Kittery Planning Board advances Village Green, Manson plans; Bartlett subdivision continued

[0:31] Planning Board member: Someone tell a joke. Good. [0:36] Chair (presiding officer): Evening and welcome to the Planning Board for September 24th, 2026. In Max, will you please call the roll? Sure. Bob here. Leah here. Dutch here. Baldiv here. Justin here. Ethan here. Russell here. And now the Pledge of Allegiance of [1:01] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, [1:06] Speaker D (unidentified): One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [1:15] Chair (presiding officer): Any amendments to the agenda? Do you [1:20] Planning Board member: want to add somewhere to discuss the sidewalk that didn't happen? [1:24] Chair (presiding officer): Yes, that's a good idea. Why don't we put that at the end? We'll be rescheduling that sidewalk, but is that the end okay? [1:33] Planning Board member: Planning Board member items? Yep. Sounds good. Unless the applicant is here, do you want to have that discussion? [1:40] Chair (presiding officer): I don't know if the applicant is here for that. The applicant is not here. [1:43] Planning Board member: I talked about, we can, do we want to have this discussion at the end or? [1:48] Chair (presiding officer): Unless there's a reason to have it at the beginning, and that's what Dutch was saying, but I guess there isn't. It's okay with me either way. Okay, no amendments to the agenda then, except for that one. Public comment. Public may attend the meeting in person or remotely via Zoom. Public comment and opinion are welcome during this meeting. However, comments and opinions related to development projects currently being reviewed by the Planning Board will be heard only during a scheduled public hearing when all interested parties have the opportunity to participate. Any commentaries are pertaining to projects currently in front of the board or containing abusive or profane language may be terminated by the board chair. Those providing comment must state clearly their name and address. This is at the podium or on Zoom and record it in writing at the podium. Further, the public may submit written public comments via email, US mail, or hand delivery to Town Hall. Email should be sent to M Zakian at Kiri main org. Comments received by noon on the day of the meeting will become part of the public record and may be read in whole or in summary by the Planning Board or town staff. And that being said, is there anyone in the room with public comment on matters not currently being considered? Hearing none, Max, we think we [3:26] Planning Board member: have four people in the Zoom world, so if any of you are here to speak about something not on tonight's agenda, please use the raise hand function now. Okay, nothing. And we received no written comment except for things that are on [3:44] Chair (presiding officer): Tonight's agenda. Okay, so that's public comment. And just before we get started, I just want to note that this is sort of a double-barreled agenda. So we are going to give things the consideration that we need to give them, but we need to also be efficient with our time. And that being said, item one is nine Village Green Drive major plan modification request. The potential action is to approve or deny this modification request. Eric, sorry, on behalf of MWC Property LLC Holdings LLC, request to adjust the construction sequencing of the approved phasing plan for the development at nine Village Green Drive to make the site work in each phase better align the site work in each phase better aligned with realistic working conditions. For the record, I'm [4:47] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): Eric, sorry, from All This Engineering, on behalf of the applicant. I know you guys haven't had enough of this project, which is why we're back. It's everyone's favorite. This is a relatively simple change to the approved phasing plan. What started this is it turns out originally we had this building cut into two pieces, basically. We had maybe three quarters of it in one phase and the last box in another one. Bank doesn't want to finance it like that. It makes perfect sense. It's not going to take their security in a half-finished building. That ripples into the bonding where the bonding company won't give a bond without financing. So this made it a little bit easier. So the way the phasing comes now as we're going to do half the ledge removal to sort of minimize the impact to that Nortalia Butter, the house that's already there. Then build this while staging from here, so build this all at once, the whole building, everything along the street, the infrastructure, utilities and whatnot. Then move out back, do the mass ledge removal for that, utilities and whatnot, and the very last piece would be the buildings in the back. This has the knock-on benefit of making it easier for my people to estimate this and easier for Jody to review it in reviewing the bond amounts to make sure they're accurate. That's it in a nutshell, very simple. No changes to the site plan, no changes in parking, access, utility, stormwater, anything like that. Thank you [6:03] Chair (presiding officer): very much. And I'll just remind the board this is in no way a re-review of this project itself, it's merits or demerits, it's really just this modification request. So it's a pretty narrow scope that we're looking at. Max, anything, Dad. [6:20] Planning Board member: Sure, just a summary on why this was required. When the application was originally approved, you remember that there were conditions of approval about how the post approval steps would be required to be held. The applicant, part of the reason, one of their also requests was to have a separate performance bond for the site work for each phase. As originally designed, our third party engineer was not comfortable with separate bonding for each phase. So part of what Eric did in his modification was confine the site work in each phase so that it would be appropriate, and our engineer did sign off on this with the phases being bonded and worked on separately. And just as a reminder, this was the original phasing plan. Staff do believe that as designed now, the amended plan would reduce the impacts to the neighborhood. First of all, the original phase one proposed doing the site work all at once, whereas now they're minimizing, it's just the southern half as part of phase two. And second of all, the lower townhouses were going to be built in separate phases, whereas now they will be built all in one. So in those ways, we do believe this is a, this is a reduction of overall impacts. Thank [7:58] Chair (presiding officer): you, and board questions will items one through four on the [8:04] Planning Board member: the conditions of approval still exist, which is the phasing time limit, yes. Nothing has changed there. Nothing is changing. None of the conditions of approval are changing. Anybody [8:23] Chair (presiding officer): else on that? In our [8:27] Planning Board member: packet, CMA had a suggestion of downstream stormwater protection features and a note on the, and requesting a note on the plan regarding maintenance of these features. I would suggest if you vote on this, you vote on the condition that the requested information from CMA is added to the final draft of the plan. There, do you have any issues with, is it typical that the town requires performance bond? Yes. The reason for that is, so I've been told that our performance bonds for site plans are stricter than a lot of nearby towns, but basically the purpose of the performance guarantee is so that if a development, for whatever reason, isn't able to finish, the town has money in an escrow account to come and either complete the infrastructure work or revert the site back to pre-development conditions. It's also very important, for it's most important for subdivisions or properties that are proposing new roads or large infrastructures, so you know if a stormwater detention pond was missed and the applicant's developers is unable to be reached, we can then use the funding from that performance bond to finish paving or stormwater. Yes, yeah, it was something that we had been asking for, but it wasn't thoroughly defined in our code, so part of the housekeeping amendments of 2024 was modifying that. We're just, I mean, talk about affordability that specifically drives up the cost of kids. Yeah, I understand. I think that, you know, anecdotally it is, it does seem more essential for subdivisions. Yeah, there are, I think the biggest priority is making sure any work within the right of way is covered. Sometimes there can be wiggle room for certain portions of the site work if need be. Good questions [10:49] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): over here. Just that it's not going to affect the timing of hammering and, nope, I mean, it's still the same amount of rock, so it's going to take whatever long it's going to take. It's just going to be broken up into two phases. I [11:06] Planning Board member: don't think I have any questions. Are you going to still utilize the [11:11] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): off-site parking arrangement if needed? Yes, it's still in place. Yep, I [11:17] Planning Board member: actually did have a question on the new phases. You're saying the staging area is still kind of in that same, sorry, in phase three, your phase three staging area is up there, but you're also simultaneously doing all of like that drainage towards the front of [11:39] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): that. How are you gonna, wouldn't be necessarily simultaneous because you gotta remember you got to remove this ledge, yeah, while you're going before you start the utilities, so this whole area will be open. Sorry, can you make sure the mic comes with you? I had it with me. This whole area will be open and able to be used for staging while the utilities go into play. Okay, so it's not just limited to this area, you've got this whole pallet to choose from where you can park trucks and put piles, so you'll kind of be moving around, but be moving around, and obviously in here where it could obstruct traffic, they're going to have to do that cut and cover, so install utilities covered over at the end of the day so they actually get out. Okay, that's where I think the off-site parking will come in handy. Okay, [12:24] Chair (presiding officer): Max, do you have phrasing for that condition that are being brought up? I'm sure I would [12:31] Planning Board member: Suggest you just move to vote on the condition that prior to recording the suggested stormwater features from recommended by CMA Engineering be implemented added to the final plan. I can wordsmith something shorter at a later date. You want to make a motion with that in it? Oh boy. You can you can just say approved as condition. I move to approve the modification request from Eric sorry on behalf of MWC Holdings for the approved major site plan on Nine Village Green Drive with the added condition of approval for the CMA recommendation of additional storm water [13:17] Planning Board member (Max): management as stated by Max. Second. Any discussion before we go and do we need a [13:28] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): roll call vote? I can pull the board. Okay Bob? Yes. Leah? Yes. Russell? Yes. Ethan? [13:36] Planning Board member: Abstain. Justin? Yes. Earldine? Abstain. Dutch? Yes. Thank you. [13:43] Chair (presiding officer): Did I say yes? You did. All right, thank you guys. 5-0-2 for chair. That was just because that wasn't there for the final approval. [13:53] Planning Board member: Didn't have some other secret reason. Oh I'm sorry that reminds me because some members of the board weren't there. Yeah I don't think I was there. Could everyone please just verbally state for the record that those who weren't at the last meeting have reviewed the materials prior to this one for 26 Manson for Nine Village Green [14:15] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): Drive? Nine Village Green Drive. Yes. All [14:20] Planning Board member (Max): right. [14:26] Chair (presiding officer): item to 26 Manson Road major site plan review potential action is to determine our completeness of the application hold the public hearing approve or deny plan or continue review and it's Hershey Hershkopf on behalf of Fairtide is proposing to convert an existing single-family dwelling into professional office space on the property of 26 Manson Avenue taxment 15 lot 64-1 in the residential urban zone [14:58] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): Have [15:03] Applicant (change of use): at it. Hi, I actually don't think I have much to add from our last meeting. We're just asking for a change of use. We've done some minor interior work like painting. There was some electrical stuff that was noted in the inspection. We've cleaned up the grounds a little bit. We're looking into putting some asphalt down because there's basically two side-by-side parking spots and it's turning up the dirt and maybe some bollards so you don't run into the house. But other than that it's really just a Change