Wells Planning Board Advances Subdivisions, Revisits 900 Post Road Plan

[0:08] Planning Board Chair: Welcome, everyone, to the Town of Wells Planning Board meeting for Monday, October 5th. The first item would be to review the minutes of September 28th, but they did not get produced, as we had just a week's time. So we do not go through that. The next item on the agenda would be 900 Post Road. Are they here? Welcome. FOR THE RECORD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL EVERYBODY WHO YOU ARE, PLEASE? [0:57] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: SURE. MY NAME IS ALLEN ROSCOE. I'M THE TEAM PROJECT MANAGER WITH T.F.R.M. OUT OF PORTSMOUTH. I'M HERE THIS EVENING WITH MY CLIENT, MRS. LITTLE TELL, WHO IS THE ADVOCATE. AND WE ARE ALSO JOINED BY MR. DOOBY, WHO IS THE MOVING INNER. WE WERE HERE LAST TIME. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A CONVENIENCE STORE, A GAS STATION, AND A LIMITED VEHICLE drive-thru proposal. Some concerns were raised about and so forth, and we've heard you loud and clear. So we're coming back in. We have a couple of concepts to share, very similar to the initial presentation, but what we've done is we've worked out an arrangement with Mr. Groobie to access the CVS parking area through the signalized intersection that you see there. So actually you have to cross over the drainage basin pond in that area and provide compensation for any lost runoff storage by bridging it or culminating so that little teardrop shaped feature on the north side of the page, north side, that's been circling, that would be our compensation area, so that would be another drainage area that would be connected to the bulk of the drainage basin closer to Route 1. So that's common with both the concepts we're going to present tonight. This particular one is what we're calling Concept C, so it's a slightly reduced convenience store footprint. Same gas station arrangement with 12 pumps. We have additive parking and we keep a lot of coverage just below 55%, so we do not need any special variances. We've turned the front facing portion of the building so that it faces Route 1. All of the traffic movements would be either through the signalized intersection at the CVS or along the driveway that services the Hampton Inn. And our loading for the gas tanks would be accomplished by entering the signalized intersection, taking a left into the back of our site, and then loading the fuel and then driving straight out and to the Hampton Inn access way. So that is one of our options. That has 30 parking spaces, no drive-thru, but again, it meets the 65% lot coverage. [3:54] Planning Board Member: Before you go on to the next one, I'd just like to make a few comments on this one. First of all, I don't think we want to see any exits or entrances off the Hampton Inn access route. The other problem that I see with this design is you've got your fuel tanks so that if a truck comes to deliver fuel, people can't get around the fuel islands. So that's a problem. The other thing I see is the difference between the front of the fuel islands and that retention pond by Steepleway, that drive there is not sufficient. We have a number of gas stations in town, and we've, we've learned through experience what works and what doesn't work, and that distance would need to be, need to be wider. The problem being, if the truck comes in, I know you said you're going to get truck deliveries at night, but that doesn't always happen. And you're probably going to, in the summertime, you're going to have a load a day, maybe even two loads a day, depending on traffic. So I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see the fuel islands moved and perhaps the, not the fuel islands moved, the fuel tanks moved. And perhaps the next run that you have, I can show you where a good spot would be to place those. But I'd also like to see a little bit more distance in there. We've got a similar situation at a gas station down the street, but we don't really have enough room. Someone comes in and pulls their vehicle in, and it makes it difficult for people to get by. And it would be impossible if you had two-way traffic coming in where those fuel tanks are located, if the delivery occurred at the same time. [5:51] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: So you would not be in favor of accessing the Hampton Inn driveway where it's an existing [5:57] Planning Board Member: intersection? Absolutely not, because if you come out of the Hampton Inn driveway, now you're going to have people trying to go left across the double lanes, which is going to be more of a stacking lane again, because people are going to be wanting to go into the gas station. The second thing is people going northbound are going to want to kind of cross that lane. And in the summertime, that's the area that the traffic is backed up because of all that. And you'll just increase the traffic so bad, it'll be gridlocked. That's why this whole issue is that we want you to come in and out on the Steep Away. [6:30] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: Even if it's right turn in, right turn out only? [6:33] Planning Board Member: Yeah, it's going to stop right turn in and right turn out. Hampton Inn's going to be able to, they're not going to agree to that, first of all. And the second thing is right turn in, right turn out. You'd have to curb it so hard. How's Hampton Inn going to get in and out? [6:46] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: Just throwing out ideas. No. [6:49] Planning Board Member: And you probably would be better off that way there. You could shorten your building up a little bit and give the room for the tractor trailers to swing completely around the building and come back out again. I mean, it's a tough site. There's no doubt about it. [7:12] Planning Board Chair: Did you have another proposal as well? Yes, I do. [7:17] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: I'm not sure how you got it arranged, Mike. Okay so this is a variation of the previous concept but it does show the drive-through lane that has at least nine stacked parking spaces there but that makes the building a little bit smaller but we still maintain our 65% lot coverage so in this version we've got 28 spaces that includes parking