Street has good public utility access for water, sewer, and power and that sort of thing, so that's all traditionally something that is in our favor relative to development capacity. Capacity, but again, on the civil engineering side, we'll have to deal with some stormwater pieces. We'll have to deal with the topography at the back of the building. If you look back at that concept plan, we have a line of townhouses that are against the backside. We've got some relief to deal with, but I would expect that foundation designs and the like will deal with that to overcome the topography that is on the back of the property. So I think we can work through all of those pieces. I think there's some refinement and better understanding, at least on my part, about the Scottsman's Brook piece, and then firming up our wetland area to confirm with you folks that yes, we have less than an acre there, and nonetheless we will do best practice and our best effort to try to minimize wetlands, as is good practice. So that's where I stand currently on the civil engineering side of things. Thank [16:55] Bob Janice: you. At the end of your presentation, well, it's nice to know what things may be coming down the pike. We have an application before us, and we have zoning ordinances on the books that we have to follow, and so that's what will guide us on this project, and not whatever future changes the zoning ordinance may happen to the ordinance due to state legislation. So unfortunately, that's where our hands are for that. So based on that, board members have questions about this sketch plan. [17:44] Ted: I'll start with you, Ted. Thank you very much. The, I recall the last meeting we had, and we had several issues. This is a very environmentally sensitive area, and there's real drainage issues. And we talked about all of that in the first time around. And so in this time, I was looking for substantial changes that address those concerns. And I haven't really seen them. The landscape reduction, for example. And we have one map that's been given to us in our paper, which is the layout of the townhouses. And there were a lot of other maps we saw up there. So it's a little hard to, without having had a chance to look at them, to look at the real results of the soil survey. I mean, real drainage issues here. And I think also you might find that there's a real issue with calling the Scotsman Brook a drainage ditch. That's problematic for me. Me. I have so many questions on this. I think that the best way for me to look at this, Chris, is that you've got to have a site visit to understand when you're talking about reduction landscape behind it, when you're talking about the drainage issues which are severe and setbacks, and to actually see that in place. I really I really need to see that to do it make sound comments. But it would have been very helpful if we'd gotten some of these maps and reports earlier. Well being a sketch plan they don't we gave where they were shown to us though. Yeah so they have some of that information but we don't get all that. But it's important for our what we're going doing going forward. Yeah I understand all right thanks Ted very [19:55] Richard: you scottsman's brook starts up on punky swamp comes down on the east side of fletcher street crosses under fletcher street behind the kenny bunk savings bank it runs all the way down behind those buildings parallel to Main Street, and next it can be seen, and that is above ground, gets down to Bourne Street, right next to where Teddy Shields first had his Shields meat in his garage, runs under Bourne Street, then it goes under Main Street, comes up in what used to be Marriott's Men's Shop basement next to the Ross Block, and you can go down in what's now Will's Copy Center, which used to be Marriott's, and you can see the stream in the basement running through. It comes out, goes down, crosses Water Street, I don't know exactly, you didn't show it on your plan, so I don't know exactly where it is on your plan, but it crosses over and goes underwater street and goes out under into the county bunk under the mousem River. Is it a stream? The answer is yes. It's a little bit of a strange stream maybe but it is a stream and it's a running stream and we need it to be able to go all the way into the river so that it doesn't back up in wills copy centers his basement. So it is a stream. I 've seen that stream since 1945 so I know it's there. I have some other questions. I wouldn't like to see it on the plan where it is at some point. I couldn't okay yeah that's the [22:15] Steve Bush: USGS maps it doesn't show up but I appreciate well relative to the town of Kennebunk and [22:20] Richard: And the fact that it's been there, it's a stream. It comes out of Punky Swamp. Understood. Okay, good. Now I have some questions. I guess that was my teaching moment, questions. First one is, as I look at what you've depicted as the buildings on Water Street, are those what are the little gray areas that come down to the to this curb to the street? Are those walkways or driveways or what are they? Those [23:06] Catherine Lerman: are walkways. Okay. Yeah, so there are no driveways that come down. There's one single curb cut to get you back and okay. That was a, I appreciate that. [23:17] Richard: So the young lady that spoke here a few minutes ago talked about affordable housing. Are there affordable units going to be in this project? [23:29] Catherine Lerman: Right now, we're just trying to talk about setbacks, and we were looking at the option with affordable, and we have not decided if we want the townhouse route what everything would be. This is still very much sketch and trying to last term. So you haven't decided. Okay. You. As [23:51] Richard: far as the fire trucks go, it does look like you've got plenty of turning, but obviously we need you to give this to the fire chief so he can do an analysis of it, and we need to have some turning radius depictions so that we make sure that the fire trucks could get in. But in addition to that, we also need to make sure that the fire chief is happy with his ability to be able to place the fire trucks and fight a fire from the internal setup that you've got here. So that all is going to need to go to him at some point. Absolutely, which we're [24:32] Catherine Lerman: used to. And I did have the civil engineer check the turning radii so that it was checked by somebody who knows how to measure that. Okay. [24:41] Richard: But the chief is the one that has to pass on it. Okay. I'm a little confused. When you came the first time, you came with 20 units. We told you we thought, I believe, it was 20 units when you came the first time, right? Was it 22? No, it's 23 on the plan, but it says 22 here on your... [25:17] Hannah: That 22 is a typo. I just can't count. It is 23. Okay. [25:24] Richard: All right. So 23 that shows on the plan is correct. I just wanted to make sure the numbers all matched. Sorry, I got this in several different places. My other question is, as far as the buffer goes, you have to, 50 foot is the standard. But we are able to entertain a request to lower that buffer, either in parts or all of it, but there's very specific things, if you read through the standard, that we can entertain. And so you folks are going to have to make a presentation, a detailed presentation, as to why you need to have the buffer lowered, and it's very specific as to the reasons that we can consider. Consider. So we'll need to see a real presentation from you folks specifically on that issue. Another question I've got is, and I'm not sure who to ask this of, but the back, the rear lot is a very steep slope. It comes down from the housing, the properties up on Grove Street. Has anybody taken a look to make sure about the stability of that hill and how close you're going to get to that steep slope and how you're going to make sure that what buildings you build are going to be protected from a mudslide or anything else? What are you going to do to that slight slope in your construction and is it is it are you going [27:57] Steve Bush: to be able to maintain the stability solid questions for certain traditionally in this sort of thing we're going to get a geotechnical investigation done and do some borings out there to understand what that slope consists of and understand stability the comment that I'd made originally was that within those townhouses there's going to be basement level space in the back of that will be a foundation wall that'll be a retaining wall as well more than likely so that'll have to be done in design so that it'll act as not only a foundational wall for the structure but a retaining structure because it'll be quite a bit higher behind it. So a lot of that comes out of a geotechnical report and geotechnical investigation where they're going to go out there with a small drill rig and drill some holes in the ground, identify the shallow ledge and that sort of thing. Some of that may also then help us with the soils description, and it sounds like one of the plan board members' concerns about soils and drainage and stormwater and that sort of thing, all of that comes out of having some of that good base information. But this is a scenario, yeah, there's some relief there, but it's Maine. we deal with that fairly routinely but I know that there's a quite a bit of area up above and water obviously might be an issue there so we'll have to deal with [29:21] Richard: That so yeah, I think that's my concern and I that we make sure this it's going to be stable and do you own to the base of that slope or do you own part of the [29:35] Steve Bush: slope or what are you it's up the slope cutaways were [29:57] Richard: you going to maintain the vegetation that's there, or are you going to take it all out up to your property line? [30:05] Steve Bush: Yeah, that's a question we've discussed a little bit as to constructability and how you go about doing that and building these buildings and that's foundation. And within that 20 feet area, the red there, you can see that's a 20 foot dimension to the back line. How much of that we can not touch and potentially keep whatever stand of vegetation. It's pretty thick there. I haven't personally walked exactly that back line. I came around the side and so forth. There's a fair amount of trees, but worst case scenario would be a slope that would be pretty near the property line. Can we avoid that would be a target certainly to try to achieve, and if that meant driving having some sheets there to help with the foundational construction, that sort of thing. We'll be investigating that. [30:54] Richard: So obviously you've got quite a bit of engineering to do and study to do, especially on the soils. I'm not so sure how solid those soils are back there, but obviously that's for an expert to figure out. Let's see. I think that's enough for tonight. [31:20] Mary Cost: If you don't mind, I wanted to address the one comment you made about the buffers and the rationale for that. I believe there was material before the last meeting. I was not involved in that meeting. But there's a letter from me in your packet dated August 13, 2026. And that does reference the standard of allowing a smaller perimeter due to the lot size topography or other limiting natural features right and we go through if you read that letter it talks about the natural features it talks about the slope it talks about the wetlands and it also talks about the shape of the lot and the need to provide parking so that all that is in there for your reference [32:04] Richard: If you're going to request a waiver on it, we're going to need that all put into a waiver, your waiver request. [32:14] Mary Cost: So it's in a letter. Hannah, do you need me to title this letter differently, or is it okay for you? I'm happy to provide it again and call it, put a different title on it if that's what you like. [32:31] Richard: So are you saying this will be your request for the waiver? [32:34] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm [32:37] Mary Cost: Saying all of the materials that you've received up to date, everything you've heard from myself and from Catherine and Steve, all go to the request, and it's not, it's not a, I don't believe it's a waiver like your standard planning board waivers. It is a provision underneath the affordable housing provisions, and it's a provision that says 50 foot buffer, but it allows right there in that provision for the board to reduce it to 20 feet, to up to 20 feet, if it meets all those. It's not like your regular waiver, it's not technically a waiver, so they [33:15] Hannah: don't necessarily need to frame it as a waiver request that you need to still put it in writing like a waiver request would be, which this letter