of views from residential to our offices, not much else to add. I think Mac summarized everything we've asked for, waivers and almost all the site plan information, except for, you know, basically the outline of the building, where some parking will be. We have overflow parking for both, actually our Mainspring building and an additional if we need it for this building, for the few people in it, over at Tributary or the Bloomer made parking lot. What is the name of that? Is there a name to that post? Office square. Thank you, post office square. I always forget that because I think of, I think of the beer, I don't think of the post office, I guess. So anyway, yeah, so that's, that's pretty much it unless you have any questions for me. Well, we'll see what board have any questions at this point. [16:34] Planning Board member: My suggestion is we address the waivers before we decide that the site plan is complete. [16:40] Chair (presiding officer): Sure, so shall we do, I mean, I'm happy to hear a motion that to, I'm happy to deal with that right now and then we can do questions. Don't we usually do vice [16:52] Planning Board member: versa on that, complete then waivers? Yeah, except it, except that these waivers actually applied to the plan itself, right? That's just exactly right. Submission requirements have to be waived before application completeness. This other way it was, I would suggest we continue with the board requirements, which is why I was gonna let Earl Dean go first and then come back, address the waivers and then decide whether his plans complete and then the [17:23] Chair (presiding officer): waivers. I suggest we just list them all, vote on them, and if there's anyone, any waiver that causes anyone any distress, you'll exempt that, but otherwise we vote on them all at once. There's quite a few. Yep, somebody has to list them, maybe Max will do that. So let's, are we still in the question time then? You don't [17:52] Planning Board member: have any snow storage or removal plans on here? I'm just wondering what are you [18:00] Applicant (change of use): you going to do with the snow? Well, it's a, it's just a driveway, right? I know it's not a very long one. I assume the snow will probably get pushed to one [18:09] Planning Board member: side in front of the house, looking aside. Yes, we didn't do a site walk, so I don't know how close to the house that wetland is. The wetland is well behind the house. [18:19] Applicant (change of use): The house sits on a huge, well, not a huge, but a fairly steep hill, and then it slopes down below, and then there's a fairly expansive backyard and a chain link fence. I actually don't know where the property line lies. It could be the chain fence, it could be further back. Right now it's been dry, so that there's nothing in the backyard that looks like wetlands behind us, like behind the chain link fence. Clearly there's been other stuff going on back there, but I don't, I'm not really clear if it's actually on the property or not, or that's our purview. So there definitely won't be any snow anywhere near wetlands. Everything in the front is just a lawn, and I assume that's where they've been pushing snow last winter if they needed to. [19:06] Planning Board member: Okay. And then I just want to point out that the second to the last sheet has a drawing that shows that the four cars are going to be, how they're going to be stacked in the driveway, which means that the stairway and the little landing from a door on the side it has [19:33] Applicant (change of use): to be removed. You know, I'm sorry, I'll interrupt you in that I have to say that isn't exactly how it's going to be. So you're right that the parking is that there's actually a paved driveway to one side of the house, and it goes fairly steeply down to where the edge of the chain fence, chain link fences, and that you can actually fit three cars there, three small cars, three cars, or maybe my truck, and then to the right of that is another parking space that you could fit two small compacts for my truck so we still can fit four cars, but the, my architect did the drawing without having gone to the site. Okay, it's not, I have to admit it's not completely accurate. You're right. So that exit [20:20] Planning Board member: is still going to remain oh yeah we're not touching that yeah okay totally okay i think i'd like to see a something on the plan that shows that 's going to [20:33] Applicant (change of use): remain. I would be, I would be happy to get that fixed. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. That's it. [20:40] Planning Board member: It, no questions. [20:43] Chair (presiding officer): Back to you. Okay, let's see, we need a list of the waivers so the [20:55] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): board can consider them. You want me to list them, chair? If I may, yeah, the last [21:03] Planning Board member: minor site plan that you guys reviewed, the gift shop for the Warrens, I don't believe you listed all of the waivers one item at a time. I think you just [21:12] Chair (presiding officer): voted to waive them all. It's waivers as set forth in the planner's memo for this project on this date is that plan review notes. Well actually there, I have them for September 10th. You didn't do a new set for tonight's meeting, right? Online, I [21:38] Planning Board member: I did okay. I didn't want to print, but it's the same, it's the same set of [21:42] Chair (presiding officer): waivers. Okay, so I guess we'd be voting on the waivers as set forth in the plan review notes for this project for this meeting without listing them all. Everybody's had a chance to look at them and all that. I know you have a motion, a [22:10] Planning Board member: motion or move to approve the use change for just the waiver or also just the waivers? Yeah, just the way. Motion to move or move on the waivers as written in the September 10th agenda, [22:30] Chair (presiding officer): agenda. Second. Discussion. All in favor? Aye. Okay, now we need to find a [22:40] Planning Board member: complete. I think, yeah, thanks. I'll make a motion to approve the use change for 26. [22:51] Chair (presiding officer): No, we have to find a complete and then we're gonna have a public hearing and then we're going to have a public hearing. [22:58] Planning Board member: I move to approve the preliminary site plan by Hershey Hirschkopf. I'm sorry. I move to determine the application for the major site plan as complete. [23:10] Chair (presiding officer): I tried to make the process. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. [23:14] Planning Board member: Aye. Okay. Now I move to approve the preliminary site plan by Hershey Hirschkopf. To the public hearing. I'm sorry. You have to hold the public hearing first. Sorry. We're off kilter. It's okay, you guys are, you're going lightning fast actually. Well, you could hold a public hearing [23:31] Chair (presiding officer): after the motion. We have done that. Careful though. We have withdrawn. Well, let's pull, hold the public hearing and see what happens. Okay, I'll withdraw the motion then. Okay, I'll have a public hearing. Yeah, okay, we will. Public hearing is on this, on this application, is now open. Any comment from anybody here? Any [23:59] Planning Board member: comment on line? If anyone in the Zoom world would list, wishes to make a comment about this particular item, please use the raise hand function now. Okay, no. And we received no written comment about this [24:16] Chair (presiding officer): item. Okay, that being said, I'll close the public hearing and now proceed to board discussion of anything as needed. It sounds like the only condition would be an Earl Dean one, which is requesting an accurate depiction of the parking design [24:39] Planning Board member: as part of the final submission and showing that they're not closing off that exit. Yeah, okay, I move to approve the preliminary site plan by Hershey Hershkow. Second. All [24:59] Chair (presiding officer): in favor? Or shall we? Yeah, we'll just, okay, all in favor? Aye. Okay, that's unanimous. And do I need a final plan? I move to approve the final [25:12] Planning Board member: site plan by Hershey Hershkopf. Oh my goodness. Second. This is definitely a [25:20] Planning Board member (Max): record, how many motions do we have for this one? Do we want that condition on [25:25] Chair (presiding officer): there that was mentioned you incorporate that Dutch yes okay any further the discussion with the conditions as stated yes all in favor want to pull the board man just all right just is okay it's all in favor aye what if what if you guys want now [25:47] Planning Board member: This is the chair. May I volunteer to read the findings of fact? You are a hero. You're almost free, Hershey. Finding, findings of fact for 26 Manson Avenue site plan review. Whereas Hershey Hirschkopf on behalf of Fairtide is proposing to convert an existing single family dwelling into a professional office space on the property of 26 Manson Ave, tax map 15, lot 64, tack 1, in the residential urban zone, pursuant to the plan review meetings conducted by the Planning Board as noted in the plan review notes dated 9 10 26, pursuant to the application and plan and other documents considered to be a part of a plan review decision by the Planning Board, and this finding fact consisting of the following here and after the plan. Now therefore, based on the entire record before the Planning Board in pursuant to the applicable standards in the land use and development code, the Planning Board makes the following factual findings and conclusions. And do we have any objections to the findings of fact as written? Based on the foregoing findings, the Kittery Planning Board finds the applicant has satisfied each of the review standards for approval, and therefore the Kittery Planning Board hereby grants final approval for the development at the above reference property, including any waivers granted or conditions as noted, waivers. Any objections to the previously voted on waivers? Unheard. And conditions approval with the caveat that there's the additional condition as stated in the motion. Any objections to the conditions of approval? Okay, the Planning Board authorizes the Planning Board chair or vice chair to sign the final plan and the findings of fact upon confirmation of compliance with any conditions of approval. Next we have Paul. The board? Yes. Bob? Yes. Leah? Yes. Russell? Yes. Ethan? Yes. Justin? Yes. Earl Dean? Yes. And Dutch? Yes. Thank you for title 16 2 12 b i, an agreed party with legal standing may appeal a final decision of the Planning Board to the York County Superior Court in accordance with the Main Rules of Silk Procedure section 80b within 30 days from the date the decision by the Planning Board was rendered. [28:15] Chair (presiding officer): All right. Wow, very good. Okay, I'll stop the stopwatch. You did a pretty good job on that. [28:24] Planning Board member: Good night, guys. We've got a really thick one here. [28:43] Chair (presiding officer): Item 3, 25 Bartlett Road, Minor Subdivision Plan Review. Action. Determine application completeness, hold public hearing, approve or deny plan, or continue review. Paul Hollis is proposing to divide a fourteen point seven four acre parcel into a three lot subdivision, each with individual driveways connecting to a public right-of-way. The proposed subdivision is located on the property of 25 Bartlett Road, tax map 56, lot 15, and the residential rural and shoreland [29:20] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): overlay zones. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm [29:27] Paul Hollis (applicant): Paul Hollis. I'm here this evening with my son Christian Hollis from Ambrosia, also with Jamie Garland of Mainland Development, he's my engineer, and also Chris Copey from Coping Environmental. I want to thank the board for seeing us this evening. We had, you know that we had, we're in here for concept back in July, was prompted a sidewalk on August 5th on a hot summer day. I think you guys remember that. Anyways, we think the sidewalk went well. We probably had 20 plus people with us, and Mr. Colby got an opportunity to demonstrate how he determines wetlands delineation on a property. I think that the board appreciated that, members of the board got to see that and how that worked. Now here we are for a number of reasons, hopefully for completeness and also for hopefully final approval. The acreage of the lots have stayed the same, the frontage has stayed the same. What's changed is all the plan notes that were added to the plan. I think when we were here for concept in July we had 14 or 15 plan notes. It's now up to, we've added a dozen plan notes on the plan as required. Butter notifications went out in anticipation of this meeting, I sent out 26 of them, of course myself. We everything that we've been asked to do on the plan we've done and exceeded. Of the 14.75 acres, over 90 percent of it is protected open, dedicated open space, or on the plans no cut no disturb. The building areas for the three lots, the house stays the same, the house is to be renovated in place. I think lot 3 is 14,750 square feet and lot one is 10,100 square feet. It's been a 13 month journey getting this project to where it is now. I appreciate Mac Zakian's work, he's done a great job and guide me through this and navigate, navigating through. I saw his review, I saw his findings of fact, I couldn't have been more pleased with. None of the departments seem to have any issues with the plan. I think there was on his review notes. There was about 16 or 18 items that needed to be considered. Either that was not applicable or it appeared that I satisfied that requirement. So we're here, that we're here this evening to answer questions. We know there's gonna be a public hearing. I being 50 feet per inch but a hundred feet per inch, I don't know if we did, we [32:46] Planning Board member: address that at the last meeting, Max, you did not vote on that during schedule. [32:50] Paul Hollis (applicant): Okay, so we have that they did not vote on. Okay, we have that. Also a few other things came up in regards to a possibly of a mitigation plan in regards to that 390 foot square feet, Max. Is these things that you present to the board or am I [33:07] Chair (presiding officer): I supposed to say them? I think some of the Max will probably add to the presentation and then the board will, we have to, okay, determine whether it's a complete application. [33:21] Planning Board member: I think that's our first step. Okay, say whatever you want to say in your presentation. Okay, the [33:26] Paul Hollis (applicant): wetlands fell on lot one at the driveway part, it's 394 square feet. There was some discussion on whether a mitigation plan was required. We found a spot in the ordinance that said it was not required because it was under 500 square feet. We also found that as part of the application for the DEP permit that was issued on that. Thirdly was in the notes of the of CMA for the engineer, but Max also found a spot that it wasn't mentioned under 500 square feet. So we had conflicting audiences. We decided to compromise and dedicate an area of 394 square feet for mitigation on our plan regardless that it says it three different, three different spots, be it, be it that there's an ordinance out there that does not say it. We agreed on that compromise. [34:20] Planning Board member: You can confirm that, Max? Would you like me to speak now, Russell? Sure. All right, so for just to jump on what Mr. Hollis said, the wetland alteration ordinance, there is a line in the code, I believe it's, yeah, section 1659L, that it does say that a mitigation plan is required for alterations of 501 or more square feet, and then there is a conflicting code line on section I that lists what would be required in a mitigation plan of less than 500 square feet. So there's one line that says it's not needed. And one line that implies that it is my interpretation is, you know, the general standard is that the stricter of two standards applies when they contradict each other, but it is ultimately the decision to the planning board, of the planning board, whether they, whatever their interpretation is. I suggested, I think I wrote this in the staff memo, that has a potential compromise in section I that talks about what is required in a mitigation plan of less than 500 square feet. It mentions preserving an undisturbed upland buffer zone, that's land outside of a wetland, as protected area. So my suggestion was if you, that could be a potential compromise to require that as the mitigation plan or in lieu of it. That is in no way a stance on the topic because the decision is ultimately up to you as the planning board, but so it really, that whether the wetland alteration plan can be determined as complete tonight is based on whether you as the board believe that mitigation plan is required or not. Would you mind summarizing what a wetland alteration mitigation plan is? It is up in I'd have to pull up the code, so basically it's, it's, it's for larger projects. Honestly, I think Mr. Garland or Mr. Kopey will be able to summarize the what is usually in a mitigation report more than I would, because I haven't seen too many of them. It's basically meant to, it's similar to a traffic impact study in which you identify impacts to the wetlands and show how you were going to mitigate those impacts to ensure flood flow alteration is not affected. For one of this, for one of this, for an impact of this small size, I think it would really just be about flood flow alteration. You [37:11] Chair (presiding officer): can go through the criteria in the code and max, what I, what I understand is if the applicant does in fact agree to simply set aside an appropriate square footage, that could qualify as a mitigation plan regardless of whether, you know, which side of the ordinance interpretation wins the day. Is that right? [37:35] Planning Board member: That's my understanding at this time. [37:36] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, just curious. You got more? [37:41] Paul Hollis (applicant): Yes, sorry, we've already put that on the plan, Mr. Chairman. Just to be cautious, we put that mitigation area, we've identified it's primarily on lot one, that's the mitigation area, so we've already put it on a plan. We've come here this evening with plans that, when going through all the plan notes, all the things that were added, we put those plans together and brought them with [38:08] Planning Board member: Us this evening, okay, but we didn't get them right. We didn't get those plans that show that it should be in your paper packets. Where is it on here? I didn't see you. Don't you do not [38:22] Paul Hollis (applicant): have a plan that shows the mitigation area on it. Okay, you don't. Okay, because we were wondering whether we needed it or not, so we brought plans with us this evening. Is it online, Max, the [38:35] Chair (presiding officer): mitigation? He says he has addition. I thought they were. Is it done? And is this not it? [38:45] Planning Board member: See, there's a little square here. It says mitigation area. You, oh, it's the second page on our packet. Sorry, the upside down one. Yep, [39:03] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): to the second page. Okay, it's the first page here. See [39:11] Planning Board member: it if I just zoom in here. Yeah, I'll zoom in. [39:17] Speaker N (unidentified): It's a little block, this little block right here. [39:23] Planning Board member: I guess I'm confused by this. What is, what is the purpose of a wetland mitigation area [39:30] Paul Hollis (applicant): in an already existing wetland? It's not a, it's, it's above that. It looks like it is in the wetland, actually. It's in that open space right here. Well, the fact of the matter is that we had three different places that said that we did not need mitigation, and this was a compromise that was worked out with Mr. Zakian and myself. I guess I'm just confused as [39:54] Planning Board member: to what the purpose of that is and what it, what it does. First of all, to clarify, this was not a compromise worked out with the developer. This was a suggestion put in writing in a staff memo. We [40:06] Chair (presiding officer): get to the merits of whether this satisfies that if we decide medication is required. Let's get to the merits, and if that location is unclear, we can address that. But I think no, we really first have to get through your presentation. We have to consider if we can grant your plan size waiver. We have to find your application complete, right, then we have to have a public hearing, right, okay, and then we'll have some board discussion as time permits. [40:38] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): That's kind of how we're doing, so I'll sit down then. Nothing more to say, right [40:44] Paul Hollis (applicant): now? Well, not right now. You want, you'll probably be back up there though. Yeah, I will be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure, thank you. And [40:54] Chair (presiding officer): does the board agree with that sort of procedural map? Anybody want to make a motion as to the waiver request on the plan size? I'll [41:10] Planning Board member: make a motion to approve the waiver as written for the requirement of what was it, one inch equal to 50 feet. Second. [41:25] Speaker N (unidentified): And just for [41:28] Chair (presiding officer): discussion purposes, Max, you have one full-size set for your own review. I did, [Planning Board member (roll-call voter): yeah. Okay, so] the waiver applies to us unless we want to go see the special. All right, any discussion? All in favor, aye, unanimous, none opposed, completeness. [41:57] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): Are you ready to make a motion on that, Chair? If I may. Sure. So in the Shoreland [42:08] Planning Board member: section of title 16, bear with me, printed it out, so in our title 16 for shoreland development submission requirements, in here we have whenever the nature of the proposed structure requires the installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system, a complete application for a subsurface wastewater disposal permit shall be submitted. The application shall include a site evaluation approved by the plumbing inspector. And I think that's only pertaining to the lot two that has the septic shown, but I haven't seen whether a full septic plan was submitted as part of the application. It's generally not within our purview, but since this is a shoreland [Jim Anderson (public commenter: land application] I think it is, and I took a look in the Dropbox for that address, it didn't see anything, so I guess my question is has that been submitted? It has. Chris [43:34] Paul Hollis (applicant): Copey designed that septic plan you're talking for the house? Yeah, a lot too specific. Yeah, that's been submitted. Okay, but that we've told it's a code enforcement issue, that code enforcement is going to be the one that approve that septic plan. Generally the code enforcement will approve the septic plan along [43:53] Planning Board member: with the building permit. So I think a point of discussion at a previous meeting, perhaps your sketch, was that I personally wanted to see, similar to what we've done on other projects, see a septic plan and actually an overall plan for the other lots demonstrating the ability to fit everything into those lots prior to us approving or considering a wetland alteration permit. [44:22] Paul Hollis (applicant): Was there any discussion? The wetland alteration permit is only for lot one. I understand. And we have not gone out there yet. Lot one, that building area, has invasive species. It's really full. Scopey went out there with the attempt to try to lay out that septic system. And it was really heavy to do that. So we were told that it would be up to code enforcement to see that septic plan and to approve that septic plan along with the building permit. There's plan notes in our plan that talks about that we can't even go in and start any construction and any of the lots until the septic permit and the building permit is issued by the code enforcement officer. So I don't know how it runs. I don't know how it works with, I don't know how the planning board works into that. Okay, so for [45:17] Planning Board member: The purposes of discussion with the board, right, this is something we've done previously, for example on Garish Island, for the last wetland alteration permit that we looked at, and I think the thought process was that we wanted to ensure that these lots were developable before we [45:38] Chair (presiding officer): considered the alteration, was that the right-of-way consideration, it was that was a [45:44] Planning Board member: couple of years ago, yeah, it was on, it was actually directly adjacent to your, yeah, your property, Dutch was, yeah, instrumental in that one, and I don't think my opinions on the matter have changed [45:56] Chair (presiding officer): since then, so are you saying you'd like to see depiction of where the systems would be [46:04] Planning Board member: for each lot, yep, and just like Lot Two has it designated, I would like to see a similar [46:12] Paul Hollis (applicant): outline on the other two lots, so you want to see the septic plan before, prior to getting approval [46:19] Planning Board member: for the subdivision, so actually the planning staff recommend the planning board include a condition of approval that lot requiring, a lot requiring a proposed wetland crossing receive issuance of building permit and subsurf, subsurface wastewater system permit prior to a driveway entrance permit to confirm the lot can actually accommodate a dwelling [46:42] Chair (presiding officer): and septic system before, and the wetland, that sounds like an effective condition [46:47] Paul Hollis (applicant): that would alleviate this concerns, in lieu of that the lots are useless if they're not buildable, right, so code enforcement, that's the way we feel about it, that's the way we've been told anyways, I do remember this [47:05] Planning Board member: process, Ethan, and originally the applicants did propose for 52 Goodwin, they proposed, they showed a tentative area for a house, a