at the pumps and the stacking it's a 44,000 square foot convenience store and very similar layout we have shown here follows on what we had in the last drawing so we've got that two-way driveway out to the CVS property and one - and or two-way curb cuts to the Hampton Inn, which I understand you are against. [8:21] Planning Board Member: Yeah, and you could use that back end as an area to come around with it and do a traffic flow. The only issue on that one there, once you get rid of those curb cuts that I see, is having a tractor trailer come in and dump gas in the middle of the entrance. [8:40] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: Yeah, and would it be advisable to have at least an emergency access to Hampton Inn's driveway? [8:50] Planning Board Member: The issue with not having a connection to Hinton Inn would be that it would be really nice for the Hinton Inn traffic to have a way to get to the surface of a traffic light. I mean, they're going in and out of this entrance as it is now, and that gets dangerous. If they had a way to get through this site to get to the light, I think that would be good. I agree. [9:14] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: At least if there's an accident at the bypass over the drainage basin, you know, you're not isolated away. [9:28] Speaker F (unidentified): It's like, you know, the traffic flow should be, like, rotating. Like, you know, it's not going to stop in the one entrance, one exit. Otherwise, the traffic light is going to be stuck with the traffic a lot. [9:37] Planning Board Member: Well, that's where you're going to have it in, is because if you're not at the traffic light, it's going to be at the intersection down the corner, which is going to be more gridlocked than the traffic light. There's no stacking that going down the other end. What if you eliminated the drive-up and kept the road around the building? That would allow you to move the tanks towards the rear. Hampton Inn is not a road, right? It is a road. Oh, so we have to have a setback from it. Yes. But because the frontage requirement is already met on Route 1, that can be reduced to a side setback. Which is still 15 feet? Yeah. And that's just for a structure, not for a... So can we put a... can they put a road and pavement in it? Yes. So if you took out those two ends, you could actually put your tanks... Back there... back there. Bring the truck back around, fill, come back out and make the swing go out. You'd have to readjust your pumps a little bit so you can make that swing come back out. [10:53] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: I don't think the pumps would work out front. [10:56] Planning Board Member: A tank here and the pumps out there. And if this entrance was, if there was a way to design it so it only would allow self-bound to come in and self-bound out, I mean, it would only maybe ensure that... Yeah, you'd have to have shop curbs going in one way and shop curbs going out the other way, but now what's Hampton Inn going to do? Yeah, Hampton Inn might not like that. Hampton Inn's not going to allow that. Well, the people could cut through the site and go to the light, which they would like. But how could they do that? With curb cuts, you know. You'd have to have a way for Hampton Inn folks to travel through and get to the light. And, you know, the way to fully restrict. I mean, if you have northbound traffic and the issue is coming across here or someone leaving, going northbound, you've got to have a small raised island in the middle of Route 1. You'll drive right over it. [11:54] Speaker G (unidentified): Well, you have to have a very high raised island, yeah, but there might be ways to make that functional and that's technically a private road, correct? Yes, this property [12:08] Planning Board Member: Has rights in the right-of-way that comes all the way up here onto the property. The fee ownership is with the implement. There is a defined right-of-way that has a little hammerhead design right in this area. But you know, a lot of those issues would be vetted out with the traffic study, because with the traffic generation counts that were provided, of course that's a trigger, a full Main DOT traffic moving permit or an amendment to the existing one. So all of those restrictions for in and out and connections that would all be part of that review as well. Could [12:58] Planning Board Chair: we have them look at it? Oh yes, part of the approval will definitely be a full [13:03] Planning Board Member: traffic study and we'll have to do that for me. Anybody's in whatever proposed restrictions on these incidences would be all part of that study to predict where the movements are going to occur and how to split up the traffic that's [13:21] Speaker G (unidentified): being generated by the site in which direction. I think regardless of [13:28] Planning Board Member: eventually what happens with the traffic, I think we definitely don't want those tanks there and that in that location you're talking about. Well, you know, maybe Hampton Inn would use that as a country. I mean, that just doesn't make any sense to put the tanks yeah, usually that's a concrete apron with the covers on it, so it's not a very well that's the travel over it's not an issue the issue is when they come in to fill help. Well, I got to correct you on that, Dave. It is an issue in the wintertime because those covers come off so easily when you plow. If you notice like at Hafner's, they have them blocked off. At Alltown, they have them blocked off in the winter. That whole area is blocked off. You can't drive over it because they don't want the snow plow going over it. So it may make more sense to put the tanks right in front of it. Or go back to the original layout and move the building the way it was before, put your pumps back down the end, and that would give you a complete circle to go around and then back in front again. So you'd be able to do a complete loop around the pumps. No, put the building up almost to the 15-foot setback. So everything is out in front of the building. Then your pumps will be down the other end so that you'll be enough room to drive a tractor trailer completely around and then cross back in front of the stanchion on the way out. Then you can put the pumps