serves as such, but since they're not quite at the stage of formally requesting waivers, if there were other waivers, this was sufficient for me as far as their application was concerned at this stage. [33:36] Richard: We just need to see a formal application for the request based on the parameters that we are allowed to reduce the buffer size. [33:48] Mary Cost: Understood. I'll just... Okay, good. Yeah, it's right in this letter. Thanks, Richard. That's it. [34:01] Speaker H (unidentified): I learned more about that than I knew before. Anyway, thank you, Richard, for the funky swamp element of that. I thought it was right from Wiggins Pond. Anyway, speaking of water, one thing I know in Hannah's letter talking about that the 100-foot setback from the river doesn't apply, which I agree with. The 250-foot zone limit needs to be shown on the plan. And if it does incur on this site, you've got to comply with the maximum 20% impervious cover within that portion of the site. So you have to be able to address that. With the setbacks, you know, in terms of the buffer, I think, you know, to Richard's point, it's been very well documented what you're looking for in terms of achieving it. I think we need to see it on-site and have a better understanding of how that actually impacts the immediate neighborhood. You know, and then the aerial graphic that was put in, you can pretty much see how much of that property is wooded and its relationship to the other properties, which raises another one of my points is, and it doesn't have to be surveyed, but to locate all the buildings on the surrounding properties So we have a better idea in terms of context of what this site relates to the entire neighborhood. Because right now looking at a butter's names on here but not necessarily seeing where structures are makes it rather difficult for us to get a good understanding of the context of the neighborhood. I agree. We definitely have small motor management issues out there. I know that Steve will sketch plan. You're not getting into all the engineering at this point. That's going to be a critical part as we move forward once we feel comfortable with the sketch plan. But those are concerns that are out in that neighborhood. I know we looked at one a little further down a couple of years ago, and that was a big issue as well. The affordable housing aspect, nice to be, if you're looking at this type of density, that trying to achieve some affordable units in here, if it goes that far in terms of looking at it really identify how we can take care of some of the issues we have in this town in terms of I think until we have the site walk I'm comfortable understanding what's being proposed but I reserve any further comments until thanks [36:40] Bob Janice: Bob Janice [36:42] Hannah: Janice can I quickly interrupt before you get there just a point of clarification or something that Bob said because they are in because this parcel is in downtown business it is 70% lot coverage within the shoreline zone not 20 70 just [37:04] Bob Janice: but if it's in the zone it should be shown yes definitely shown [37:10] Hannah: definitely shown that they're complying with that but it is 70% not 20 I don't think they could get 20 with this plan so thank you [37:22] Janice: I echo everything everyone's said so far when you do your geotechnical I'd like to know what soil type is there some soils on a slope are problematic as far as landslides and that's mudslides where are you planning to put your passive recreation area under this sketch plan i'll [37:54] Catherine Lerman: be honest we have not because we're at an early sketch plan and trying to get to a site walk we still have aspects that we have to get through and i also want to speak to the previous one I had a presentation that located all the surrounding buildings showed us in images and we've pared back just to try and revise it but I will absolutely address that next time thank you and I'm a little concerned [38:17] Janice: About the internal circulation here, the width of these driveways, I see you have 22 feet going in, and that's really what a fire truck needs. I noticed when you get down to the end of the little driveway that's behind this row of buildings facing Water Street, it's only 12 foot wide. These are driveways you wouldn't have enough room to back out with 12 feet. It's got to be at least 20, 22 feet. And I don't know the width that's marked up here of the little section of drive that goes up there on the left. You don't have a measurement marked on that one. And I'm presuming it's not much wider than a 12-foot that's down here. [38:59] Catherine Lerman: All of this will be mapped, and all of the diagrams to show parking will work. We usually get that. We go in to see if there are legs under us, and then we make sure that everything works. We do a lot of projects that have a lot of complex traffic, and that will all be well thought through before we ever made it to final hearing. Okay, and you've got a list going. [39:16] Janice: Now, as far as the wetlands over here on the right, now, you know, our ordinance requires that you cannot use wetlands, you can't use it to put a building or parking, and you've got that little finger coming in here, you know, under a driveway and front yard. You can use it to fill it if you need to, get to upland, but you can't use it for something else like that. So you're going to need to look at that. I don't know if that's the best place for the driveway frankly because of that, and as far as the 50-foot buffer, you really, you could not reduce it by much if at all on that side because you got those wetlands there, and you also need to show a 25-foot setback around those wetlands. I'm a little concerned about the distance from the back property line with the buildings, you know, you can't do cut and fill within 10 feet of the property line, and to build the buildings obviously you're going to have earthwork being done there, so keep that in mind also when you're looking at your plan. Where's the nearest fire hydrant to this? Do you guys have, no, because that'll be important from the fire department standpoint. I recall correctly. Okay, thank you, thank you. And of course when you're working on your next iteration, look at the dumpster location, you'll need a dumpster for this. As far as the four houses that are being proposed to be removed, are those rented to people now or are they owned by those people, are they rented to them, the people who live in them now there [41:02] Chris Till: Are two rented and two unoccupied at the moment, okay, do you believe? [41:05] Speaker H (unidentified): Just state your name for the record. [41:07] Chris Till: Chris Till with the applicant. [41:12] Janice: What are you going to do with those buildings? [Chris Till: In terms of?] Well, couldn't they be reused on the site? These are four historic buildings. You know, you've got 1900, 1890, 1880, and 1776. These are about the same size as the apartments you're building here now. Why couldn't you use those in site? [41:38] Chris Till: I will state today on this meeting that if anyone would like those buildings that are not labeled as historic monuments, they may be old, but they are not labeled historic or protected by historic provisions. We will deed, we'll give them for a dollar, the person purchasing it will be responsible for moving it to a location, or if the town can allow us to improve them without applying today's code, we would love to have that conversation as [42:13] Janice: well, okay, thank you, and I think that's all I have for now. I think once we do the site walk, we'll have a better idea of what the site can accommodate. Thanks, Janice. [42:31] Abhinish: Abhinish? I have one or two questions here. How many units could be constructed with the full buffer? [42:58] Catherine Lerman: Are you asking with the new provisions that are going to come in? Yeah. Around 65 units. Okay. [43:07] Abhinish: And some questions are actually extension of Janice's questions. Is the access point adequate for emergency vehicles and deliveries and snow removal is [43:20] Catherine Lerman: the access for deliveries [43:23] Abhinish: access point presented in the slide [43:30] Catherine Lerman: this access point is it for all of those, I'm assuming so, again we, because we are at the first stage, we have not solved every problem, but that would be solved before any final approvals, but we are trying to maintain one curb cut if possible, so yes, we would assume that would [43:48] Abhinish: all happen at that, so adding to this extension of this, another question, so will the drainage facilities, dumpsters, and snow storage be allowed inside the reduced buffer, I [44:03] Catherine Lerman: haven't planned all of this right now, I can write that down and answer it next time, all right, thank you, Kevin, yeah [44:16] Speaker L (unidentified): thank you, Chris, I think in general the setbacks seem reasonable, I'll put an asterisk on that, it'll be a lot more clear on a sidewalk, particularly around the east buffer seems kind of questionable, I have to see that in person to really appreciate the slope and how close we are to the slope and the neighboring buildings, to Bob's point it would be great to see more of the surrounding buildings on this plan to really get a sense for the impact of the surrounding buildings. My other concern, I believe Ted mentioned it, was around drainage in general. The slope and the grade of the site seems pretty complex, and drainage seems like it's going to be a pretty big concern, but I do think a lot of the board's questions will be answered with a site walk and get a lot more information thanks Kevin [45:17] Bob Janice: so I definitely think this plan is an improvement over your previous plan you have a lot of still a lot of questions to be answered obviously the setbacks being a large concern and to kind of Richard's point about justifying the request reduce the buffers we you know it has to be based on those three factors and not necessarily so you can fit more parking into your plan to meet the number of units that you want the site has a natural carrying capacity that we have to kind of respect and so if the site has particular features that warrant a reduced buffer for the type of development you want to do I mean well I guess what we're saying is that cannot reduce the buffer just because you want to build more buildings there that's not one of our reasons to allow a reduction so just please keep that in mind when you are trying to justify reducing this to 50 feet or from 50 feet to 20. i mean i think this is a great site for a denser development it'd be a really great site for affordable housing units it's right downtown a walking distance to all the amenities that we have down here and I think this is really this could be a really good project there are still some large obstacles to overcome that 20 foot buffer in the back is concerning I think mostly because of the slope and what it means to build that close to it and so there's some real challenges there that i think you're gonna really need to try to figure out how to convince us that 's worth it so that being said i think we have if this is what you want to propose to us i think we're certainly willing to take a look and get a better sense of how this would fit on the lot and take a sight walk and see how see where things are at in relation to what is on the ground and as discussions Brooke and it being a ditch obviously it's a it's an impaired stream right it's an urban stream it goes through the Buildings and developed areas, and so unfortunately in some places it's a ditch in places, and other parts of the country they're big concrete culverts that they're still rivers. So while this section may look like a ditch because that's how it has been moved around by past development, is still a stream and that we will expect you guys to consider it as such as is laid out in our shoreline zone. So that being said, I think we can are comfortable at this point to schedule a site walk and I think Hannah has a list of things that we require that we want to see, corner of buildings and it could just be the outside corner of the block of buildings as it were, the center line of the driveways and the in the access roads as you go through, and obviously locations of wetlands and the areas that you plan on impacting as well. So that being said, who's gonna be able to [49:34] Chris Till: schedule that for us which whatever you again Christo applicant I've just asked for some clarity because at the last meeting this is how the meeting similarly ended with scheduling a site walk of which we went and then expedited survey teams and environmental studies and had the whole site flagged within four weeks and we requested through June and July continuously to get the site walk scheduled and then we're told that we had to appear at this meeting just to schedule that site walk so which dates do you think because we're really excited to work collaboratively with something that we think fits the neighborhood in this in this format knowing that each of those individual Lots in this zone have a zero setback provision so if we didn't choose to go to subdivision plan there's other options to develop the parcels as well as waiting potentially to see when the state statute comes into effect in july of next year but we would just appreciate some clarity over that because from may until now we board increased costs to expedite that because we were excited coming out of may and now here we are in october with this in the same position this [50:58] Bob Janice: is a different plan than [50:59] Chris Till: what you presented in may this plan we presented because of the inputs in may to make the revisions to make it meet those requirements. Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. [51:08] Bob Janice: Yep, and so what we said to you at that point is that we were uncomfortable with some provisions of that previous plan. If you wanted to change it, if you wanted to keep it, we could schedule a site walk. If you wanted to change it, that's up to you. And so you've changed it, and you've come back to us. And so we're willing to take a look at this plan that you've presented for us. And so we're willing to schedule that, and I could we can set a date in there right now and figure that out yeah and [51:37] Chris Till: then I would just ask maybe for future applications some applicants some clarity because we were led through all of our email communication from the time leaving that site walk that they're leaving the plane board meeting may that the site walk was imminent and it was a matter of scheduling so I just I'm just at for future applicants because it is a lot of time and a lot of money that is [52:00] Bob Janice: board to get to this point I understand we can work on ways to better improve our communication but again you've come back with a different plan but it would have required a different sidewalk so I think we're here now we know mr. chair [52:18] Chris Till: I appreciate your leadership of the board and we really we believe that this is this is a project that the town can be proud of once we as we continue to work through these issues. It's a need through both the studies that were commissioned with taxpayer dollars, the comprehensive plan, the zone. Definitely. This is a good thing that hopefully we can continue to work together to get approved. Sounds good. Yeah, do you have a [52:43] Abhinish: question? Just a quick thing. Could compliance be achieved by reducing number of units or size of the building? When [52:56] Chris Till: we looked at this project and the assemblage of these lots, knowing the zone and what the zone allowed for density was one of the key reasons for starting this assemblage many years ago we [53:11] Bob Janice: got what you think you can do all right so at this point in the year we do site walks on Saturdays in the morning at 8 a.m. and question is how soon can you be ready to have the site prepared for us to take a look at on a saturday morning and it could be i mean i get and talk to the board about you know this weekend and then going forward so as soon as you are able to do it let's let's i'm willing to schedule it now if you can tell me that you'll be ready or if you want to pick [53:57] Chris Till: A date a couple weeks or three weeks or something, so I'll have to get back in touch with our survey crew to come back and replace all the flags that have now been pulled out or removed. Okay, so I would say this Saturday would be a push for me to get the engineers and the survey teams out there, but let's put it on the book for the following Saturday, October [54:24] Bob Janice: 10th. Board members, will you be available for a site walk on October 10th at 8 a.m.? Seeing us from Kevin, yes, from Janice and Bob, Ted, and Dick. I will not be available on that day, but that's okay. And Avinash is checking. All right, so we will schedule a public site walk. Members of the public are welcome to attend the site walk, though it is not a time for public comment or review. They are welcome to come along and see what we see and hear what we hear on the site. So we'll schedule for October 10th at 8 a.m. Okay, great, so should be all of us except for me. Ideally we need somebody on site that will know what the flagging is there, and obviously it would be nice to have someone who could talk to the wetlands, so at least show us where they are, so I will leave that to you as well. Thank you very much. Unless you have any other questions for us, thank you. Next item on our agenda is a sketch plan review for a major subdivision off of Alford Road. I'll start that in one minute. We've got a revised, you didn't see the revised, this moved from the agenda, the Great Hill Road. I saw the notice from the town but not to us, which is the automatic announcement on the town website, like they noticed the alerts. No, we didn't get an email, that's correct, Hannah was out of town. The forest meadows, Hannah, I'll turn this over to you and then we'll hear from the applicant. [58:56] Hannah: All right, so this is the first time the board is reviewing this application, though this property may look a little bit familiar. The, this application is proposed, is for a 54 lot single-family home subdivision, conventional subdivision, with lot sizes that range from 10,013 to 20,000 and 36 square feet. The property would be served, or the properties would be served by a public water and an engineered septic system. There is no public sewer in the direct vicinity of this parcel currently. This is proposed as a conventional subdivision. It is not an open space subdivision, though there is a lot of open space. The applicant had toyed with that, which they may speak to a little bit in their application or in their presentation, but as of right now it is not explicitly an open space subdivision, so they are not falling under those specific rules. They are also not in the zone that requires it, so it is proposed as a conventional subdivision. I'll let Lucas go into more of the details, but up on the screen you have a colored version of the submission plan that you have in your packets. So it's not a different plan, it's just colored for some of your viewing pleasures. Very helpful, actually. Thank you. Took a lot of time. All right. [1:00:22] Lucas Hall: Right. I'm Lucas Hall. I'm here representing Property Partners, M-E-L-L-C, for this project. I'm simply here to just introduce myself and my colleagues, Robert Georgitis with Maine Planning Associates and Lou Chamberlain with Attar Engineering. Thank you. Yeah, [1:00:45] Bob Georgitis: he had the easy job. I had the hard job. I had to call that this morning. I thought this would be helpful. This is Bob Georgitis from Maine Planning Associates, which is working for Property Partners, Maine, LLC. Short and quick of it is we've been on the property, but I thought this would help you better understand because we talked about the woods roads and where we did the site walk. So the light green and the dark green is the proposed open space. It's an 84-acre parcel. Out of the 84 acres, we're talking about only building in the yellow area, which is about 23 acres out of that 84. In that 84, the light green is all upland areas that have been tested and identified. All the wetlands were delineated by Mike Cuomo, and we've got test bits on half of that. We're doing more this week, just trying to get a handle on the game plan. It's going to be on public sewer, standard street designs with public water, not public sewer. Engineered septic systems, most likely we're trying to concentrate those in those upland areas so that we can reserve the development area for where the houses would be. There right now, you can see there are three existing woods, roads, or trails. that laid down into that upland area. The density calculations that we have done are based only on the land that is in the yellow area with the upland area that's along the edge there. That upland, so the very first go-round we identified that wetland edge for the field for our previous meetings with the board. So the calculations show out of the million square feet of land area there, we'd had density to do maybe as many as 89 houses. If we took all the upland areas on the rest of the property, that has to be much higher, but we're working within a reasonable plan of developing single-family houses at this time, looking for age-restricted housing or identifying that as the market that we want to achieve. We have Lou Chamberlain from ATAR to talk about the stormwater. We haven't definitively answered how we're going to do that, but he's here to address any concerns you might have. We have, Lou has, on behalf from our last meeting, he has contacted the State Natural Areas Program to identify if there's any other species of concerns in addition to the spotted turtle that was raised at the last meeting. We've done a little bit of investigation and research, but we're waiting for the state to come back to us and tell us what we need to be looking for if there's actually any habitat on the property. [1:04:11] Bob Janice: And just for clarification for folks that might just be tuning into this meeting, we met with you previously about the shoreline map correction that we just approved at our last meeting. At that time we did a site walk to review the wetlands and stuff, so that is what is being referenced here is that our this previous application for shoreline map [1:04:32] Bob Georgitis: correction. All right, so Chris, the one thing I didn't point out that shows up on this map that we didn't really pay attention to but I've highlighted, there are some intermittent streams here on this property. They begin and then they disappear within the wetlands complexes and then they reappear. So you know, hearing that other discussion about what you know, Scotsman's Brook, these are unnamed Brooks, but because they have a mineralized bed they do qualify as a stream, but it's all within the open space area. Do you want to speak to the open space and any plans you have for that or what? So sure, the game plan at this point is that with the engineered septic systems we have a certain threshold that we have to meet for state standards in terms of size. Also when you do an engineered septic system, it's more than just a single family house, sometimes it can be two up to ten houses, you can even go higher, but the standards get more difficult. There are setbacks required from those engineered leaching beds to protected resources like these streams, and so that's why we're doing a lot more test pitting. And in addition to that, this past week we investigated that area for a reserve system in case the main system ever goes. So we're planning ahead for the future. So it would be easy if everything is directed down to that part of the site to leapfrog across that wetland somehow to get to that reserve area, if it's ever needed in the future. Who knows? You know, a septic system, if it's well maintained, and this will be maintained by a homeowners association, can last decades. And maybe by then, sewer's out there in that neighborhood. [1:06:39] Bob Janice: Would, but right now you're thinking that are you going to be using any of the uplands in the in this green area for your set for your engineered system? Yes, is that what you're saying? Yes, yeah, so we're [1:06:55] Bob Georgitis: In our sidewalk, yep, that seemed to be the most appropriate soils, but as you can see there was a lot more soils than we saw that day that would qualify, but it's sort of central and away from everybody. [1:07:10] Bob Janice: Hey. [1:07:15] Richard: Bob, how are you gonna get the sewage back to that area, so the [1:07:22] Bob Georgitis: dick the you're gonna go right through the wetland or no see the trails that we well you weren't on the sidewalk so sorry there 's some existing trails the system there's a but about a 20 to 30 foot elevation change so it would not need to be pumped would be gravity feed and depending on how Lou figures out the stormwater we may be using and putting a stormwater pipe adjacent to that gravity sewer to be able to run and build a pond down here to serve the entire complex so [1:08:12] Bob Janice: We'll go through board member questions, and from there Kevin I'll start with you if you're comfortable, not we can come [1:08:26] Speaker L (unidentified): Back, yeah, I don't know that I have any direct questions. I was not at the previous site walk, so I wasn't