septic system, and a well, right, I brought that to code enforcement and said they were more, they said that they were more comfortable with the condition of approval instead of the tentative buildable area because the setbacks between structures and septic systems and wells are variable. It depends on the type of system being used, the size of the structure, and other factors. So they felt more comfortable with the condition rather than a plan set showing the locations. A rough tentative sketch somewhere to what 52 Goodwin did I think would not kind of scare them if it's non-binding, so no, that makes sense to me, yeah that condition was run by code enforcement and they would prefer that then I'm all for it, okay, yeah, thanks for clarifying, yeah, we all set with that condition of approval, thank you, thank you, 're good with that condition, yes or no, oh yes I am, okay, thank you all [48:23] Chair (presiding officer): right other board concerns on the completeness i'd [48:30] Planning Board member: just like to point out that lot two does not have a reserve septic system which they are supposed to have and the well on lot two it's showing on s 2.1 it is not showing on c 2.1 are you going to use the existing dug well are you going to put in a new well and where is it we [48:57] Paul Hollis (applicant): haven't decided yet whether we're going to drill a new well at the house there's a dug well there and according to our plumbers it can provide water to the house and it's always provided water but it needs to be filtered so we haven't But we understand that with an existing house, if we decide to put a new well there, it has to be 75 feet away from the proposed septic system. [49:20] Planning Board member: Yes, 100 feet away. [49:23] Paul Hollis (applicant): Well, you care to comment on that, Mr. Colby? [49:26] Planning Board member: Our ordinance says 100 feet. [49:28] Paul Hollis (applicant): Okay, well, what is the requirement? Can you get up? Can I have Mr. Colby respond to that? [49:43] Chair (presiding officer): we need this for completeness i [49:48] Planning Board member: don't consider it completed we don't we can't see all the things we [49:52] Chair (presiding officer): need you mean a reserve system or the decision on the well yep both of those things yeah it says [49:59] Paul Hollis (applicant): we're supposed to have it we could probably get a well 100 feet away mr chair i don't know that our [50:04] Chair (presiding officer): ordinance requires reserve systems i think we just prefer to see them i thought it did [50:10] Planning Board member: pretreatment systems are required in if you're under a there's a certain aquifer overlay but they're not required for all developments so she's talking about a secondary right oh I don't know if that is a requirement at all I would have to ask would you like mr. Copey to respond to the septic system you should be [50:37] Chair (presiding officer): be asking the chair that I don't see a need for that right now but if the board would like to hear that Irlene would you like to hear a response no I'm just [50:51] Planning Board member: going by what the ordinance says do you have an ordinance reference for that no [51:01] Chair (presiding officer): I don't are you talking about the hundred foot distance as far as the ordinance says yeah because I have heard some commentary that says with some of the newer systems the distance can be reduced but i 'm not schooled up on that's the truth whether our ordinance allows that or whether that's a waiver that would be required and whether we would grant that or whether the code enforcement [51:29] Planning Board member: would grant that it sounds like those are questions i'll i should i'll have to ask code enforcement [51:33] Paul Hollis (applicant): next week okay the doug well is 130 feet away from the proposed septic system the doug well now if we needed a new well and we needed to be 100 feet away i think we're getting beyond the determination [51:45] Chair (presiding officer): Of completeness in this discussion, I think that there's adequate information about this proposed subdivision to find it complete. That's, that's my opinion, and I think we're going to get on to a public hearing, and then we're going to have, should we have time, discussion of the merits [52:04] Planning Board member: or demerits. Okay, so are you willing to go ahead when CMA, we haven't gotten CMAs whether or not they're satisfied with their answers, that would [52:20] Planning Board member (Max): really apply to the next step. Okay, we'll wait for that too. I move to determine [52:27] Planning Board member: the final subdivision application from Paul Hollis as complete. I had one question only about the narrative. Oh, we need a second, then we can discuss. Second. Thank you. Discussion. The narrative said, you know, individual driveways connecting to a public right-of-way. Yeah, is there gonna be a [52:51] Chair (presiding officer): right-of-way put on this property? No, it means the road Bartlett Road is what I [52:54] Planning Board member: meant by public right-of-way. It had me confused and concerned. I didn't want a [53:01] Chair (presiding officer): road going through that. Yeah, it's probably terminology and semantics rather than creation of a new road. Everyone's a critic. Does that satisfy your question? Yes. Anybody else? Let's pull the board for this, please. [53:22] Planning Board member: Yes, Bob. Yes, Leah. Yes, Russell. Yes, Ethan. Yes, Justin. Yes, Earl Dean, no, and Dutch [53:34] Chair (presiding officer): yes. Okay, one opposed, six in favor. How's my math? Yes, it's okay. All right, now we can have a public hearing, and we will commence the public hearing now, and anybody here to speak about in favor, opposed, please take your turns at the podium. Remember to use the pointer if you're gonna point at something, and write your name down and all that [54:06] Planning Board member: for anyone in the zoom world. The, just some of the people who are here in person will speak first, and then I will open it up to any you, anybody who wants to speak. [54:18] Lois Marshall (Conservation Commission): I'm Lois Marshall, member of the Conservation Commission. We've sent a letter, you probably got it in front of you, and has [54:38] Planning Board member (Max): the applicant gotten that letter too? Yes. All right, we've got three concerns [54:48] Lois Marshall (Conservation Commission): basically. The area down here is, they say that it's 394 square feet of fill. I don't see any calculations on there concerning the slope, which will also have to be considered as far as Phil is concerned, and that would probably put it over 500 feet, square feet. Okay, I mean, obviously we're not going to have 394 square feet and then it just drops off to, you know, in a sheer face. The culverts, both here and I believe there's a culvert over on 3-2, is that correct? Are they set deep enough for the wildlife to go through under there? That's a real concern because you don't want them attempting to go over land across the driveways or possibly into the road. And we'd like to know who is going to be monitoring this when it goes to the individual landowners, you know, the open spaces and so forth, to make sure that they continue to conform to what's already on the plan. Okay, do we have any questions? Do [56:51] Planning Board member: you have a requirement to reference on the culverts that we can look to, and where did it come from? So [57:02] Applicant (change of use): I'm assuming they're, it's main state standards, and it's unfortunately in my car I forgot it, but I can get it for you. [57:09] Chair (presiding officer): But yes, for a point of clarification, it looks to me like on lot three there is no culvert proposed, and on lot two there is no culvert proposed. So there's only one culvert, and that would be on lot one. [57:22] Planning Board member: They're on the driveway right next to the road. On lot three there is a culvert, there is. [Chair (presiding officer): Is main] state standards. I can pass those standards to you, Max, if you'd like. Much you probably have them. Yeah, if you'd submit it as written comment. Sorry, go [Lois Marshall (Conservation Commission): ahead. So] just on your last point of how to maintain [Speaker D (unidentified): requirements, are you] proposing like a deed restriction or because generally right the conditions of approval on the plan or binding right the plan is okay submitted in recorded right yeah is the next step is the higher level deed restrictions is that [58:25] Chair (presiding officer): language? And indeed is about the only effective tool we have, because I don't know of an or independent oversight organization that would want to tramp on private property every year to make sure that some conditions were restrictions were being enforced. I mean, we don't have that. Yeah, we don't. And [58:48] Planning Board member: generally as the board we, you know, for other developments it's the review of the HOA documents, we kind of, and I don't think there isn't a situation. Yeah, no, I understand. I don't know of any deed restrictions that I have seen on the past on this. Usually it's included in the notes on the plan, which they have done on this, mm-hmm, which are almost as good as the deed restrictions. [59:23] Chair (presiding officer): Restrictions require a whole new level of, I think what you could do is probably reproduce the notes on the plan and attach them to the deed for recording, and have them be not within the granting of the deed but attached to the deed and referred to as information. That would be an okay way to do it. [59:43] Planning Board member: Sounds like good. This is something we could ask staff to look into as to what Our options would be, yeah, I think I would, I would like to see what's the most enforceable option and what would be appropriate for us to require. I don't think we've done a deed restriction since I've started, so I don't know if I feel like it would be that or a plan note. I agree with Dutch that a play-doh is enforceable in perpetuity. It's a long way of [1:00:10] Chair (presiding officer): saying, yeah, I'll look into it, but when I'm at the close, when I'm in the closing table, I'm getting a deed, or if I'm the buyer's attorney and I'm looking at the deed, well, I might tell the buyer, well, there's notes on the plan you have to comply with, but is that going to be part of the buyers really work concept of what they own and what they're required to do? Not unless it's stapled to the deed and recorded, but I think I [1:00:34] Planning Board member: appreciate the Conservation Commission bringing this up because this is at least, I think in my memory, the most, the first subdivision in RRL that's not a subdivision, a conservation subdivision, right? Wasn't the other Bartlett one a conservation subdivision? Yes, every, yeah, at least since I started additional control, yeah, this is the first conventional subdivision in this zone that I've seen. If you go to the county registrar's website, if a site has a survey, the surveys on there and the papers available as well as all the deeds, like go back, so it would already be available for the owner, you know, because it'll, Steve, we can ask the deed to say see surveys notes and put that as a line into the deed, but I don't think we need to reprint it and staple it. [1:01:30] Chair (presiding officer): It's just, you know, in terms of a property owner, is that going to be [1:01:34] Planning Board member: effective? Chair, if I may, yeah, I think this is an important discussion, but there is a public hearing still open, all right, so thank you. I don't think the public has to suffer as much as we do. We'll make them suffer, so just one additional point is in 2004 you as the chair approved a project similar to this with no cut, no disturb areas that required the town of Kittery to post it and those, by the way, those sign markers still there, we got [1:02:15] Chair (presiding officer): some more signs to right, yep, okay, well, there you go. [1:02:31] Lois Marshall (Conservation Commission): You know, we don't want to really dwell on anything, but we do want to remind you that there is a slope going on here, okay, and that should include the applicant needs to respond to that. [1:02:49] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you, hold off a minute, any other comment from members of the public? Thank [1:03:04] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): you, mr. chair and members of the committee, my name is Jim Anderson, I was on the sidewalk, I'm in a butter, I live at 24 High Pasture Road and it's a tax map 56 332. [1:03:22] Planning Board member: Mr. Anderson, can I just interrupt you for a minute? Chair and members of the board, sure, just to put this out there, I actually grew up in the neighborhood behind this and Mr. Anderson was my neighbor growing up. My parents also still live behind this development, however they're not direct abutters and I feel that I can be impartial with my evaluation of this application. The board [1:03:49] Chair (presiding officer): agrees I don't object to you staying on this thank [1:03:57] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): you. It's