anywhere in that area, the tanks anywhere in that area. It will give you your flow. You know what I'm saying, Mike? So the building will be up against there. And then the tanks will be turned side the way they were, but you'll have enough room to run that tractor trail completely around and then cross back in front of the building. [15:23] Speaker F (unidentified): Excuse me, sorry about that. But that's how, like, the drive-through traffic, right, it's easy to look to the light. If we can put, like, you know, if you see the drive-through option on that crosswalk, it's easy to like you know loop it in yeah that should be the perfect idea for that 's what [15:38] Planning Board Member: I would try and do that just so you can get the movement for the for the tractor trailer to get in there at the same time and then move your tanks towards more towards route one so that they can stop and fill. I mean the whole issue is we can't dump more traffic at that hampton entrance because no matter what you do you're going to have issues with the double stacking of the lane coming up. I mean, we see it now, it backs all the way up to 9B, and then going down from the other way, you have cars coming through that light, and if they're trying to make that turn and come out, you're just going to back that whole gridlock up completely. And I think the location they're proposing here for that connection is a good location. Yeah. It's as far away from the intersection as possible, so it allows for as much stacking, and it splits that stormwater pond nicely where they can get a little more stormwater detention there plus the existing basin is mostly preserved here. So the location of that, for looking at scheduling the sidewalk, I mean, I think this is mostly what we've been looking at is where that connection is. Yeah, it's directly across from the entrance to CVS, which is perfect. Yes, and that aligns with that very nicely too. I mean, if we're doing the sidewalk, I don't know if it matters too much whether the building is here or here. I think we're mostly looking at that. That's what we're gonna look at that me and the I mean they could stake the building out Somewhat in the area as far out as they'd like to have for the drive-through at the same time to see how it works I don't know. I was kind of thinking that I'd like to see I Mean that we've all been out to that site at least a couple of times So we've got a pretty good handle on the site. I'd kind of like to see Where the buildings gonna go where the fuel tanks are gonna go? and just to make sure that we've got enough room for cars to pull out of the fuel islands and get out of there [18:07] Planning Board Chair: If you pull in there with a travel trailer on the back, which I've seen [18:12] Planning Board Member: happened more than once. Well, the thing is too, if you, if you happen to get a fuel delivery in the middle of the day, that's your only way in and out. Oh yeah, if a tractor trailer pulled in here to build these tanks, well no, we're pulling right over the tanks, it pulls right over the tank so you can dump. Yeah, so the only way to get around would be, that would just be a total mess. And as far as an emergency exit, you could put a breakaway fence down the end if you needed it. Yeah. Like they did at Summer Village. So if there's an issue, they can open the fence up and drive over it. [18:47] Planning Board Chair: They also did it at the Carnavich Homes. Did they? Entrance up through there. [18:53] Planning Board Member: Where's that breakaway? Oh, in... The apartments, the condos. The condos, okay. I mean, something like that there, if you needed an emergency egress. Oh, yeah, you can put a gate across here, and just for deliveries, you can open the gate and let people off that way. No, because that's going to be the same thing. Middle of the day, trying to bring a tractor-trailer route onto Route 1. Well, as long as it's going south, it'll be okay. Yeah, okay. Good luck. South onto Route 1, where they'd have to cross all three lanes to get it to make the turn. Well, southbound, they don't have to. Southbound, they're just going to come out and take a right. They're not crossing anything. No,, no. To make the swing on the trailer, they're going to have to cross two lanes. Oh, from the turning lanes. Yeah. [Planning Board Chair: At least] we're coming in the Abishon, way they got plenty of room to make the swing and plenty of room to make the swing in the other way. Well not abish on cbs, so it's up to you guys what you want to do, you want to schedule it or you want to have them bring it back again. I'd like to see him bring it back with it with the correct, it's then when we go out and look at it, I want to look at everything the way, the way it works right now this doesn't work, so I'll follow Steve on that one. So then [20:08] Planning Board Chair: Can you come back with a different drawing for us? And then we can schedule the sidewalk. [20:13] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: Yeah, what would be our new schedule? [20:17] Speaker H (unidentified): Anytime for the next meeting, another meeting, too. [20:22] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: We'll put it together within a week. Oh, yeah. [20:25] Planning Board Member: Yeah, we can just do the answer thing before the meeting. Before [20:38] Speaker F (unidentified): the time that we just have to start that, [20:39] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: and I'll talk to the CVS about it. Right. And [20:45] Planning Board Member: then just show a fence with a breakaway gate on one end for the thing. And the other one gone. More progress. [21:00] Planning Board Chair: The next item on the agenda is Pine Tree Village subdivision amendment. We need someone to make a motion to receive this. [21:31] Planning Board Member: Make a motion that we receive the subdivision amendment re-application. [21:36] Planning Board Chair: All those in favor? That is unanimous. You have been received. Mike, did you have comments on this for us? [21:46] Planning Board Member: Yes, this one is to be received and the board to consider scheduling a sidewalk. I'll pull up the old subdivision. So this was a subdivision that was done in the 90s. There's a road called the Ruby Circle off of off of Mount