able to see the site. Your comments about the existing woods road answered some of my questions, chiefly how, where's the, where's the sewer line gonna, how's that gonna get back there? That seems reasonable. I'd be interested to know what the plan is in general for the open space with respect to like tenant access to that space, and well we would probably [1:08:57] Bob Georgitis: Be developing, taking what we know now based on the information, creating a network of trails to be able to use it as walking paths for, you know, passive recreation. So you walk down, you see what we saw there, open field area, but underneath that field area and grass is going to be leaching beds, just like you're around somebody's lawn and house, but connecting. The tough part is going to be leapfrogging over those intermittent streams and how we address and do that. Back in the days, Ted might know that I did something similar at Coventry Woods and leapfrogged a stream and avoided having to get any permits by getting two telephone poles from KLP and laying them side by side and bridging the valley so I wasn't in the resource and building a deck across as a walking platform and putting rails on the side. I thought it was great until I found that snowmobiles were using it too. It was a snowmobile bridge, and I had to put bollards up at either end to stop that from happening. So I envision something low-cost, passive, but blending in with the environment. [1:10:12] Speaker L (unidentified): Something on a similar vein, something that will be very important moving forward is going to be some sort of a landscape plan, given the nature of the lot. If I remember correctly, that basically the whole yellow area is open field, it's [1:10:26] Bob Georgitis: open feet. There's gonna be extensive landscaping required to create buffers between Alfred Road and those houses and then on each lot meeting the street tree requirement for public roads where we're there. I just didn't, I didn't know where to stop, I was putting trees just willy-nilly, but when we get to a plan then we'll have Bob do it. So my last question, there's mention in [1:10:54] Speaker L (unidentified): here of a waiver, I don't know if it's technically a waiver, but for tree destination, for trees over six inches, are there any trees over six inches in [1:11:04] Bob Georgitis: the yellow area? Yes, there are, we've identified those. I did not call those out because ATAR did locate those with their survey crew a week ago and the next iteration of a plan will actually show those trees to figure out where they fall. It's not just the ones that are in the open field, but it applies to the 70 acres. There's a lot of trees, and that standard is, in the past when I've done other projects here in town, I've asked for that waiver up to 24 or 30 inches. So you're really talking about a significant tree, not just any old tree. So there were three waiver requests. That we would like to put the sidewalks right next to the curb because we find that grass strip is just a nuisance. It's it's you'd have to irrigate it, you and people don't want to pay for an irrigation system and it gets nothing but weeds. So that's that was number two and I can't remember what the third one was. I know we asked for three. Oh yes, thank you. So the high intensity soil oil survey is peppering the site with a lot of test pits, but to do a high intensity up in that open field area is a lot of unnecessary test pitting. We're concentrating our investigations into the areas where the engineered systems would go, where the reserve systems would go, and where the stormwater systems would go, and we've got some random. We are going to a tire is going to be flagging the center line tomorrow and we are going to be doing test bits randomly in that road network so that we can engineer the drainage system for the road. So we'll have everywhere you see a road there's going to be test bits, some random other ones where stormwater ponds once we get there. So thank [1:13:08] Bob Janice: you Abhinash, do you have any questions? [1:13:14] Abhinish: Yes, I have a couple of questions. Any denial of any waiver, will that reduce the lot count? When [1:13:27] Bob Georgitis: we first looked at this property, we were starting at 110. So we've come from 110 down to 54. It's possible that the lot count may vary and go up a little bit because we weren't sure the area over here initially had not laid that out with a connecting street like a cul-de-sac up above, so we might pick up a few more lots there. So the lot sizes as we range from 10 to 20, again we're looking at basically first floor ranch style houses because of the demographic we're shooting for, but that doesn't mean that there won't be some houses is that we'll have two floors. This is the same developer that did coastal pines and some of those floor plans would fit on this site and he's developed a new floor plan that he's still working on that would be a one-story one-level only floor plan. Well you also read about the homeowners [1:14:32] Abhinish: decision in the packet and so all will these waivers create obligations for an [1:14:38] Bob Georgitis: Homeowner Association going forward so that my thought I've done cluster developments like this in the past where homeowners associations share the expenses and especially when you're looking at maintaining trails and an engineer septic systems there's gonna have to be fees for that and including potentially if the roads don't get accepted for by town meeting we need to have an organization in place to be able to take care of the maintenance of those roads so that's that's we'll have something More fleshed out by the time we come back with a preliminary plan so now I was on the tree identification as [1:15:20] Abhinish: Kevin was talking here did you concerned with environment for the trees [1:15:26] Bob Georgitis: Environmental consultant no we have not the trees that we've identified that are in the open area are typical main oaks and maples. There's no special significant species of trees that we have identified on the site. And with what we saw in the woods area, which is in the open space, it's a mix of red maples, regular maples, pines, firs. And [1:15:58] Abhinish: How many acres with wooded area will be cleared? [1:16:04] Bob Georgitis: I can't say for sure. But I we weren't anticipating going into the wetland areas we're just focusing on doing these leaching areas in the upland areas so there would be no clear tree clearing required and I think the access road that is wide enough to be able to get both a utility line for sewer and a utility line for stormwater if we need it 's about 10 feet wide 10 to 12 and those line you know the stormwater line might be a 24 to 30 inch, maybe a little bit bigger. The sewer line, probably 12, a little, and 8, because it's all gravity. I mean, that's typical. That's what you have in your public streets for a large part of the town. [1:16:58] Abhinish: So the waiver on Esplanade, is the request based on environmental constraint or primarily on cost? [1:17:06] Bob Georgitis: Oh, it's the same cost. It's not it's really it's it's it makes more sense to put your sidewalk next to the curb for plowing and snow removal and the nuisance factor of having a three-foot when you have a when you have a four to five foot side with sidewalk and they say you have a four-foot esplanade it's really not for it's more like three and nobody wants to maintain it because they think it's in the town if it becomes a town's right-of-way well the town owns it well that doesn't happen. So in our neighborhood I live in, everybody mows their own strip of, between the sidewalk and the curb. But it, yeah, it is terrible. It grows up with weeds and nobody takes care of it. MR. [1:18:02] Abhinish: Any other questions? So, but there will be, there is sidewalks, right? MR. Yes. [1:18:08] Bob Georgitis: MR. Okay. MR. So it does show up on this plan. It's kind of hard to see unless you zoom in, but right now it shows a sidewalk with an FNOD. And [1:18:27] Abhinish: Who will maintain those sidewalks then? [1:18:28] Bob Georgitis: It would be the homeowner, well, it would be the developer until he turns over and does the last sale, then it becomes the homeowners association. If these are built to town standards, which is our game plan, and the town accepts it, then it would be the town that would have to maintain the roads and the sidewalks. Okay, thank you. [1:18:50] Bob Janice: Just, obviously, Bob, you've probably been following. The town has been more and more reticent of accepting roads, So just so you guys are aware of – [1:18:59] Bob Georgitis: Well, if you tell us we don't have to build them to town standards, there may be a reason to want to do that. But I'm not going to – [1:19:05] Bob Janice: I'm not saying it's the right call, but I'm just saying that's their – it's the way they've been leading recently. Janice. [1:19:14] Janice: Hi, Bob. We haven't had anybody come before us yet looking for a septic system of this size before. Can you point us to where we can get more information? I tried Googling it, looking at state stuff, because I needed to learn more about it. But where can you point us to more information about this? I'm not sure. [1:19:35] Bob Georgitis: I can turn to Lou, but if you envision, when they call it an engineered septic system, you could have two houses, four houses, go into a common septic tank, and from that tank take the outflow to a leaching area. One of the things that we're just in the initial stages are you can do pretreatment in that tank to reduce the nitrate impacts downstream or you can do pretreatment at the leach field and with enhancing with aerobic actions. So we're not there we haven't engineered that point we're just at this point we're identifying where the soils are, I would guess the goal is we would have a system that no leaching area is intended at this point to be designed to handle more than 10,000 gallons a day. So right, Lou? So we're looking at a range anywhere from anything more than a typical house, which is 270 gallons a day, up to a standard of 2,000 is one standard, and then from 2,000 to $10,000 is another standard. Then from $10,000 above is a third standard. We're looking at the first two. So you're basically looking at leaching areas that might be as big as this room. How that's engineered, Lou, now we're getting, that's why he came here. He earned his bucks. [1:21:05] Janice: Because my fear would be, you know, if you have a problem with that system, it's not just one household that can't flush their toilets. You have 54 houses that cannot flush their toilets, though. Right. [1:21:15] Lou Chamberlain: Yes. Thanks for the comment, Lou Chamberlain. And from Attar Engineering, working on the civil end of this, working with Bob and Lucas. So the definition of an engineered system is anything over 2,000 gallons a day, which at like 270 gallons a day for a single-family, three-bedroom home, that's kind of the context. And for this, we're looking at roughly six areas that are going to treat nine homes, and so that gets us to our 54 units and each of the six areas would be roughly a 20 by 100 foot stone and pipe leach field that would be treated before the leach field with a septic tank and we're looking at doing a septic tank for each home rather than a gang of them that treat you know nine units and then as Bob said we're gonna do pretreatment which gives you a reduction in field size but it also gives you a Secondary treatment that is another form of protection and you have to sign a maintenance contract and the manufacturer has to come and maintain and it's like a secondary safety net on making sure everything is maintained and that would all be through the [1:22:31] Janice: Homeowners association and who's who would be responsible for knowing when to call for help so you know how do you know when there's a problem and is there someone close by? You know, worst-case scenario, you know, snowstorm, nobody can't get out there, you've got a bunch of houses that can't use their plumbing. Right. Whose responsibility and how are the, you know, if it's a homeowners association, I think it's asking a lot of someone like the president of the condo association to suddenly be conversant in how this probably very sophisticated system is supposed to work. [1:23:11] Lou Chamberlain: I don't know concerned about that yeah and as part of the design of the whole engineered system there would be an operation and maintenance document that kind of outlines that so we can work on the specifics on if there's an emergency but it would be an interval of set maintenance tasks that are happening and [1:23:30] Janice: You put us toward any other places in the area that have such a system that