interesting that we're talking about the no cut no disturb comment on the plan. I'm gonna to respectfully ask the planning board make the proposed no cut no disturb boundaries as shown on plan s21 explicit conditions of approval. Before I get into the reasons for that, I do want to thank again the time and care of the planning board devotes as volunteers to balancing the neighborhood concerns, the spirit intent of the land use ordinance and the legal standards that guide the board's review. I have been a volunteer in the town for at least 35 years in various capacities so I certainly appreciate it. Likewise I want to thank Mary Alice and her associates of the conservation commission, it's a thankless job but they're doing what is right. So again for context my property is a directly adjacent to both lot one, this is this appears to be the [1:05:11] Planning Board member: older plan plot one is now here, yep right yeah, I pulled up this one because it shows the open space better but let me go back to the yeah [1:05:23] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): you want to scan down a little bit max, yep pull it [1:05:26] Speaker D (unidentified): down, take the other way down, oh so you could see his lot, so here's my lot here, okay just [1:05:37] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): as reference I've lived on that property for 30 years and have often walked the low-lying former farmland that George Milliken logged. The subdivision proposal, I mean generally speaking I think it's a modest proposal, it does include wetland buffers by code, it also shows the no cut no disturb area which is greater than the wetlands. [1:06:09] Planning Board member: I'm sorry he can't hear you, oh I'm sorry there's a pointer up there as well if you want to use it. [1:06:14] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): Thank you, I'm not quite as elegant as Miss Hendricks who's here tonight, she had a microphone that she could walk around with, I don't have that. So what I was going to say also the 100 foot buffers that were on the previous plan were also inside the no cut area. So what is my point, the signage is really important to the surrounding neighborhood and protected lands. Again I think it's explicit, it should be explicit, note 17 should be revised, currently it doesn't make any reference to no cut no disturb and that should be a condition of the board before it gets recorded at the registry. Doing so would assure the butters many who came to the sketch plan meeting, many who were on the site walk, and other interested parties that the applicant will carry through with these promises, and that the builder through their transaction from Ambrosia will also carry through with the promises that have been made. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Would you sign [1:07:34] Planning Board member: in at the podium please? You have a sheet there was a sign-in sheet did it disappear [1:07:42] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): I think it was being passed around. [1:07:45] Planning Board member: Anybody have a sign-in sheet? Maybe someone took it. I may have some scrap paper. There was one there. I saw Hershey sign it. Yeah, she passed it off to Sorry. [1:08:10] Paul Hollis (applicant): Oh, there we go. [1:08:13] Chair (presiding officer): You gotta watch these guys. [Jim Anderson (public commenter: Nice action, Ethan.] You gotta tape it down next time. [1:08:30] Planning Board member: I guess I do. [1:08:40] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): What's the item number? Issue three. Thank you. Thanks again. Thank you. My [1:08:57] Rick Mueller (public commenter, 44 Miller Road): name is Rick Mueller. I live on 44 Miller Road with my wife Christiana Scotchak. If you can bring this down a little bit. By down do you mean up? Yeah, I'm learning. When this whole, we got word that this is going to be developed, Mr. Hollis got in touch with us and said, I just want to let you know we are thinking there's going to be a house, you know, in this area, which was going to be really close to our lot. And after discussing it with him, we, he said if you rather not have a house there you can purchase the lot, which I believe in a letter to all the other butters was made the same offer. If they don't want a house they could simply buy the land. That's all he cared about. So we purchased this whole piece here. We're not going to develop it. We're not going to do anything with it because the wildlife that lives in here needs space. We are concerned about that. When I die, I'm not going to care about how much money I made. I'm going to care about the wildlife that was here before any of us had a better chance of surviving. So he was, I've had a great relationship with him. He worked very hard to help us get this through and go through the closing and run to the registry and just endless amounts of things. We're not, we're not developers. We don't know much about this. I don't know all the jargon, but Paul did everything he could to make this go as good as possible. I've had another experience with a developer in another municipality that I lived with, lived in, and he basically said anything you wanted to hear and, you know, did nothing that he said he was going to do. And I fought with the town over and over again after they were cutting down the buffers. They were doing anything they wanted to do, and it was just a real pain in the neck because the developers I have dealt with in the past have just been very concerned about making as much money as they can, which that's their business and that's what they do. But Paul has been great to work with and I just appreciate that he came to us and let us know before we had a house sitting right there and we're very happy we were able to make that happen, so thank you. [1:11:26] Planning Board member: Rick, would you sign in too please? I will, thank you. I'll leave the sheet there. Quick question, if I'm sure, would you mind just clarifying? All right, did you purchase pretty much the entirety of what I view is lot four? Is it everything to the northeast of that [1:11:45] Chair (presiding officer): property line? Yep, we've purchased all of this, so it's that dotted line on your plan, Ethan. Yep, [1:11:52] Planning Board member: it's just that flag show, not the dotted liners, I guess. I got you, the flag shape, so not all of the right. I gotcha, I think is two acres. Yeah, I was just [1:12:08] Rick Mueller (public commenter, 44 Miller Road): having trouble following that's the guy, you know what line here. Thank you. Yeah, so we were, we're glad we have it and we're glad Paul was able to make that happen for us, so thank you. Anyone [1:12:27] Chair (presiding officer): else? Paul, I guess you want to do some responses. Oh, I'm sorry, we also, we also have written comment, we have written comment, and do we have any zoom? There are [1:12:41] Planning Board member: two people in the zoom world still. If either of you would like to speak to this, please use the raise hand function now and I'll allow you to talk. We received three public comment letters. Would you like me to summarize them, Russell? Sure, chair, if I may, again one of the letters is from my father, but his comments are his own. Okay, all right, so one of the public comment letters was from the Conservation Commission, who I think spoke everything from the letter. One was from Mr. Anderson, who also spoke, so the third one is from Mr. Mr. Bensley, so he bulleted his main point, so I'll try to be brief, but his first item was about the number of Lots and sale agreement. Apparently the original sale agreement talked about a division of no less than seven Lots, so he had questions about that and whether there are any future plans to further divide the property. As staff will confirm that I've heard of no such plans and no such plans could be done without further planning board approval. The second item was about wetlands protection. I Think namely he was asking for, he was requesting the Planning Board require a third party wetland delineation of the property. He had a question about the wetland fill, what alternatives were evaluated to avoid or reduce wetland fill. Will the Planning Board approve filling wetlands if feasible alternatives exists? Has full avoidance been explored and documented? He had questions about open space designation, does wetland, do wetlands meet the ordinance requirements for open space? The answer to that is yes. Similar to Mr. Anderson yet questions about deed restrictions about how to limit tree cutting or disturbance in the natural of the open space itself in perpetuity. And then his last item was on groundwater capacity, he requests the Planning Board consider a hydro geologic analysis to confirm that additional wells in the area will not reduce yield or water quality for nearby properties. And chair if I may, one of the items at the Conservation Commission mentioned about whether the wetland impact contains the includes the slope of the driveway as well. I would suggest the Planning Board asked that directly to the applicant and have them answer it because as the Conservation Commission mentioned they're pretty close to that 500 square foot threshold, so I think that is a very relevant question to ask. And that's it for public comment. Okay did you say there was three? Yeah one was from the Conservation Commission, one was from Mr. Anderson. Ah I said I think all the comments have been, it's random. Do you feel that your public comment has been officially, you're good. All right now [1:16:13] Chair (presiding officer): I think it would be appropriate for the applicant to respond to thing issues that have been raised by [1:16:19] Paul Hollis (applicant): the public. Close the public hearing after I speak Mr. Chairman, we'll see when we close it but go ahead. Okay I'd like Jamie Garland my engineer to respond to the Conservation Commission's questions in regards to sloping in the driveway, the first two questions that they had. Thank you Jamie Garland and [1:16:42] Planning Board member: Jamie would you sign in too when you get a chance please [1:16:44] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): I promise I won't take it, appreciate it. Good evening, Jamie Garland, Mainland Development Consultants on behalf of Paul Hollis. With regards to the road filling, I want to back this up because I've been to quite a few planning board meetings over the past month, and I feel like when we get close to numbers, people feel like you're subverting things. The well and fill was derived when we filed for the application with the Department of Environmental Protection. It wasn't until going through helping Paul later on that I realized you had that 500 number, so it's not a coincidence, a magical thing, that we came in there. This was designed to me to work with DEP. As you come in to the proper to the property, we'll slope down, and then in that wetland area on his property, we're going to have a box cut area that will contain, I think I'm longer than I'm not, so as you do come down into the off the right of way, we'll slope down in, and then this will be maintained. We'll maintain that 18 foot width, no more within that wetland impact, and then for the rest of the driveway as it goes through on our grading plan, we're mirroring the existing grades, so we're staying right at existing grade as we go through there. With regards to the culverts, I am doing this a while, and I have not run into a road ditch culvert that had to be buried in the ground. The intent of those is to convey stormwater as it traverses down the road, but with that, prior to the installation of that culvert, we'll have to work with the Road Commissioner, Public Works Commissioner, to get a driveway entrance permit, and he'll have feedback on that culvert as well. So even though we've proposed this with inverts that allow for stormwater to flow down through, the road commission, public works commission has the final say. Okay. [1:18:32] Chair (presiding officer): My question, the, I wasn't sure whether you had addressed the design of the wetland fill, and I don't, I haven't seen a specific design of the slope and how much fill is going to be added to address whether the, that includes the toe of the slope and all that in that wetland [1:18:57] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): area there will be no slope off of that will be a true box cut in that small stretch there at 300 square feet so yes it will be picked down in the wetlands remove the bad material build back up with good material no slope going off so concrete box culvert is that what it is no you're gonna excavate out the bad material and bring in gravel and put gravel through there was no requirement from dep for connectivity in the dp application okay [1:19:27] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah, we didn't, we didn't see a design, so I think that's where the question came up, and again with [1:19:33] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): driveways getting into there, you've got to work with the public. I'm sorry you got, once they wrote Commissioner and Public Works