Branch Road and it was a very tight cluster subdivision. Excuse me, we need them to introduce these. Oh yes, oh sorry. Yes. I'm Debra Briggs from the Lower Village Survey. [22:16] Speaker H (unidentified): Welcome. Rockville Landowners. Campbell. [22:20] Planning Board Chair: Awesome. Sorry. Now you can carry on. No, that's important. Very important. [22:26] Planning Board Member: The original subdivision was a very tight cluster subdivision that circled around the Ruby Circle. It also included a portion of the property to be open space. And originally this was all one lot. There was an amendment done, I want to say in 98 or 99, that created, it was still part of the subdivision, but created a standard lot. So there are two standard lots at the end of this dead-end road, and now the owners want to come in and divide or subdivide another lot in this portion of the very large lot that exists here. So one of the items they've done is updated their wetlands limitations to show that they have more than 50% of the land would be upland versus wetlands. That's the new ordinance. They'd be creating a standard lot here that would be taking its frontage off the original road that was part of the last subdivision approval. They've done test pits for soils and septic and have an area in the reserve area. The existing house would remain the same up at the end of the road, and I believe, correct me if you're wrong, that you plan on selling this and building a home for yourselves on the other. That was the original plan. Yep. So the board would be going out and looking to see the status of this road, take a to look at the land in this area. If you wanted to, we could walk up to the end as well. A couple of decisions the board would have to look at is, you know, how wide this road is. On the original subdivision plan, it just depicts it as 20-foot gravel, which would have met the ordinance at that time. Currently, I think it's paved about 12-foot wide. There may be a gravel base that is 20-foot wide all the way up through here, but that's one thing we should look at. The new lot would be located here, and the new frontage for that new lot should meet today's standards, which would be 24 feet of gravel. So it would mean they'd have to widen at least the first portion of this road along the 125 feet of street frontage that's required. But we still want to check to make sure the rest of the road met the standard at the time that was created. They do have on the open space there's a common well that serves the subdivision, and there was a dedicated area for a well. Area so that on the plan there's the well location is actually located, and the radius is shown from it, 300 foot from that, the septics that proposed or meet that setback. No, they'd have their own will and septic, so they're they're not part of the HOA. Okay, that these were you know prove people that first two lots were created like I said 98, 99, I think was the time period for those, and they were approved the standard Lots, not cluster Lots, with their own septic and wells, and by that time the town had accepted this is a town road, so they're currently not part of the HOA, and that was part of the subdivision approval at that time. Private? That's private. Yes. Isn't that part of the HOA? No. No. The HOA has a right across it to maintain the well. And they have a right across it for recreational purposes to get to the open space. But they don't plow it. They don't maintain it. It's not part of the HOA fees for that. So that would be your road in its entirety? Yes, it is. Yeah. But we did have a question to make sure what the maintenance agreement is between your existing house, the other lot that's here, and the new lot. It has to be a maintenance agreement for just those three lots for the private street. So I'm not available this weekend for a site walk, but the following weekend I'd be available. I don't know what your schedule is. [26:46] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: So you're talking about the 17th? Yes. 17th at 730? [26:50] Planning Board Chair: Sure. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DO A SIGHTWALK ON OCTOBER 17TH AT 7 30 A.M. SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THAT IS UNANIMOUS CAN YOU HAVE THAT STAKED OUT YES THEN YOU JUST WANT THE PROPOSED NEW PROPERTY [27:08] Planning Board Member: LINE STATE DOES THAT PRETTY MUCH IT YEAH THAT'S USUALLY WHAT WE LOOK AT IS YEAH THAT PROPOSED LOCK CORNER ALONG THE ROAD WELL I'M WONDERING IF IS IT POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE looking at that road to see if it's 20-foot gravel it would it be possible to you don't have to stake every 50 feet or like that I just want to look at it and see if it is the 20-foot gravel with and I won't be able to do that unless we know where the center line of the road is so is it possible just to mark the center line of the road on the asphalt within the gravel you said that you said THAT AREA IS PAVED 12 FEET WIDE. THAT'S WHAT MIKE WANTED US TO LOOK AT. [27:57] Planning Board Chair: To see if it's 20 feet. [27:59] Planning Board Member: If there's 20 feet of gravel. The only way to do that is to know where the center line of the road is. [28:04] Speaker I (unidentified): CENTER LINE OF THE RIGHT-AWAY, THEN. 50-FOAT RIGHT-AWAY? YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY. [28:10] Planning Board Member: You know, if we had one of the sidelines, then we could tell. Yeah, I just figured it'd be easier because you just paint a mark instead of driving stay with so yeah They put a paint mark in the, in the pavement. Yeah. [28:21] Speaker H (unidentified): The road that are, we've got three foot high stakes with orange already got stakes. Oh, yeah, okay. [28:32] Planning Board Chair: That would be fine. Yeah. [28:36] Speaker I (unidentified): Left side going down, right? Yeah. Yeah, that should be fine. So the road itself is part of their lot you have a lot 17 is the other law you're 17 a right yeah so the road [28:52] Speaker H (unidentified): itself as it is would be conveyed when we sold the original property all the way out, and the new lot would not use any of that right, but as Mike was saying [29:06] Planning Board Member: that we wanted to confirm that the road there met the standard, yeah, even if this driveway