we [1:23:33] Lou Chamberlain: could maybe look at or talk to so we did a project in wells for a similar developer actually the same developer called high pine village and it has a similar system with pretreatment and septic fields and how old is that system that probably four or five years any issues or not that I know of and the issues I've seen are if the maintenance doesn't happen like I've seen that at a school where they've got this fancy engineered system with pre-treatment and they know nothing they've done no maintenance and after 15 years their leach field is failing but it goes back to [1:24:16] Janice: the no one's maintained it that's another question what's the expected life of a system like this [1:24:21] Lou Chamberlain: probably 20 to 30 years okay yeah and then as part of the all the test pits we're doing we're digging basically double the area so there's a reserve area so if a field fails you don't have to build it in place you can build it off to the side [1:24:35] Janice: or in another area so another maybe you need to do long-term planning for a third system you know you build these places forever so it's not like yeah [1:24:47] Lou Chamberlain: well we go by the rules that were given and reserve areas are I understand your [1:24:52] Janice: point thank you i would suggest on the roadway yeah i would plan on that being a private at least the way i believe thank you for your arrest me maybe back to bob what is the space that's left between lots 30 and 31 and lots 35 and 36. well we have to [1:25:14] Bob Georgitis: get out to that open space okay so we're just thinking ahead so those lot lines are conceptual at this point. We may move those connections to make them more direct, but somehow we gotta be able to get out there with equipment to do the maintenance in the long term because thinking ahead, if a leach field does fail, you have to go out there and build a new one, even if it's next door. And Lou didn't say this, but if you leave a failed leach bed alone for 10, 20, 30 years, it self-regenerates and you may be able to go back to that original location. So not necessarily looking for a third backup is having two alternatives. The worst case is you have to dig up your existing leach field and take it out of service while you're replacing it. But here we have, we're planning ahead to have reserve areas, so nobody's going to be inconvenienced. [1:26:08] Janice: Let me talk about traffic for one second. So you've got 54 homes proposed. And, you know, these people, 55-year-olds are still working. [1:26:16] Bob Georgitis: Is the plan to allow them to have children there so there are, there are two standards? If this is an age-restricted 55 and older, under HUD standards, children who are 18 years or younger are not allowed to live in the homes but can visit for up to two weeks. If it's age 65 and older, no children, period. Age 55 and older, only one of the spouses has to meet that qualification, so you could have a trophy husband, Janice, and meet the standard, whatever, or the vice versa. It also, the HUD standards allow that. 20% of those sales could be to people who are under 55 but they still have the other restrictions knowing that every year everybody's getting older and somebody has to be the record keeper for these associations so I did a age -restricted condo down in Wells, and then I did one over in Gorham, and the first three phases I did in Gorham for Kasperzak. I then sold the last three phases to Cottage Advisors, and that record-keeping is, you know, the numbers keep changing every year, but somebody's supposed to keep track of it. The agreements that we had with Wells, because they had a special ordinance and we got an exception in terms of density at the time. They are a third party to the agreement. So the homeowners association, the condo association is supposed to be enforcing the rules. But in the event that they don't do that, the town has the authority to step in and say, hey, you've got a problem here because you're not following your rules. You're selling it to somebody that doesn't qualify. But the town, 20 years later, doesn't want to have anything to do with it. So that doesn't really work in real life. Towns don't want to be interfering in private property matters, so we haven't, we haven't nailed down exactly which way this is going to go. Coventry Woods, which we did 20 years ago, Bob, that was not age restricted at all, and we built 148 units, but based on our price point and our home designs and targeting a market for empty nesters, there are no kids. So without any age restrictions, limits on it, that's my question about traffic, so. [1:28:59] Janice: Given the demographics here, can you give us some information tonight? Obviously, so. [1:29:06] Bob Georgitis: We have, we have, we have already engaged a traffic engineer, and they're doing the counts now, and with special attention obviously down to Thompson Road intersection, because of the age restrictions, it's less daily traffic than a typical standard housing subdivision, which would be going back and forth to schools and jobs and work. Yes, there are going to be some, but it's about 60% of what normal traffic is, but we don't have the answers to that. We did discover in talking with town staff that intersection has been studied by the town before, and this injured, this traffic engineer has to look at that information and, but also go and look at what else is being proposed in the area, and then do projections for the next few years into the future. So we've got that [1:29:58] Janice: underway, and let me just see what else here. I think that's probably it. My questions that I had written down have pretty much been answered from your presentation, from other questions. And, of course, we'll need new lot calculations. You know, there's a couple little wetlands I saw. So that's, you know, lot 31 and 32, for instance. I've got a wetland set back and wetlands. Yes. So, you know, those kind of things you'll get. All right. My questions for now. [1:30:37] Speaker H (unidentified): Bob? I'm not sure, but I think Janice hit on everyone. [1:30:48] Janice: You've got to know something, Bob. [1:30:51] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, I mean, in terms of the sidewalks, I've got to agree with the Esplanade. It's a maintenance issue, and I think we've got so many in town who have had those, and it's just been miserable failures, and they are weed patches. [1:31:02] Bob Georgitis: And when the town built the sidewalk on Thompson Road, it's right against the curb. They didn't put an Esplanade in. [1:31:09] Speaker H (unidentified): Exactly, for that very reason. So I don't have any issue with that. Obviously, you know, discussing about this being your language in terms of the type of neighborhood intention with the porches out front and that sort of integration, having a street tree plan and whatever you do around the house itself to make it look more like a neighborhood rather than plunked out in the middle of a field, which it is right now. So we've had a couple of those that were plunked out in fields, and they look nice now that the trees have grown. But anyway, overall, you know, I don't have any issues with the engineered system. Them. That's something we did out in West Canabunk that we would allow that to occur when there were issues with the state plumbing codes in terms of lot size and whatnot. And we did do one. I think it's been built. Ted Hisson's project. It was a contract zone off of... Yeah, I can't remember the road. It's off of Alford. Okay. So, I mean, that was an alternative. So, anyway, Yeah. So anyway, it's not a science. It's unusual, you know. But as Lou said, you've got to make sure you get a maintenance plan in place and it's properly maintained, and that shouldn't be an issue. Question for Lou, though. Where do you go? There you are. I thought you moved back over there. Can those systems actually be replaced in location if they had to be? I mean, if you're doing, like, multiple fields. [1:32:37] Lou Chamberlain: I think they could be. In this case, maybe you'd use the reserve, but I think in an emergency, if you had a small single-family lot, you could do it in place, but obviously you'd have to shut down for the construction time. [1:32:51] Speaker H (unidentified): It's more just a question in general in terms of looking in the long term, but Bob's comment about it sits for 15, 20 years. It regenerates itself anyway, so there's still some. Right now, the only thing I would like to see as we move forward is just getting an idea of the size of the footprint print, they would be looked at a lot so we can get a little better perspective as we move forward. [1:33:19] Richard: Thanks, Bob. Richard? Reiterating what Bob said, everybody's asked a lot of good questions. Just a couple. Are any of these homes contemplated to be affordable, or are they all going to be market [1:33:37] Bob Georgitis: rate? At this point, all market rate. [1:33:40] Richard: You talked about trails through the woods. Yes. Are they existing trails or you [1:33:48] Bob Georgitis: got to build new ones? No, I, yes. So yes, we would use the existing trails if you can see the dark green dick there's any other trail development would have to fill wetlands and right that's That's not productive on anybody's end to do that. Good. [1:34:09] Richard: I'd like to stay away from disrupting the wetland as much as we possibly can. The only other question I've got is, that's not a question, it's a comment, is my concern about traffic is the cumulative effect that's beginning to snowball up there in that area, attacking the Thompson Road intersection, actually with both Alfred and Elwha Roads. And we just, we got a snowball beginning to form up there with traffic, and we have to plan ahead, as you so aptly put it. [1:34:56] Bob Georgitis: No, this, unfortunately, this is, or fortunately, depends on your point of view, this was designated as a growth zone. And I thought, probably back then, Bob, that the comp planning committee would have had more discussions, but maybe not. We're just, we're just taking what's existing zoning and using it. But I do appreciate, I understand the comment. The whole region is growing, and a lot of this traffic that we seem to see on a daily basis is really coming from Sanford and using the Alfred Road intersection to either get over, or we get out to Alfred, and it's not really being generated in our town boundaries, but outside our town boundaries. Well, we're beginning to generate a lot more [1:35:45] Richard: we will be, yes, starting to generate a lot more traffic within our town boundaries, and that's, that's my concern. Thanks, Richard. Ted. So [1:36:00] Ted: I was planning to raise a safe concern, but it's a, it's a question, maybe for you, Mr. Chairman, the traffic. We have before us three major housing proposals on Thompson Road, or in this case, just north of Thompson Road, and that, those of us that know that area, for several hours every day, that four-way stop is already a traffic jam for the connecting traffic that goes from the turnpike up into Sanford. And that we're dealing with three. You talked about the multiple things. We could look at it one at a time. I don't think that's enough. I'm wondering if there's some way we as a planning board can say, saying, okay, there's some very major potential impacts on a traffic place here, that three of them together would wipe out that area, as they threw a street. And so I'm just wondering what we could do on that. [1:37:04] Bob Janice: I know that, one, we've got a traffic study that we've done for that area. It's probably 10 years old at this point, at least. But I don't know, Chris Ostrater had mentioned at a previous meeting that the towns are already starting to look, the DOT is looking about signalizing that intersection, and I don't know where we are on the timeline for that or any other upgrades or if that's getting prompted by these proposals. Do you know, Hannah, about where we're at there? [1:37:34] Hannah: I know just about as much as you just shared. Okay. [1:37:38] Bob Georgitis: I might interject because I have conversations with Chris fairly often, and it is part of the CACS study. If you're in the Kittery area, we're part of the complex. And so for DOT purposes, they have a three-year plan. And so this intersection is included to be looked at as part of that DOT study. [1:38:07] Ted: So I can see all that. We're looking at that. That is already a big issue. And so I could see the need for looking at that plan. But we're talking three potential developments here that probably haven't been thought about in any planning so far. [1:38:23] Bob Janice: Well, I mean, I think we considered all that was considered as part of