Commissioner, your Public Works Commissioner here to get approval for that [1:19:45] Chair (presiding officer): Board of any other questions, this gentleman is up [1:19:50] Planning Board member: just to touch on that, so I guess I'm confused, right, we're gonna fill the wetlands but you're gonna, the driveway surface is gonna be exactly at the same height as the existing wetlands, yeah, other side of it, if you look at the [1:20:08] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): civil engineering plan, see two point one point two point one, I'm in there, we included grading and we're gonna mirror that existing slope go in there, I guess [1:20:19] Planning Board member: maybe giving kind of the pivotal importance of this wetland impact, I think a detail might be nice on the plan that shows this and a little more clarity and [1:20:37] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): again can you zoom in that area right there closer, no, we're losing shading here in the printed plan, we're grabbing the 26 contour here, it's continuing across here, I'm not proposing any elevation change, the 28 contour which you kind of start to see, the darker line pops through in the 30 contour, keeping that same grade, yeah, okay, yeah, it just as if you had your driveway paved today, they would come in and they would box cut the way that they would not open up into the grass, they're gonna box cut in and put good material down, I guess I picture a [1:21:23] Planning Board member: raised driveway right, not they culvert that passes underneath it, the culvert is [1:21:30] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): closer to the road, is on the roadside in the public right away, so the culvert is not within the wetland impact, no, there's not, oh okay, there's no culvert in the wetland impact [1:21:42] Planning Board member: okay again, yeah, a detail on this area would help a little bit in understanding that [1:21:48] Speaker D (unidentified): go back to the civil plan and see 2.1, the culvert is in the roadway, yeah, and I'm sorry I [1:21:59] Planning Board member: think this might be an unintended of our scale shift a little bit, we're losing some resolution [1:22:05] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): you gave us the waiver, I'll work with you folks, we'll get here, I promise you, so yes, this thicker black line on my side of the right-of-way is a proposed culvert, again final location of that within the right-of-way has to be confirmed with Public Works to make sure that we're in the grade line that they want to see, then when we get into the property you've got the wetland area that we're gonna work through, okay [1:22:29] Planning Board member: thanks for clarifying so you're actually [1:22:36] Speaker D (unidentified): filling the wetland right there, the wetland that we're impacting right here [1:22:41] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): We're going to remove that well in sloth about 300 square plus square feet and put in good gravel back in so you can drive over it, and the culvert is not going where the wetland impact the culvert. All your culverts are in the public right-of-way side of it, they're in the town right away so that you [1:22:58] Planning Board member: maintain your town ditch. So yes, so you did not submit a mitigation plan, you said it was too small to qualify for that, but can you stay in state in writing or verbally now what you are doing to mitigate the impacts of the fill that you're proposing, or are you saying that it is too small for there to be any anticipated impacts to the wetland? First of all, let me link back [1:23:27] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): back this up, okay, on the property we are impacting three hundred and seventy ninety square feet of wetlands, 394 we are impacting those wetlands, we're going to in a any line side-by-side excavate down, remove that and put clean gravel, yeah, so that's the impact. Yes, so the roadway is a grade level, an existing grade level, and you come down to the property, the edge of the road is not the property line, right, you come in and then you get to the property line which contains the wetland impacts for Paul and [1:24:06] Planning Board member: are you, are you stating, or so no mitigation effort, no mitigation is being proposed for the 309 force square feet of wetland, correct, when we find we'll back up here and this [1:24:19] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): is a point of discussion with the board. When we filed the application on the town's website and you go through the town's process, the section for wetland mitigation plan specifically outlines lines. No wetland mitigation plan is required unless over 500 square feet. We have since then had back and forth. I think that's where we need the board to say we want something, we don't. What Paul has offered up, and we can negotiate the final location, is a proposed area that would be retained and protected for mitigation. But again, when we started filing the application to the town, it explicitly says under 500 square feet, no mitigation plan required, so that's the genesis why we come in without one. So is there any [1:25:01] Chair (presiding officer): further public comment based on the information that's been brought forth? [1:25:04] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): Yes. [1:25:07] Planning Board member: Touch, so you have a 20 foot by 20 foot mitigation area outlined on this plant, correct? What exactly are you going to do within that 20 foot by 20 foot [1:25:20] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): block? Nothing, and again that's that, I think that's a great thing to point out, that the impacts that we're talking about are 20 feet by 20 feet less than [1:25:28] Planning Board member: The area of this room, right, that Mr. Garden, that was what I was asking. Are there any anticipated impacts from the filling of 394 square feet of wetland, or are there not? Or are you saying that there, you're not anticipating any impacts that would need to be mitigated to the wetlands? I'm not, I'm not asking about [1:25:49] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): the 500 square foot to the end. Oh no, I guess I'm, are you talking, so we have this 18 foot wide road, are you talking left and right of the 18 feet? Yes, yeah, no, I'm not into, I'm not specifying, I'm not designing anything outside of that 18 foot width, right, but the [1:26:03] Planning Board member: purpose of a mitigation plan, and I'm not saying whether it's needed or not, the purpose of it is to show how is to, you know, look at the type of fill being proposed, the detail of the driveway, and anticipate whether flood flow alteration to a wetland is impacted, and if yes, how to mitigate that. Are you saying that flood flow and that there are no anticipated Whitlam, you say that word, you just, what, sorry, well, you're saying an F word, flood flow alteration, I think it's said in the in the, or did you did [1:26:36] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): you review the, yeah, we've gone through this multiple times, but I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time here, in the flood flow alteration, floor alterations, no, again, water will flow through here, we've modeled, so one of the requirements to do this, show a pre and post watershed analysis, yes, we have modeled the site in its pre-existing, its current condition, and then we've done it in post, showing that the new impervious area will not create more water flow leaving this site, okay, and that's included [1:27:05] Planning Board member: in the drainage analysis that you provided, correct, okay, that's what I was asking, perfect, thank you. [1:27:10] Speaker N (unidentified): All right, thank you, we're [1:27:18] Chair (presiding officer): Paul, when you're done, we're gonna see if there's any more public [1:27:22] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): comment, and then we're gonna close the public hearing, so there is gonna be a [1:27:28] Paul Hollis (applicant): deed restriction on the lots, it's easy, there's three things you can only do to control things, I mean, five years from now, if somebody goes out there and cuts a bush, that'll be horrible, but the fact of the matter is a few things that are being done, first of all, the building areas are survey, the building areas are flagged, a survey, mainland survey comes out and flags all the building areas around the property, second thing is you get a guy like Joe Cantwell who's a main dep erosion sedimentation Control specialist certified, and he's the one who puts down the erosion control at the edge of the building area all around, with the surveyor there to make sure that it's all done. Third thing, you restrict the deed. The deed can have, the chairman mentioned the deed can have two different meets and bounds. Gonna have a meet some balance for the building area in the driveway, can have a meet some balance for the area that's to stay non-disturbed. You take a copy of the plan, the approved plan, you'd make a copy of the approval and the recording information, you make a copy of their lot, you attach that to the deed, and you have two different meets and bounds descriptions on the deed. So plus the fourth thing is the signage. Now plan note 17 talks about putting signs along Ballard Road. We've already put six of them out there, we've ordered 20 more signs. Those signs are going to go along, there's going to be more signs along Ballard Road, and you put signs around the building areas for each one. So I've got the people that have expressed interest in these properties, I've intimately told them what's going on and what they have to do. There's been no question about that, but it's up to me to enforce it the best I can. So the building areas are surveyed, they're all, I mean they're all flagged, the erosion control is handled by a professional, all the corners of the building areas are staked, and the and signage is put up, and more importantly there's deed restrictions on the deed. So that's our intent. We want that conservation land to be protected just as like the conservation commission would want. Also I've protected hundreds of acres of conservation land. This isn't any less valuable than the others I've protected. So that's my intent. Thank you. [1:29:56] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you very much, and if there's no more public comment I'm gonna close the public hearing. Sounds like there's one gentleman. Thank [1:30:06] Jim Anderson (public commenter, 24 High Pasture Road): you again. Jim Anderson. I have two follow-up comments. One to Mr. Hollis's suggestion that he will follow through, and I think he's sincere, but it's not enforceable. What needs to change is the note 17 on the plan to make sure it references no cut and no disturb. The second item, and I'm not challenging the engineer, but for clarity, I walk the Bartlett Road every day. There is a drop-off from Bartlett Road down into the wetlands where the driveway is proposed. So if the wetlands as shown in the plan comes all the way up to the roadway, that's also part of the Wetlands permit, and it does drop off, so it will be a box cut as described, but it will also be a steep slope down into the driveway, so there will be some filling. That's my belief, and I think that requires some clarity from the board. Thank you. Thank you. [1:31:20] Chair (presiding officer): For the comments, yes. Good evening. [1:31:36] Kate Vellucci (public commenter, 50 Charles Hill Road): Everyone, do I, what do I need to do? [1:31:39] Chair (presiding officer): I'm so sorry. You are, and write your name and address down on the little sheet. [1:31:43] Kate Vellucci (public commenter, 50 Charles Hill Road): There, okay, beautiful. Good evening, everyone. Hi, I have a feeling that we're all neighbors. I'm sorry I haven't met you yet. My name is Kate Vellucci. I actually live at 50 Charles Hill Road, so I am across from this 14 acre parcel of land, and I did read what I understood was the letter to the Planning Board, and that was then sent to the neighbors. But what I noted in that letter was that it appeared that it was put in the mailboxes of the roads, but I don't think a single letter was added to the 20 or so mailboxes of myself or our neighbors that live directly across this large parcel of land. So I think what I just heard was an appreciation for the environment, but again in the letter I was a little bit confused about the voiced appreciation, and it sounds like we have some walkers and some neighbors here who are probably very familiar with what we are blessed to see there. And from what I understand from a large series of community engagement sessions years ago when we were talking about our town plan and what the, this town values, what the people value, and really why they want to live here and why they do move here, and that is really appreciate appreciation of our wild spaces and access to wild spaces and the beaches. So it is a sensitive area. I have seen a baby fawn on the side of the road. I've seen another family of a mother and fawn like literally just born, and these are two different