for the new lot comes out to Berube, the frontage requirement for the street frontage would still have to be mined at ACM. [29:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Correct. The 25, 24 feet. Right. I think it was that in the beginning or close to it, and the grass has, slowly the grass has taken over. So that would have to be the 24 feet up to the entrance of the new lot? [29:37] Planning Board Member: Whatever the street frontage requirement is for the zone, which I think is 145 feet. [29:44] Speaker I (unidentified): It's a 20 feet gravel for the full 120, or whatever the front of the front is. Yes, it's 125. And [29:58] Planning Board Member: it's light out at 7.30 a.m., right? [30:01] Planning Board Chair: Yes, it's light out at 7.30. [30:03] Planning Board Member: It's getting, you know, that time of year. It won't be for another couple weeks, Mike. Just check it. It is. [30:09] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: Technically, we could have probably done it at quarter to seven again, but. [30:14] Speaker H (unidentified): Sounds like that was a problem. [30:17] Planning Board Chair: The sidewalks are getting earlier, you'll be accessing that lot off of Ruby, not the back. [30:22] Speaker H (unidentified): Road in correct there is no back road in but there's only one road in and we would the ruby coming off the ruby directly into that lot straight shot in so you don't use any of basically morning dove lane gotcha and [30:43] Planning Board Member: So that would be something you want to work out with the other property owner, if this driveway is going to come off of Ruby Lane, maybe they don't need to share the following cost of that. [30:52] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't know how you split it. Well, it's coming down Morning Dove Lane. It's not going to come. I'll correct that. It's not directly off of Ruby. You'll come down Morning Dove Lane probably that 100 feet or so to get to this lot. Oh, you will? Straight in. Yeah. And currently, I own the responsibility. There is no agreement, but I own the responsibility. Oh, you own the responsibility? For the no my neighbor does the plowing and we share it and it's just kind of a gentleman's agreement but you could very easily put somebody together yeah because we would like to memorialize [31:24] Planning Board Member: It you know if the property passes to the next person yeah and basically you own the road so [31:32] Speaker I (unidentified): You would just to take care of I guess but you would want to see a road maintenance agreement SIGNED AND RECORDED WITH JUST THE THREE PROPERTY THE THREE PROPERTIES [31:43] Planning Board Member: YEAH I MEAN IT JUST WE NEED TO KNOW WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS THAT KIND OF THING SO I MEAN IF ONE PROPERTY OWNER IS VERSING THE HIGHER COST YOU COULD DO THAT I WOULDN'T THINK THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER COULD BE ABLE TO BUT IF THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE NOW AS LONG AS SOME PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING IT THAT'S WHAT THE PLAINTIE BOARD HAS TO EVALUATE AND LOOK AT AS LONG AS someone's on the hook section [32:13] Speaker I (unidentified): Of morning dove lane as best I can see on that screen there is gravel from the ruby circle up to where the pavement starts but it doesn't really show up very well the right-of-way is very wide at that entrance off of the ruby circle so there's plenty of room to widen that gravel out I just don't know exactly the width of what's there now I think it kind of varies like you said things have grown in and the edges aren't as defined [32:40] Speaker H (unidentified): I think I yeah we could try to show it but probably for the sidewalk could probably clarify that better for us as to right this is what we have in mind yeah that [32:53] Planning Board Chair: Would be perfect anything else that should be it for tonight thank you very much thank you the next item on the agenda is perkins pasture subdivision for the record would you like to tell everybody who you [33:24] Speaker G (unidentified): Are please Mark and Kelly O'Brien or Mike if [33:30] Planning Board Member: comments for us that just specified that prior to the occupancy of this house that new drainage system would be installed, the easement would be released if needed, a new easement, you know, conveyed to the town for this area, what would be needed based on where the level of spread was going to be located. So there were a couple of conditions that had to be, oh, and the landscape buffer. So the planting of the three trees in this corner and establishing that landscape buffer along the front. So all those would have to be completed prior to an occupancy being issued. And those were the conditions that were laid out in note six. So, we were asking the Board to take a vote to deem those performance guarantees as suitable. [34:27] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. [34:33] Planning Board Member: Everything else has been addressed that we had discussed and had marked up on the plan before. So, with that, we'd recommend the Planning Board vote to deem the application as compliant. [34:44] Planning Board Chair: So, motion. Move that the application is compliant. Second. Second. All those in favor? [34:50] Planning Board Member: UNANIMOUS AND WE DID HAVE A FINDINGS OF FACT THAT WE'RE IN YOUR PACKET IT'S A 21 PAGE DOCUMENT IT'S AN EDITED UPDATED VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS FROM THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL THAT INCLUDED THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION THAT'S BEEN UPDATED FOR ALL THE ITEMS RELATED TO THIS ONE BLOCK CHANGE BASED ON THE PLANS WE'VE RECEIVED TO DATE AND THE FINDINGS WE RECOMMEND THE PLANNING BOARD vote to approve both the findings of the plan and sign them at the end of the meeting. [35:21] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? That is an answer. We'll sign them at the end of the meeting and you can pick them up. [35:32] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: Thank you, Kyler. You're welcome. [35:39] Planning Board Chair: Have a good night. The next item on the agenda is Goodale Subdivision. Just in case they don't know who you are, sure, would you