the studies that, particularly when we expanded the growth areas, that what happens if all these empty land gets filled in with development? and that was part of sense that was part of part of that 's that long-range study that we do so it's been contemplated it's been studied I know that we did some studies about potential you know improvements to intersection that sort of thing so and I know in the past is there's been projects where we have required applicants to put in money for intersection upgrades or road improvements I'm not sure how you know and it's it's when you get to projects similar to this size where there's a you know you can point to particular projects that have an outsized impact on those traffic where things like that might happen but particularly I'm thinking like a Haniford Plaza when that was developed. They had to put money into expanding the intersection [1:39:33] Speaker H (unidentified): today. Actually, when Post Office Square was done, there was an impact fee put in place to signalize that intersection because it didn't warrant a light at the time it was approved. [1:39:44] Richard: We also had, when Coventry Winds went in, we had the intersection I don't know how to Oh, I'm sorry. We had the intersection at High Street and Catmossum Road or straightened out because it was a telephone pole in the middle of the road and the developer helped us with that how we did we paid for it I know we consider that as help so that we have done that in the past and I guess I'm [1:40:18] Bob Janice: just saying that I think we need to start discussing with these applicants and these projects about ways where they can contribute to those types of improvements. And so I'm just not sure what the vehicle is to make that happen. Thanks, Ted. Was that pretty much it for you? Yes, sir. Okay. I haven't seen many 55 and over or age-restricted developments here in Kennebunk in my time on the board, but I've seen them in other places. And, you know, have parents that live in some of these. Are there any amenities or things that you're building on site, like communal buildings or anything like that? [1:41:18] Bob Georgitis: So after building, oh, probably close to 1,000 condominium units under Kasperzak's name, we chose not to build swimming pools and community buildings because of the cost and the maintenance expense to the homeowners. We heard loud and clear that this age demographic, what they're looking for is open space and walking trails, sidewalks, and that's what we incorporated into our plan. So it doesn't contemplate active recreation facilities because nobody wants the liability or maintenance cost. One [1:41:56] Lucas Hall: more thing about that. In all the communities that they've developed so far, the main thing that we try and focus on is a sense of community. So the one thing, also to you, Richard, our footprint should be around 42 to 56 feet, but we'll show that in the next plan. But we really try to make sure the homes are close to the road, close-ish, with a front porch where people can sit and they can come up without coming into the house, seeing the dirty dishes and everything like that. So that's our sense of community for it. [1:42:34] Bob Janice: Bob, as to the layout, question one would be these little pie-shaped lots. They seem, I don't know how they end up in practice, but on paper they seem impractical, and boundary lines get confused by neighbors and that sort of thing. Is there a way or is there a reason that we don't try to make them more typical? Well, [1:43:03] Bob Georgitis: Chris, it is typical when you wind up with those inside curves. You know, the people on the outside benefit. The ones on the inside are constrained. A number of subdivisions, the one that we did next to the high school, I actually had a lot reserved in there before we built Arbor Crossing. And then I chose to be over in Arbor Crossing because it was a little bit smaller development and I was closer to the river. But it's a function of what Lucas said. We're looking at house footprints that would be 42 to 46 feet wide and fitting within some of those smaller constrained lots are going to have the smaller house footprint which meets at a lower price point somebody's needs for a demographic. A lot of the condos that I built we had four unit buildings that we did at Coventry Woods, the two middle units, everything there was single car garages. The ones that I did down in Wells started out that way, and then we wound up with two car garages on the end of the buildings, but singles in the middle. And then we went to duplexes because everybody wanted a two-car garage. But there were some lots that we had to have just one car garages. We sold all of those units. There's always a buyer for a certain, you know, whether it's a widow or a widower, they don't need a two-car garage. They're not looking for a big footprint so I don't think that's going to be a challenge here. Yeah, there are going to be some few lots that are going to have some challenges to them. Another question is that it looks like [1:44:36] Bob Janice: there's a existing right away at the end of one of your cul-de-sacs off your property is there [1:44:43] Bob Georgitis: Yeah, okay, so at the north, yep, that is Coin McKay Road and actually the road terminates. Even though it's cleared, it looks like it extends. That's actually a driveway to a house lot. The actual pavement ends before you get to this property boundary. [1:45:04] Bob Janice: That's not a right-of-way that you explored accessing? [1:45:08] Bob Georgitis: Well, we initially were thinking, did we want to make connections to it? But we figured because of the volume of traffic that most of the traffic would want to go out to Alpha Road directly. So we hit the bullet and said we're gonna have two road connections to Alford Road [1:45:26] Bob Janice: Yes [1:45:34] Richard: Bob when I look at the your pictures up there the massive development I understand but then after the upper right what is that rectangle [1:45:47] Bob Georgitis: Is that yours? The property is 4,000 feet deep and it wouldn't fit on one plan, so I had Lou take that piece, so it's a tail that wags the dog, but if you connected that and slid it down and you had a bigger screen, that's the 4,000-foot deep line into the property. [1:46:13] Richard: So it's like a jigsaw puzzle for us to put together? [1:46:16] Bob Georgitis: Oh, it's got a note there, but it's so small, Dick, you can't see it. [1:46:20] Richard: I just couldn't understand what it was. [1:46:22] Speaker H (unidentified): That's what Matchline says. Yeah. [1:46:26] Bob Janice: All right, and so you also said that you're not sure this is the final design, well it could [1:46:33] Bob Georgitis: be, again, it's a it's a concept plant sketch layout, yep, we are ready to do a site walk, a tire is going to be out there tomorrow flying the center lines of the road, so we're ready to go, and not everybody has to come if you've already been on the property, but if you want to see where the roads are talk some more, we're available to do that, I guess my other question would be about [1:46:58] Bob Janice: the lots that front on Alfred Road, and if you think, I'm just wondering if due to the, if they should be lots there or if you should use those as kind of an open space for landscaping to try to buffer the project from the road, I guess, well, or do you think you get enough things in there [1:47:23] Bob Georgitis: Our intention would be to buffer those side like those lots that front on Alfred Road with trees, but we've designed the lots to have their access and frontages off the interior streets, yeah, so it's really a side yard and providing the privacy and protection, so yeah, it's going to be rough in the beginning because it's all open, but if you look down the road 10 years it's going to look like some of the other developments on Thompson Road, so and then there's a couple lots [1:47:56] Bob Janice: that are pretty funky like just off of this, it's like 53 that's got, yeah, and so I guess obviously we'd want to know where that building is going to be, and then at some point you know what your plan is to buffer from the neighbors around those, right, again, yep, all details that we can work through, but okay, yes, Janice, so [1:48:23] Janice: it sounds like you're trying to foster a sense of community here, absolutely, so you know with the porches and all that, how about something that promotes, you know, it's a community garden for people or hangout space with some picnic tables and shuffleboard court, whatever you want to throw in. But if you're going to have folks that you want to hang out together, you want to give them a playground, something to play with here. So I'm suggesting maybe you want to look at a little bit of, you know, breaking up the kind of sterility of what it looks like on paper with some fun stuff for people to do. [1:49:06] Bob Georgitis: So, the very first lot, we did not give that a number for a reason. And we discussed internally about whether we wanted to do a community building or what to do with that lot. So, yeah, that's all part of the – we'll take that feedback in part of the planning. Yes. [1:49:30] Bob Janice: Thank you, Bob. All right. So, a site walk. I mean, I think we will do a site walk. I think that's important. And you're going to map out the center line of the right-of-way. Obviously, you're not going to map out every lot. You're not. No. But the center line of the roads and the cul-de-sacs, so we kind of know where those are going. [1:49:55] Bob Georgitis: I think we can walk with a plan and identify exactly where we're standing as long as we have the center lines marked out adequately by Lou. If not, it's him you talk to. It's his problem. [1:50:08] Bob Janice: Will you be ready by this weekend? [1:50:11] Bob Georgitis: Yes. He's going to be there tomorrow. [1:50:13] Bob Janice: Okay. Well, I'm asking about Saturday. I know. [1:50:16] Bob Georgitis: Because the following Saturday, I'm going to be in Canada. [1:50:21] Bob Janice: Are board members available this Saturday, October 3rd? The average is no. What time? 8 a.m. So we will schedule a site walk for this Saturday, October 3rd at 8 a.m. Okay, thank you. All right, well, thank you very much. I appreciate it, and we'll look forward to seeing you on Saturday. I'm going to request that we take a short recess, five minutes or less. Forgive me, but we will get to you in one second. We'll call this meeting back into order. You next item on our agenda is another, sorry, a sketch plan review for a major subdivision on Thompson Road, 22 lots, 10 buildings. Is that the story, 22 units? Yes. Okay, 20 units, 20 units, sorry. Thank you. All right, Hannah, I'll turn it over to you, and then we'll hear from the applicant. [1:59:11] Hannah: All right, so this is the board's, technically the board's first review of this plan. You have seen proposals for development on this property in the past. For this is a, as Chris just said, 20 units, which is 10 duplexes, with one road access off of Thompson Road. The applicant currently has a 27 and some change acre parcel that they're proposing to split into two lots, one of them being the lot, which is about 12 and a half acres that this development would be proposed on. Because these are all duplexes on one lot, this does qualify as a multifamily lot, and they are showing on their plan the 50-foot buffer around the perimeter of the site. This development will be served by public water and private septic systems. I believe they show a couple different septic systems, potentially one per every four units. And I always feel like I have a lot more to say to you, but then I'd trail off at the end. So we will turn it over to the applicant. Great. [2:00:22] Michael Tadema-Wieland: Thanks, Hannah. My name is Michael Tadema-Wieland. I'm a civil engineer with Teradyne Consultants. The owner of this property and the lead of the development team is James Howard. James couldn't make it tonight, but another member of the development team, Nick Luia, is here with me tonight. It. I'm going to take you through just a couple quick slides here just to get you familiar with the site and kind of oriented. And I do know that you've seen preliminary plans on this site before. But here's just a slide to show you where we are in town. It's about 1,500 feet north of the middle school and about 1,500 feet south of the Elwife Road intersection section on the east side of. So here's the existing site in a little larger scale. You can see it's entirely cleared. It's historically been used as a hayfield for the past at least several years. Some of you on the board may know more about it, more about its history than I do. The area in blue here, I've got that shaded blue, that's