seasons. I know a neighbor used to hunt this property pretty frequently season to season. I've seen a bobcat walk across that road. I have seen bald eagles fly over my house. So I am not clear on what this process looks. I'm here to learn more, and again I'm sorry I'm late, but as far as what you know crossing the t's dotting the i's and making sure that the process is done right, I would just like to say as a neighbor I care very much about it being done appropriately and correctly, and I'm sure if my neighbors were notified of course we care about people being able to do what they want with their land but also done just in the appropriate way that's a bit more in the spirit of like what we all understand we love and are blessed to experience as Kittery residents. So again I have a lot more to learn about this process and what this looks like and I just thank you for letting me share some comments as I got here pretty late dealing with traffic driving from Boston. So thank you very much. I'm sorry it was and you got your name written down. I'm gonna write it down right. Yeah I'm sorry. Yeah you're welcome thank you. [1:34:45] Planning Board member: You Russell before I close the public hearing do you mind if I just ask the zoom world one more time. Not at all right. So last but one final request if anyone who's watching my zoom does want to say anything just use the rant it's hand function now otherwise I'll stop asking and. [1:35:11] Chair (presiding officer): I will close the public hearing and our next step is for discussion and I want to take the temperature of the board on do you want to go through the full deliberations tonight with what else we have on our menu or do we want to have a time limited say 10 or 15 minute pointing out of issues and then potentially continue this for include our deliberations. [1:35:42] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): Another meeting the latter ten. [1:35:48] Chair (presiding officer): Minutes how about that and then we get a short break and then we'll go on to the rest so that'll be your incentive well i like i heard the applicant agree essentially to something like adding those things to note 17 and i like the description of the deed and the attachments that the applicant set forth and. [1:36:19] Planning Board member: I like the idea of signage yes so the one question and I don't know that it falls under our purview so I'm gonna need your help Max and you Russell is that mr. Bensley brings up was the purchase and sale agreement I never saw a copy of that so his saying is that the sales agreement requires no less than seven. Lots I've never seen that either I think mr. Hollis is planning on speaking to that but my initial understanding is whatever that purchase sale agreement says does not supersede town code if this is approved for three lots then that purchase a sale agreement does not allow suddenly the creation for. Additional lots no I understand that for future development maybe but it says no less than seven lots so does that put us into a legal position on that lots or units he has quotation marks here note which I haven't seen it but he has in quotation marks no less than seven months sure that was the original. [1:37:45] Paul Hollis (applicant): purchase daily going back in September 2nd of last year after having the vernal pools done, after having the wetlands further delineated, after all the soil identification evaluation, we discovered that we're not going to get anywhere near that. We're gonna get three lots. We have one conveyance lot. After listening to Mr. Mueller and his wife, we sold them that land and we agreed with the seller that we were going to do less, which is what we did. We have an active purchase and sale agreement. Do you amend the purchase and sale? We have an active purchase and sale agreement on the property. The seller quite privately has received two-thirds of their payment and they're going to receive their last payment prior to the expiration of the purchase and sale, which is November 30th. And you put an [1:38:37] Chair (presiding officer): amendment on to the purchase and sale to exclude that condition? We do. I could provide a [1:38:42] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): purchase agreement with the addendums. I suggest you do that before you come [1:38:47] Planning Board member: back to the Planning Board. It's [1:38:51] Paul Hollis (applicant): been never asked of me before. I can send it on Monday morning. Well, [1:38:57] Planning Board member: we got you up here. Would you be willing to state for the record, since you're here tonight, that it's the three lots and three units as proposed and you have no intention of so dividing? Says that as a plan note on [1:39:11] Paul Hollis (applicant): the plan there will be no further development of the property, period. Perfect. It's the house, [1:39:18] Planning Board member: two lots and that's it. No, it actually says lots may not be further divided unless approved. [1:39:24] Paul Hollis (applicant): It says that on the plans. Perfect. So you have me on a public hearing say at a public meeting is saying it and you have it right on the plan, hopefully to be recorded sometime. Perfect. [1:39:38] Planning Board member: Thank you. 're welcome. And the fourth lot is not counted all that [1:39:45] Paul Hollis (applicant): because it's conveyed already. It was land. State law allows you to transfer a land to and a butter, then we had the conveyance lot that went out. Yeah, I'm [1:39:56] Planning Board member: just saying the notes covered these three lots and only three. Yeah, I mean, [1:40:00] Paul Hollis (applicant): quite honestly, if we didn't have a hundred foot setback from a forested wetland, it probably would have been six or seven lots, but that wasn't available to us. So you know, this property has been looked at 50 different ways and in the end it was three lots, that's it. 14.75 acres, three lots, no further division, period. Okay, anything [1:40:30] Chair (presiding officer): else the board needs to address at this point before we continue this for deliberation? I'm still confused about this wetland fill. I think we asked for a some drawings and more detailed depictions of the culverts and of the box cut. I wasn't done talking. [1:40:56] Planning Board member: But I wasn't done talking. I know I interrupted you. I'm sorry, but you know, you he's providing the mitigation for it. The mitigation is normally buildable property, buildable [1:41:16] Chair (presiding officer): upland. I think that's an issue will chew over with a little [1:41:20] Planning Board member: more time on our okay. I just wanted to mention that. Yeah, make a list of [1:41:24] Chair (presiding officer): everything so you don't forget, right, and [1:41:29] Planning Board member: on the lot that's lot one, that's one that's got the well, and that's most impacted. The driveway you're putting in, sir, will that be like semi-permeable, will be heavily paved, or just want to know what kind of water flows can come off it? Chair, if I may, yes, while you're still up there, Jamie, can you address the question from the Conservation Commission on whether the 394 square feet of impact includes any slope from the driveway as well? They're gonna swing at [1:42:09] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): this. The right-of-way of Bartlett Road is a 50-foot right-of-way. Your road is roughly 19 feet wide, so from the edge here to the property line there's a space that I agree, yes, we've got a slope down in and get there in that area. You can have, we can slope out and get down to the ground and let me pause for a second, max, say [1:42:33] Planning Board member: it one more time, just repeat the question one more time. The amount, does the slope include, or is the slope included in the 394 square feet of wetland impact? You say that when we get down to [1:42:50] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): where the wetlands are on Mr. Halls property, this will transition into a box cut, and that's that's where I think some of the nuances is. You're going to come down in the public right-of-way down the driveway, you'll have a culvert, and so you do have to have slope there. I agree when we get to his property line and that 13 feet after you come down in there, you will then have transitioned into a box cut through this area into the rest of the driveway, so there will be no slope [1:43:19] Chair (presiding officer): there's slope in the town right away, no slope on the property, correct? [1:43:24] Planning Board member: That's what I understand. Chair, may I ask a clarifying question here? Is wetland being impacted in the right-of-way? The only, oh sorry, I was pulling up the question, the only [1:43:37] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): the area that where we have to permit for is the wetland area here. I don't know how, I don't know how DEP classifies public right-of-ways, because you're, you can ditch, a ditch line falls into a gray area with DEP and everybody else, because it's town right. I guess the question I'm asking [1:43:52] Planning Board member: is if wetland is impacted that's in the in the roads right away, does that count towards this square footage of impact, right, because we're still impacting [1:44:04] Chair (presiding officer): Wetland, it's just we are, but I do applicants our ability to regulate the town right away. I'm not sure that we have it. This is just more of a principle. No, I agree, it is still a wetland that's impacted or the flow of [1:44:18] Planning Board member: water. Yeah, so if the town owns the wetland but we're still impacting it with this proposal, does it not count in the calculations that are done? I don't think it counts against the homeowner, the property owner, whether it's this lot or any other lot that has, you know, I mean, so if I own land that was, yeah, I can make my driveway wider, I can make it safer to get out of because it start the town can do that for me when I pave the road because we're saying the homeowners not doing this, we're not the body that can say we need a square [1:45:04] Chair (presiding officer): culvert or we need this or we need that within the town right away. As I understand, where the body that can say on this property and I can certainly buy [1:45:15] Planning Board member: that, I just do we have a good answer to that, Jamie? Is there a ditch there now? [1:45:24] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): You slope off the road, so by virtue to me a ditches with the road crowns off and water can convey down along an edge. Yes, I don't think you have a true ditch line in that area, not a true ditch line, no, but you have a toe of slope that will allow water to convey. Okay, [1:45:41] Chair (presiding officer): two [1:45:44] Planning Board member: more minutes. I would like to see before the next meeting CMA's answer to whether or not they are satisfied with the answers they were given to their questions. Okay, I can respond to that quickly. CMA did say that, so they are currently reviewing the response letter, but they did say that the application has proposed is from engineering standpoint has been greenlit, it's good to go. I'd like to hear their okay, their response. There's some pretty interesting things in here, so I'd like to see it. I don't mean to cut anybody else off, but I got another one. Okay, that's all right. Can we talk about the wetland that is causing the shoreline zone? Is it a wetland of special significance and is it greater than one acre in size? I think that might be more of a question for you, Max. The so the wetland on the property is not what's generating the overlay, it's it's on it's the wetlands from across the street. Yeah, okay, so they would generate a hundred foot setback because they are wetlands of special significance across the street, if they are. Yeah, but these ones are not connected to that one, so they are not generating a or they would not unless they were large enough to generate 100 foot setback, they would not be just being In the overlay does not okay and so I'm not explaining this right yeah so I guess with that being said Are the wetlands located on the property greater than 501 square feet and less than one acre? The reason I'm asking is because in 16 5 3 wherever the setback table is it's between 501 and an acre then the setback to septic is 50 feet if it's a wetland of special significance and I can't remember if it's an and or an or statement in there and greater than one acre it's a hundred feet and I'm curious if the proposed septic location on lot two meets those setback requirements from our ordinance That's an existing is it is it an existing system [1:48:33] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): It's a replacement system I can also offer because the wetlands fall in a shoreland zone we had to permit that well an impact with DEP it was in permitted as a tier one permit because it's not a wetland a special in this [1:48:45] Planning Board member: Significance to DEP so it's a replacement system this one yeah [1:48:52] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): Replacement system can [1:48:57] Chair (presiding officer): I yeah