like to introduce yourself? How do you do, by the way? [35:57] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: I'm the owner of Goodale Subdivision. Welcome. [36:06] Planning Board Chair: Mike you have comments for us [36:08] Planning Board Member: Yes, the only item after the last meeting to get addressed was just the amended road maintenance agreement and H of open space documentation for the declaration both of those were provided by the applicants attorney I Updated the doc review memo and that was in your packet So all the item left is for the planning board to go through the findings to approve the subdivision This is a new subdivision. The last one we just approved was in a minute, so we didn't have to go through every item in the findings. But this is a new subdivision. So the draft findings were in your packet. This also is a 21-page document. The first page is a description of the application. The next two pages are a project history of the application. And on page 3 at the bottom is the beginning of Section 202.12, paragraph a. If the board would like to take a vote to deem the applications being compliant with the comprehensive plan, so all those in favor, that is an endless paragraph. B is the retention of open space. When it became a five lot subdivision and required open space, eight point eight acres of open space are proposed. Based on that, we recommend the clean board finds that standard has been met. Is there a motion that the standard has been met? Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. On the top of page 5 is paragraph C, blocks. There are no blocks proposed in this subdivision, so we recommend the Planning Board find that standard shall not apply. Is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. Paragraph D on that same page is regarding lots and the lot dimensional requirements. The Planning Board approved this to be standard lots versus cluster lots back at the beginning of the process. All the lots meet the ordinances. As proposed, we recommend the Planning Board finds that paragraph D standard has been met. So moved. Second. All those in favor? That is announced. Brings us to page 6, paragraph E, Utilities. The Board waived the requirement for underground utilities based on the existing overhead lines and the configuration of the lots and where houses would be placed. Based on that, we recommend the Planning Board deem that paragraph E standard has been mapped. [38:30] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor. We'll get this down sooner or later. Yeah. [38:36] Planning Board Member: Paragraph F required improvements. This paragraph covers a few pages in the findings. One being monumentation, which the Board deems is suitable as proposed on the plan at a previous meeting. Covers water supply. All the wells are proposed to be private drilled wells. This section also covers water for fire protection. The Planning Board determined that the new homes would require sprinkler systems as their on-site fire measure. This section also includes septic and sewage disposal. Each law is proposed with a private subservice water disposal system and is evident by the test bits on the plan. This section also covers stormwater management. The board granted a waiver for a full pre- and post-analysis. It did require the construction details for the roads to be located on the plan, which has been done. It takes us to page 12, paragraph G, streets. The board determined that the existing road that services the subdivision is required to be paved, and that's noted on the plan. THE OTHER ROADS TO BE GRAVELED, THAT'S ALSO NOTED ON THE PLAN AND SHOWN IN THE INGENUARY IN DETAIL. WE RECOMMEND THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT PARAGRAPH G STANDARD HAS BEEN MET. [39:58] Planning Board Chair: So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? That is Anandas. [40:04] Planning Board Member: That brings us to page 13, paragraph H, land features. This section covers erosion control measures, very little construction other than the homes, involves disturbance. We recommend that the planning board find that standard has been met. So moved. Second, all those in favor, you know, I think, I think I'm required improvements for paragraph F, we went through them, but I don't think the board voted on, you recommend the plane board finds that paragraph F standard, so move, second, all those in favor, there were too many pages involved, yeah, I got to the end and just moved on to the next paragraph. That takes us to page 16 in the findings which paragraph section 202.13 performance guarantees are listed. There's note 30 on the plan that outlines when building permits can be issued on the on the new lots. Based on that note 30, we recommend the planning board finds that the standards of 202.13 have been met. So moved. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous, that brings us to page 19 and that notes section 2 0 2 and that goes over the purpose criteria for approval, paragraph A is that the subdivision will not impact various environmental factors, paragraph B is financial and technical capacity, paragraph C is flood-prone areas, and paragraph D is long-term accumulative impacts. We recommend the planning board finds that all those standards shall be met. So moved. [41:49] Planning Board Chair: Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. [41:54] Planning Board Member: We have our six standard conditions of approval and one special condition of approval. But based on the draft findings and the plans to date, we recommend the planning board vote to approve both the findings and the plan and sign both at the end of the meeting. [42:08] Speaker H (unidentified): Second. So moved. [42:10] Planning Board Chair: Second. Is there a second? All those in favor? That is unanimous. You're all set, sir. We will sign these at the end of the meeting. The next item on the agenda this evening is Seaview West campground. Would you like to tell everybody who you are, please? Yes, I'm Chris Wilber with [42:49] Speaker G (unidentified): Adder Engineering, representing folks at Seaview West. [42:56] Planning Board Chair: Mike, do you have comments [42:57] Planning Board Member: for us on this? Yes, we've looked at this application for a while now. All the lot coverage issues