not really what the what it looks like when you look like look at an aerial photo though. That's the freshwater wetlands on the site. So there's about a eight acres of freshwater wetlands on this 27 acres, and there's a stream that runs sort of south to north or from the left side of the plan to the right side of the plan that sort of bisects the site. There's no sewer in the vicinity, as we've heard from other projects in the neighborhood tonight. There's public water about just more than 300 feet in Thompson Road to the north, so the plan here is to extend it down to the site and bring it in to serve this development with public water. We could go to the next slide, please, Hannah. Yeah. So Hannah mentioned Mr. Howard wants to split this site. His family has owned this for quite some time, and his intent is to split off what we're showing as lot one, which is just shy of 15 acres. This site is, the entirety of this site today is in the farmland current use program. So it's, you know, sort of a tax benefit program for farmland and for forestry. This is in the farmland program. The intent is to keep Lot 1 in that farmland program, and he'll continue to hay that Lot 1. Lot 2 is the development parcel. That's where these proposed, these 10 duplexes are proposed. Next slide. And so finally here's the proposal as it stands today. So each one of these sort of orange boxes is a duplex. There will be one point of access coming off Thompson Road, terminating in a cul-de-sac. The road's about 850 linear feet long. Each one of these duplexes, each building, so two units will have a single driveway. Each unit will have a one car garage, at least that's the plan today, and three bedrooms per market rate housing like I mentioned, served by public water and individual, sorry not individual, shared subsurface wastewater disposal. So two buildings will share a wastewater field, so four units, and that we have shown preliminary locations and sizes for those on the plan, and we'll obviously develop that further with a Preliminary application at that, at that size or at that flow rate for four three-bedroom units, we are under that threshold for an engineered system that was talked about earlier. So this, all these systems would be designed by a licensed site evaluator and would, could be approved by the code enforcement officer as any other sort of single-family house septic system could. It, the intent is to create a condo here, so there will be condo documents. But I think initially the project team intends to keep it under common ownership and rent them. But I think at some point, I think they want to set it up so some of them could be, so they could be sold individually in the future. You can see the units are clustered in really the most dominant upland area of the site, with the exception of that unit one and two, which is down closest to Thompson Road. We do have priority three wetlands on the site, and so all the buildings meet the 25 foot setback to those wetlands, as well as the 75 foot setback, regulatory setback to the stream, which is a state, a state requirement. What did I miss here? I guess, I guess the final, the final thing I wanted to mention and sort of solicit some Feedback from the board has It has to do with the 50-foot perimeter buffer that Hannah mentioned. Obviously, we have a site today that has no trees on it. And I think the ordinance envisions maintaining vegetation within that 50-foot. And if there is none, I think it envisions planting to create a 50-foot buffer. And I think that makes sense on some of the exterior boundaries to this site, particularly on the north side where there is a residential abutter. But certainly other areas such as the south side where you're going to have essentially a hayfield abutting a hayfield, I'm not sure it does make as much sense. So I'm just looking for some input from the board tonight on what's possible under the ordinance and what your thoughts are on that. So thank you for your time. We look forward to getting some feedback and scheduling a site visit if that's the wishes of the board. [2:07:39] Bob Janice: So thanks very much. Great. Ted, comments or questions? [2:07:45] Ted: Thank you very much. I remember when we last looked at it in that part of the field, that's a really sensitive area environmentally, and there's the brook going through it. And the concern for that, the drainage issues, stormwater and other drainage issues, as well as individual septic systems, this is really critical here because the building appears to be all in one little sort of high part, squeezed into one little high part. Apart from the one down by Thompson Road, which has a road going right through the heavy part of that wetland. And that, without getting into too detail, there's really substantial issues here relating to drainage and the effect on the existing water sources there, and I worry a lot about [Richard: it, and] that my hearing aids weren't turned up, so I couldn't hear the static, you know. Okay, the, I also, as I'd referred earlier, I mean, if there's, this is smaller than the other two developments that are proposed on this part of Thompson Road, but this, I have to raise the traffic issue as part of that, and this area, if such should be developed, be considered in the increased traffic situation on both Alfred and Alewife Road. I have a really this is a sketch plan only but that the individual septic system I really like to see how that would work in this area because it's it seems like you'd be really squeezed in there but for the moment in the road going through the wetland those are my points thank you thanks Ted Richard I [2:09:56] Richard: I echo Ted's concern about the wetlands and the need to protect the wetlands. This is a very, sensitive site. There's a lot of robust wetlands on this property, and in my opinion, perhaps that's the highest and best use for that piece of property. You made one statement in here that I'm a little bit confused about. But you said that the stream goes to Wardbrook and then goes to Anderskogen River? Typo. That's a hell of a trip. [2:10:37] Michael Tadema-Wieland: Yeah, of the Kennebunk River. Kennebunk River. [2:10:48] Richard: So, obviously, whatever we wind up doing there, we've got to be very careful with the hydrology and those wetlands. That are on that property. And I also echo Ted's concern with the same thing that I mentioned in the last project, which is the cumulative traffic increase in that particular area. And I don't like to use the word gridlock, but maybe we're starting to point the ship towards gridlock in that area. It's becoming a problem. Now you said these are going to be rented at least to start with that's the plan I think that's the plan okay any accommodation for affordable that's not part of the or is it all going to be market rates market rate I guess those are my questions at this point and early on so I'll turn it over to Bob that's [2:12:10] Bob Janice: Richard I know [2:12:13] Speaker H (unidentified): When we walk this before that string cutting through there was an issue and I know we had talked about how that drainage will be maintained and if I remember correctly it kind of comes down from Thompson Road is a dip down and then this climbs up pretty quickly up to the plateau area where the developments going to occur so what methodology would you be looking at being able to do that crossing and be able to sustain the environmental situation on both sides yeah my first thought is a [2:12:42] Michael Tadema-Wieland: Concrete box potentially open bottom where it would certainly be something wider than the stream is today so we would span the bank and it would have a natural bottom to allow you know organisms to pass back and forth on a gravelly bottom. Not designed yet, obviously, but you're right, it's incised. That stream is incised quite a bit, so there will be a pretty good-sized culvert. And again, my first thought is a concrete box. [2:13:27] Speaker H (unidentified): Because you've got quite a bit of grade change to get up to that plateau, too. Too. I know one of the other things when you start talking about the perimeter buffer, and we had this discussion because on the sidewalk there are a number of people that lived in the area, in terms of how you would kind of diminish what those buildings would look like standing out like lollipops sitting on the top of the hill. And one of the things we had discussed out in the field at that time, when you're going to have a fair amount of cut material going on in the construction, is the look of being able to create a berm area that you could plant that would be, you know, below units, you know, starting at unit 20 on that side, on the Thompson Road side. Start looking at how you can manipulate the landform to really soften that whole appearance and help it blend into the environment. As far as the buffering around the perimeter, obviously the contiguous wetland that Mr. Howe is going to retain, it doesn't make a lot of sense to look at how to landscape that. You know, looking at adding some street trees or a little pockets along Thompson Road to kind of diminish it being a wide open space but still retain that integrity, and I can't remember what was immediately behind with a cul-de-sac is the parcel below. Okay, yeah, that's what I thought. I wasn't 100% sure. Okay, so I think obviously having a sidewalk will be able to kind of get a little bit it better, but I just wanted to bring those points up that we discussed the first time around looking at this. Overall, yeah, traffic, you know, is going to be something that's obviously going to be discussed. It's been an issue, you know, that's only going to be more reinforced by adding 74 units between the one you've listened before and this one, and then there's another one in the general neighborhood that, if that ever goes anywhere, you know, we'll be looking at substantial. Substantial. I know that when I first got out of grad school, I worked at a community in New Jersey as a planner, and I was only there for three years. When I went there, were two traffic lights. When I left, there were seven. It shows you how quickly growth was happening down there. That's all I got. Thanks, Bob. Janice? [2:15:48] Janice: Hi. I'm going to look at some specifics here. When we did the site walk, I recall that there was a vernal pool located off-site on this side, kind of out your cul-de-sac, but out there. So I realize it's not your property, but we need to take that into account, a 250-foot buffer around that. So if you could get more information on that, you may not know yourself at this point. I'm wondering about the sewer because at the middle school, which is only 1100 foot away, and our ordinance requires hooking with the sewer if it's 1500 or less. If you would look into the possibility of hooking into the sewer, because that would certainly relieve a lot of the pressure on this land with these shared systems. A couple of the condos are awfully close to where this really drops off, the one in the very back, bumps right up against, you know, one of those top of lines. And I just want to make sure that, you know, as you're doing your earthwork, you're not bumping into the setback for the wetlands. Same thing applies for units. I'm reading this upside down. I put it upside down because it was easier for me. 13 and 14, and actually unit 13 looks like it's built right over a small wetlands, which our ordinance doesn't doesn't allow, so you might want to have to adjust that. The really front two, the, you know, it's one and two, same thing, they're within the 75 foot stream setback, so you want to take a look at that. And I agree with Bob about the bridge. We just had a an application on Daryl's bridge, and that gentleman proposed a bridge that I think works well for over stream. You may want to get with Hannan's get it particulars of that before you go too far with it. And what's the width of the road going in? I think we're showing [2:18:04] Michael Tadema-Wieland: it at 20. I do understand it needs to meet winning the public road standard. I think I'd [2:18:11] Janice: be more confident 22 24. I would speak to the fire department about that. Yeah. [2:18:16] Michael Tadema-Wieland: What's it, yeah, we're early, whatever's show, yeah, is preliminary. You want to [2:18:20] Janice: meet with them to make sure you're, you know, radii works and everything for them. And have you thought about stormwater management yet? Others and pumping it [2:18:31] Michael Tadema-Wieland: into the wetlands, which we don't want to see. Yeah, a little bit. Well, obviously everything drains down towards this unnamed stream, so the areas, sort of the air, the area, gosh, I can't see those numbers. I know it's kind of hard, it [2:18:52] Janice: doesn't stretch far enough, does it? Clearly. [2:19:02] Michael Tadema-Wieland: That the intent would be to sort of collect runoff from the road before it gets into that stream, put it through a treatment system, and then discharge it slowly back into the stream. This will need a DEP permit, a stormwater permit. Okay, good. And yeah, I think when [2:19:24] Janice: you're talking about landscaping, we want to definitely have that stream buffered above. That stream runs into Wardbrook, which runs into the Kennebunk River, and you probably know how impaired it is already, so we need to do everything we can to protect it. And I think that's all I have for the moment, so I'll look forward to the site walk and thank you. Thanks Janice. I [2:19:51] Abhinish: have a couple of questions here because I live nearby. So will the project require wetland alteration? There [2:20:09] Michael Tadema-Wieland: is a unit that is shown in an a little isolated wetland now we'll move, so the answer is yes, where the where it crosses the And [2:20:25] Abhinish: on this letter, paragraph 3rd, it says that the natural resource mapping was done in July 23. Will that be updated? [2:20:35] Michael Tadema-Wieland: I don't think so. Would it need to be updated per ordinance? No. [2:20:46] Abhinish: The other thing I was thinking that, is there any sufficient water pressure for 20 units? [2:20:58] Michael Tadema-Wieland: Good question. We've had preliminary discussion with the water district, but certainly not asking them for a letter to confirm they have sufficient pressure, and that'll certainly be part of the next submission. [2:21:20] Abhinish: And how about the construction staging without entering protected areas? [2:21:24] Michael Tadema-Wieland: also very good question we're not you're there yet to make sure we're protecting that brook certainly so [2:21:41] Abhinish: there will be conduits condominium association right and real association documents prohibits owners from clearing or altering wetland buffers yes absolutely yeah I don't [2:22:02] Speaker L (unidentified): think I have any questions all I'll echo some concerns traffic of course I think we've talked about that quite enough tonight but it's definitely a real concern in the area. Landscaping is going to be of particular importance as we get further in the process, given that the open field nature of the area, and wetland impacts. I think all of it has been called out. Unit 2 appears to be in the setback from the stream. Unit 13, I think you just mentioned, will be moved. And Units 11 and 12, I get that they're conforming to the setback, but that's awfully close, and like I think Janice said, construction and stuff will be happening probably within that setback as drawn, so just keeping those in mind and overall trying to protect the environmental sensitivity of the plot. Thanks. [2:23:00] Bob Janice: Kevin, yeah, so I think you've heard my colleagues have shared most of my concerns as well, I think, as to the landscaping buffer. And I think, as Bob said, I think if we can plant some stuff on the top of that knoll to kind of soften that from Thompson Road, which you could incorporate around a storm water retention or whatever, probably pretty easily. But I don't, yeah, I don't necessarily think you need to plant the back side of those units on the left that front the field necessarily. You might put a street a tree like kind of off the corner of you know unit 19 and 20 or two kind of help again soften that view as you look at it but from the road. But so I don't know if that's enough of a guidance that you're looking for that, but I think I think you, yeah, I don't think it's necessary to plant that area, obviously, of the wetlands and the edge there off. And would we be, I'm trying to remember the grade right off of Thompson Road, if it drops, so would you be, it would we be asking for like street trees alone the whole lot [2:24:42] Speaker H (unidentified): frontage of this? I think once we do the sidewalk again, I think we can discuss it [2:24:50] Bob Janice: at that point. So yeah, that sounds good. All right, so I think at this point we are ready to do a site walk of your location. We would need to center along with a road and a cul-de-sac, mark the edges of the wetland boundaries as it pertains to the near edges of the project, I guess. Obviously you don't need to go out in the whole field, it [2:25:23] Speaker H (unidentified): would be advantageous, especially given the nature of the buildings, to locate the four corners just so we can get a relationship, especially to the slope going down to the wetlands, but also to the abutter. When [2:25:41] Michael Tadema-Wieland: do you think that could be in place? I think I could have it done by the 10th. Okay, yes, we [2:25:52] Bob Janice: We have done two is kind of our max, so we would schedule this at 9 a.m. on Saturday, October 10th. [2:26:13] Richard: All right. Thanks so much. Go ahead. Can I ask you one more question before you escape? Do you know where the nearest fire hydrant is to that project or what you're going to use for fire suppression? [2:26:35] Michael Tadema-Wieland: So I believe the closest – I believe the existing water main ends at a hydrant, so it would be 300 feet to the north. But when the water line is extended, when the water main is extended, the new terminus would end at a new hydrant. And I suspect the fire chief will probably want a hydrant at the cul-de-sac or maybe halfway down the road or something like that. [2:27:03] Richard: He will, for sure. Okay. Thank you. [2:27:37] Abhinish: Yeah. Did we approve those waivers or no? For what? The three waivers which they asked. [2:27:54] Bob Janice: We have not acted on any waiver requests today at all. So we don't act until the preliminary plan stage on some of the waivers. So, no, we have not acted on any of those waivers. [2:28:07] Speaker H (unidentified): We just basically discussed them in terms of our feelings on them. [2:28:10] Bob Janice: Gave the applicant feedback on what they can expect our arguments to be so they can respond to those when it comes time to us to make a decision. So other business before we get to the minutes. Traffic impacts in West Kennebunk and the timing of studies, et cetera. I think we'd like to hear more about the plans for that. If you could ask Chris to give us an idea of what planning is happening and what ways that we can start to proactively get a handle on. The [2:29:08] Speaker H (unidentified): other things we need to look at, since we've got these two developments that are in the stones throughout each other that we've looked at tonight, and then a couple of others that are in the general neighborhood, depending on where that goes. Having traffic studies for these two that we talked about tonight. Having partnership, if you will, looking at what the total and overall impact is because they've got to play off each other. They ultimately will. So what one says and what the other one says, as they need to be looked at as development plans are going on right now. And even broader in terms of what we're starting to see, you know, that one we looked at that's on the other, whatever that was. Trumansville? [2:29:59] Janice: Yes, thank you. Which one? Trumansville. Yeah, but he hasn't come back, has he? [2:30:04] Bob Janice: The mobile home plant, yeah. [2:30:06] Speaker H (unidentified): So, I mean, from that standpoint, I mean, you could be potentially looking at [2:30:15] Bob Janice: Various significant traffic impacts and modifications needed to the roadways to deal with it. [2:30:19] Speaker H (unidentified): Between the two of them, you could be looking at over 700 vehicle trips. [2:30:24] Janice: It isn't just the ones that we're approving. I mean, there's a lot of individual lot activity going on out there, too, I've noticed. So it's cumulative. [2:30:32] Speaker H (unidentified): It's cumulative, and unfortunately part of, I mean, we can take that in a part of when it gets evaluated from the perspective of the town. But what we look at is going to really be promulgated by the developments we're actually evaluating. So in a lot of communities I've worked in where there are projects and we're doing a traffic study for a particular project, South Portland is a classic example. We have to look at within a five-mile radius of where this project was to see what proposed developments there were and what the trip generation was going to be that would have potential connectivity to where our project site was. So, I mean, they were chasing stuff out. The closest one that would have impact was three miles away, and it was going to impact what had to be done to the roadway. Yeah. [2:31:22] Bob Janice: And then ways that we can capture some of the improvements, you know, capture some of the responsibility for those improvements from these developers that are creating the impacts. So I think we'd like to understand more about that. I [2:31:46] Hannah: have some other business items. Okay. Two things that are coming up soon that the board may be interested individually attending, both are part of the housing opportunity program grant that the town is participating in with the towns of Kennebunkport, Kittery and SMPDC. One of them is this Wednesday, at 5 PM in Kittery at the community center. It is similar in concept to the, I don't remember what we called it, but the Lego event that we held here a couple months ago. It is called Homeward, and it is being run by the Urban Land Institute out of Boston. So that one is taking place this Wednesday at 5. I will send all of the information to your email so you have the flyers. But that one you do sign up for online, so if you're interested, I know it is short notice, but if you're interested, you can sign up for that one. The other one is going to be a virtual webinar that is titled The People Behind the Plans. That one is going to be held on Tuesday, October 6th at 5 p.m. Again, a virtual webinar. And we have panelists from Sebago Technics, Terradine Consultants. I actually think the applicant that just presented might be one of them. And Tidemark LLC, which is a real estate development company, speaking on, well, the people behind the plans. Speaking about housing development and things that go into creating a successful housing development and responsible housing development, so that will be held, there is a online registration to get the link for that, so that'll be next week after whatever the 6th is, October is very soon, so I will send both of these out to your email so you have that information. [2:33:44] Ted: Just for the board's attention, at the select board meeting last week, one of the select board members publicly criticized the planning board for not moving on the climate change suggestions or recommendations. And when I talked to that person and maintained a very strong, powerful line, the Planning Board is not doing its job, and I think we should all know that happened publicly. [2:34:28] Janice: Other business? Well, I'll just do a little update on the Conservation Commission. In the last two weeks, they planted a pollinator garden around the gazebo in Rotary Park and did another invasive removal event at Rogers Pond. And we can finally start to see the native plants coming back in there, which is quite gratifying. The amount of we fills up an entire dump truck again, and there's plenty more if anybody's down there and they're bored someday. Just bring your clippers and whack away at the multi-floor rows, so that's my little catch up with him. Thank you. All right. [2:35:13] Bob Janice: So meeting minutes for September 14, 2026. Any comments or corrections? I just have one on page [2:35:27] Speaker H (unidentified): three, second paragraph down, it begins with a trainer. Come down to the last line, three lines up, have to fly catcher. I think it's a train to set. I think it should be trainer. You must have [2:35:48] Janice: on the page for this is a paragraph starts with me J Van's question is 75 foot. If you can, Jim, just put the word stream before the word setback, and I'd be happy with that. Thank you. Any [2:36:13] Bob Janice: other corrections or comments? I [2:36:23] Janice: will make a motion to approve the Kennebunk Planning Board meeting minutes for September 14 2026 as corrected second motion made in second [2:36:34] Bob Janice: Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? All right, many minutes are approved. Our next meeting for this planning board is October 26 because of the indigenous people's day holiday on the 12th. We will have no meeting that [Richard: day, so] there's nothing else. We will see you on the 26th. I will make a motion to [Janice: adjourn. You've] started stock before. All those in favor? We are adjourned. Thank