have been addressed. There's a nice table on the plan that breaks down the existing and proposed. [43:10] Speaker F (unidentified): There's a note on the plan that breaks out when sites [43:14] Planning Board Member: will be dropping the conformance and how we'll move forward regulating the lost coverage. All the Biden plan revisions we had on the last set are all with addressed. So based on the plans to date, we recommend the Planning Board vote to find the application as complied. So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? Then there's unanimous. Secondly, we do have a findings of fact in the packet. This is an amendment to an existing site plan, so you don't have to go through all the paragraphs, but the findings are based on the ordinance section 145 to 75 paragraphs a through n that cover traffic, odor, glare, dust, fumes, vapors, stormwater runoff, road control, sepaxon, screening, explosive materials, water quality, preservational landscape, refuge disposal, water supply, sewage disposal, and fire safety. Based on the plans provided to date, all the information in the findings, we recommend the plenty board approve both the findings and plan and sign both at the end of the meeting. So will we do that? I have a question. We have dates on when the stuff's supposed to be completed and moved and all that stuff. There were two There were two items left that were within DEP stormwater buffers, so yes, there was a date of... So my question is, how are we going to know when it's done? There's got to be something in the findings of fact that say they have to report to us that it's completed, and not just say, well, we got it done, and then come back in five years, the next person that owns the site, and find out that it's not done. Well, what we do when there's a deadline, like condition on the plan, we enter it into to the Code Enforcement Office's computer system. Yep. And so on that date, it automatically pops up for inspection by the Code Office. But I still think that it needs to be on the applicant to notify us somehow that it's been completed. That should be an easy enough note to... That needs to be added to the plan and added to the finance effect because... We can still sign the plans. Yeah. Well, we can add it to the findings. Yeah, to the findings. It shouldn't be up to the Code Enforcement Office. It should be up to the applicant to track it. And sometimes we miss that. Well, that's why I'm bringing up this issue. It needs to be the applicant needs to notify us when it's completed. So, Dave, why don't you make that motion? So made. [45:40] Planning Board Chair: All those in favor? That is unanimous. [45:43] Planning Board Member: So that was a motion just to add a special condition number 2 to the findings that the applicant notify the Code Office and Planning Office when those items are complete. That's right. So if they're not completed, then there's no date set for completion. There is. Yes, there is. April 1st on the two items. Okay. So that way we know it's been completed, and if it's not completed, then, you know, it's their responsibility, not ours. So are [46:16] Allen Roscoe, Team Project Manager with TFRI: we good with the rest of it? [46:18] Planning Board Member: Yes. So I made a motion. I made a motion. Okay. [46:21] Planning Board Chair: All those in favor? That is unanimous. [46:25] Planning Board Member: And the findings are easy to change, because only the chairman needs to sign those. So we can sign the plans tonight, and then we'll edit the findings to add that special condition, and then the chairman can stop it and sign it. This can be done. My spare time. Lunch hour. That's it. Perfect. Welcome. Have a great night. Wrapped up a lot of things that were hanging out there. Yes, I know, tonight was a shorter agenda, but it's nice to have some approvals done. We just have listened for the board to consider, and we talked about it a little bit at the last meeting, was goals for ordinance changes for the next Junetown meeting. You know, we're going to work on the FEMA ordinances again. Okay, so short-term rentals? Short-term rentals. I do have something like LV-18, what is it? Two, lots now. Which allows them to do 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Are we going to handle that with all the people in town that decide they want to split their lots into 5,000-square-foot lots. We need to do something with an ordinance that requires them, A, to come to the planning board. Well, if it's a division, you cannot. So if they have a 10,000-square-foot lot and they're just dividing it into two 5,000-square-foot lots, if it's not part of an existing approved subdivision, state law, you know, says they are exempt [48:13] Speaker G (unidentified): and do not need to come to the planning board. [48:17] Planning Board Member: This is gonna be a nightmare. Yeah, because you're going to see every lot in this area that's 10,000 square feet become two house lots. And on that 5,000 square foot lot, if you're in a designated growth area, you can put four dwellings. 5,000 for a lot. No. 5,000 for the lot, and you can put four dwelling units on that 5,000 square foot lot. What? Yeah. Yes. [48:45] Speaker G (unidentified): Wow is right, yeah. [48:47] Planning Board Member: Four units, lots, and growth areas are served by public water and sewers, so at least four dwelling units. So one thing we should look at is revising our designated growth area. Yes, we need to bring that to the comprehensive plan and change the designated growth area. Yes, and exactly that should go through the conference. It needs to go quickly. We need to start to look at it so that in January, I mean in June, we have it on the ballot. Because I can see people trying to slam in four dwelling units on 5,000 square feet all over this town, including the beach. So you're going to be talking, you know, they've got a 5,000 square foot lot down there. If the beach is in the designated growth area, and all of a sudden you now can put four units on a 5,000 square foot lot. I have another point to deal with this, too, is that they're adding, if you're having affordable housing density, you can add 14 feet to your height requirement. Yeah, that was a unique one out of LD 2173. Yeah, and you know some of these lots based on the research stuff I mean we bought fire apparatus for you know the height that we have so I guess I'd have to under 20 foot we're gonna need have to look at if there's any way I mean you know it's something that we need to address but see if the town attorney can find any way that we can get around that. That's a form of an unfunded mandate of some sort. I just think we need to look at it and see what we can do. I mean, if the only way we can stop the huge density increase along Route 1 would be to turn around and change the designated growth [50:32] Speaker G (unidentified): area, then we need to look at that and do it now. Even if it's a non-growth area, they still have [50:40] Planning Board Member: that other provision that if it has sewer and water your lot size can go down to ten thousand square foot but that's fine yeah and because right now it's twenty thousand but it would could go down to ten thousand but they do allow a higher density even on that ten thousand square Foot, yeah, right now it's twenty thousand except for on the beach it's five thousand. That's a designated growth area, so you're talking putting four units in every single house down there. You don't think that people aren't going to do that? They're certainly not going to utilize them for year-round housing. They're going to turn around and make them into rentals, short-term rentals. And these are for full dwelling units, so we don't have a restriction on that. On new ADUs, we have a restriction that they can't rent them for less than six months, but these would be full dwellings, so they could be short-term rentals. Is there some way that we can call them that they have to be year-round? Can we ask the town attorney? They're saying that if they're going to force us to allow the additional impact that we can make them only year-round units, they can't be, they can't be rented seasonally or That would be through the short-term rental ordinance, so we can create, we can regulate short-term rentals No,, I understand that, but what I'm saying is if people come in here and they turn around and they, I Mean, I can see it now, people, you know, making four units on the beach and selling them off as, you know, vacation properties. That's not the idea of this. It does say here that areas in coastal barrier resource systems, special flood hazard areas and coastal sand dune systems would not apply to that four unit, so that would eliminate most of the beach? Yeah, but it's still not going to eliminate part of Drake's Island. It's not going to eliminate some of the areas. I mean, that's, you know, we live in a town that we're trying to keep it looking like a small town and not Portland, the city of Portland. And that's where this is headed to. Unfortunately, you read through LD 1829, it's really designed for a city environment. Yes, it's 100% designed for that. I mean, you know, at this point, we're just getting hammered. [52:47] Planning Board Chair: It's not designed for the coastal communities. [52:50] Planning Board Member: No. And the people that are going to do this are not going to take advantage of it to give housing for the people that need it. They're going to do it to take advantage of the seasonal investment properties. That's what they're going to do. I mean, I can understand if they're doing it and, you know, you're getting year-round housing and stuff like that there, I don't have a problem with that, but you're going to end up with people that are coming in here. They're going to build these units. I mean, we haven't now. We haven't called them, you know, turning the units into aged in place. But they're not aged in place. They're making these units into, you know, we're going to sell it to you. You can stay here in the summertime and go to Florida in the winter. That's what they've all become. Our legislature just has no idea of what reality is. They don't live in the real world. Nope. One shoe does not fit all. Nope. Nope. So we have term rentals, FEMA, and this. This and I haven't received direction from the board of selectmen on, you know, giving us guidelines on it yet. I have had a couple of workshops with them and we'll have to have another because that, the deadline for changing our ordinances to match the law is next July. Yeah, so it has to be on June. It would have to be on June. I mean, we had a similar situation with LD 2003 where we didn't, that deadline, but we made it, well, about a year after the deadline. But, I mean, the law says what it says, and a deadline is in place. So if the town doesn't pass ordinances that complies with the law, someone can challenge our ordinances in court. Yeah, not just that, which they can challenge everything. And the changes are huge. They are. But one of the items that should be looked at right away, like you had mentioned, the committee should reconvene. And start the process to re-designate the growth areas in town. Yeah, it only should work on the redesignation of the growth areas so we can get it done in that time. I'm not trying to rewrite the whole complex. Are you going to have this conversation with the selectmen tomorrow night's meeting or no, I've had a couple of workshops It's not on tomorrow nights, but we have to do it very soon. So, I mean, do you need a motion for the thing with the comprehensive plan? Yeah, it would be great to have the planning board support that. It would be up to the selectmen to reconvene them, but I think it would be good to have a motion. So, I would make a motion that we send this to the comprehensive plan committee for an update. [Planning Board Chair: On these particular...] No, on the... It'll be 1829 and there'll be... Well, it would be an update on the growth areas because that's all it would be interpreting. Well, I'd like to keep it more general than that way. If the town attorney finds something we can do, then the comprehensive plan can work on that. [56:10] Planning Board Chair: Subject to the growth area in these plans. Right. Second. Second. All those in favor? That is unanimous. Any other issues this evening besides adjourning and signing plans and findings of fact? [56:25] Planning Board Member: Lots of plans to sign, yeah. I'll make a motion to be adjourned. [56:29] Planning Board Chair: Second. All those in favor? That is a no. You may be adjourned.