I guess I could just say that this is an [1:49:01] Planning Board member: outstanding question for me if we want to discuss it at a later time I 'd like [1:49:04] Chair (presiding officer): To do that and continue this unless it's crucial that we know not [1:49:09] Planning Board member: Crucial tonight this point sure if I may before we close I just wanted to ask the Planning Board about regarding the wetland alteration plan and whether they think a full mitigation plan is necessary could I get a sense of the board just so the applicant knows what information they should include regarding the wetland alteration [1:49:34] Chair (presiding officer): I think the set-aside is fine but the location of the set-aside that would satisfy me as instead of a mitigation plan but I'm the location it seems to be a box located within the existing wetland which shouldn't be disturbed anyway so [1:49:50] Planning Board member: My notes included a detail of the driveway and a detail of the culvert and then a narrative describing everything that was my suggestion but the big question I would prefer to have answered today is whether the planning board believes a full mitigation plan is necessary or whether the listed items plus the conserved area is sufficient for the boards offer just a Suggestion that may kind of be a win-win sure a culvert that meets the conservation request under driveway one that would allow both water and wildlife [1:50:36] Chair (presiding officer): And we call that our mitigation plan. When it sounds to me like they're taking grade level, they're gonna go down like this and refill with gravel to grade level, but there's a culvert that needs to go through there, but they're not proposing a culvert. They're proposing a culvert off the lot on town property. I understand, but that's, that culvert is what you're suggesting could be, we call that our mitigation plan. Let's leave that in the air, okay? How about I will [1:51:07] Planning Board member: talk with the applicants on what impact, what mitigation strategies they can provide. Well, the short answer is that you want something sure. Okay, motion [1:51:17] Chair (presiding officer): to continue. Somebody second? [1:51:22] Speaker N (unidentified): All [1:51:27] Planning Board member (roll-call voter): in favor? Can I ask what the board's asking for [1:51:36] Paul Hollis (applicant): for us, how the mitigation plan is concerned, Mike? [1:57:08] Chair (presiding officer): Doesn't work, Eric. Okay, we're, we're back on air. Go sit there. You can sit there if you want. We're back on air, and we are gonna proceed to item four. Yeah, a mixed use zoning amendment request, and our potential action tonight is to provide feedback, continue review. It's, it's, we would have the ability to schedule a public hearing if we felt that was appropriate at this time. David Bellew is proposing amendments to the mixed use zone to revise dimensional standards and the permitted uses listed. Staff note that some but not all the amendments to dimensional standards align with the required changes as part of state policy LD 1829. Thank you very much. Before we [1:58:12] Planning Board member: start, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that Mr. Ballou is representing Seacoast Properties, and Kevin Erickson is the manager of Seacoast Properties, and Kevin Erickson was my real estate agent in closing the house that I currently live in, and I would consider him a friend. Having said that, I am also confident that I can act impartially on behalf of the town of Kittery, so if it's okay with the board, or if the board has any objections, or Mr. Erickson has any objections, I would be happy to recuse myself. [1:58:50] Chair (presiding officer): Does the board have any objections to Mr. Duckelberger's meeting? No? Okay, we may proceed. [1:59:02] David Ballou (public commenter): Good to see you. Thank you, Chairman. [1:59:04] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): You must have paid your commission. [1:59:07] David Ballou (public commenter): Members of the board, thank you for giving us this time tonight. My name is David Ballou. [1:59:11] Chair (presiding officer): David, I don't recognize you with the hat and the glasses. You look completely different. [1:59:15] David Ballou (public commenter): Yeah. Well, I wouldn't be wearing the hat tonight, but I recently had surgery, so I don't want to expose you to that. [1:59:22] Chair (presiding officer): It's okay. Well, it's nice to see you, even if I don't recognize you. [1:59:25] David Ballou (public commenter): Thank you so much. It's good to be here. Actually, it is really good to be here. Oftentimes, I've been in this room, and it's been an adversarial, or I'm representing a party on something that's more controversial. Tonight is a joy. I mean, I'm here to represent a client, Seacoast Properties LLC, and Kevin Erickson. Is right here. I'm also joined by Eric Sari, engineer on the project, and the three of us have been working together on this project under the guidance of Max, who's, as I said, guided us through this. But it's nice to be in a position of collaboration. We're here to propose changes to the mixed-use zone ordinance, this mixed-use district, and so we have submitted a rather comprehensive, you know, submission, including a cover letter that highlights the main points of amendment that we, that we see this Particular zone is, I think I was happy to see Max's memo, which supported, you know, our view and I think the view of other landowners in this area that the, and developers that attempted to, thought about, or received approval of projects in this zone but have not gone forward, and there are some, there are just some components of the current mixed-use district that dissuade, discourage developers from actually building housing. And this is a particularly interesting time because the legislature, as a Matter of public policy, of course, has present, has passed legislation now law that has changed some of the provisions or encourage us to change some of the provisions to increase the opportunity for housing. And so, and so again, we're here to work together and a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. We're here to hear your comments. We've, We've had very thoughtful comments from both Max and the Land Issues Committee. We haven't had a chance to amend or revise our proposal to reflect those, but that's in process. Eric actually submitted a draft, and it was a little too late for me to, I think, for us to submit it to you. And also we wanted to hear your comments on our proposal and submit, you know, a revised edition following those comments. So the, what again, what brought us, what brings us here is that Kyrie has identified the Route One mixed-use district as a targeted growth area. It has public infrastructure, talk about public water, public sewer, and the comprehensive plan calls for additional housing and compact development in precisely these kinds of situations, these kinds of locations. So yet some of the existing dimensional and use requirements are preventing that develop, that development from occurring. So we here tonight, as I said, to discuss those amendments that we've submitted, to hear your comments on them, and hopefully to get your support and present to town council. So it's a, that's sort of an overview of what we're doing here tonight, and welcome any comments at this time or questions. As I said, Eric would be, is here to support more on technical, dimensional provisions of our amendment, but we're all listening. [2:03:50] Planning Board member: I think you've done a nice job here in clarifying a few things. I want to clarify one thing. Maximum height above grade for building mounted sign. I'm hoping that 's not 450 feet. I think the four is crossed out. I think it says five is crossed out. [2:04:15] David Ballou (public commenter): 40 feet, yeah, you can hardly, yeah, it goes from 40 to 50. Oh, it'll be a strike through, yeah, the [2:04:21] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): four is crossed out, but you can't see it. Yeah, I think, I think the straight through and the four, [2:04:25] Chair (presiding officer): the four, so it's in here, it's 50 feet, 50 feet. Okay, put that in there to see if we actually [2:04:32] Planning Board member: read this. So the other questions I had is in the lines just above that you have as far as minimum street frontage is lots without water and sewer 100 feet. Why for frontage you have lots with water and sewer have 50 [2:04:59] Chair (presiding officer): feet, but part of [2:05:01] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): the change here is to comply with LD 1829, and it's new rule, it's a LD 2173, the one that's supposed to fix it, which significantly reduced minimum lot sizes. So with that, it would make sense to reduce the frontage. Otherwise you get a thing where you've got this great big frontage and the lot's this deep and the setbacks that leave you with no buildable area. Well, I [2:05:20] Planning Board member: understand that, but I'm also asking, okay, so why 100 feet, why not 50 feet as it is with the lots [2:05:27] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): with sewer and water? Because you've got a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size for water and sewer, and then you've got 20,000 for without. So it's a bigger lot, so you think you would have bigger furniture. We're amenable to going to 50. It doesn't bother us. It's one of those things that just made sense. We need to reduce it from what it was, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the same between those two lot sizes, between those provisions for utilities on those lots. [2:05:52] Planning Board member: Okay, it's traditionally less dense for the, it's not served by, yeah, road frontage is something different than, you know, like side setbacks, at least in [2:06:04] Chair (presiding officer): my mind in curb cuts are an issue yeah they always have been and they [2:06:09] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): Should still be this particular one. I sort of missed that with you've got the things on Route one where you do want to consolidate curb cuts. I think that we probably want to get rid of this strikeout and leave that 250 so you have the larger frontage on Route one just to minimize those cuts. I think that's something that we probably want to look at, but once you're internal off a feeder road, that's where you can have those smaller frontages in my [2:06:32] Planning Board member: mind anyway. So Max, I want to applaud the staff on giving us some options to look at, and if it was is up to me, I would combine the last option and the first option. Merging? Merging this MU and C1 zones together and making the mixed requirement an incentive. I won the bet on which one you prefer. Yeah, that should have been a no-brainer. [2:06:59] Chair (presiding officer): You put that in there for him. [2:07:00] Planning Board member: But I think the incentive is the way to go to really create that mixed use. Click agreed. What's an example of an incentive that would come with including mixed-use increased density increased building height well yeah increased density increased building height I was thinking those two for starters yeah because and you know that you know if you had some of these people that were smart that currently own like Simon properties and some of the others they would start putting apartments above the current buildings that we have out there because you know it would right now you know how shopping goes in the malls it goes like this right with the seasons well if you start putting apartments above that curve smooths out yes people don't can walk to shopping but they're not that smart anyway thank you 're welcome and I'll get off my soapbox I'm all done [2:08:07] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): Certainly mm-hmm I would come back to that one thing though Dutch we also have increased side setbacks for the 20,000 square foot lots so that's where that need for additional frontage comes in so if you've got a 50 foot front edge and you've got a 15 setback on each side you've got a 20 foot building envelope up in the middle so it's really it's doable but it's not comfortable I'll put it that way yeah so that's kind of another reason why we went for that larger frontage but we're minimal to reduce [2:08:31] Planning Board member: it to 50 it's the board's purview I just want to know why and you gave me a good reason appreciate that [Chair (presiding officer): Anybody else just] For the purposes of conversation, I'm trying to control my knee jerk reaction to say we shouldn't have the wolf outlining the specifications for the chicken coop, but someone's got to write it. Yeah, this is a new thing for us on the board, right? It's the first time I've done this myself, so yeah, with that being said, from what I've heard, past processes for large-scale changes in growth areas and other important areas in Kittery, it's a very meticulous, drawn-out, discussed and evaluated process, and I just want to make sure we take a similar amount of care with this discussion as we have in the past, because I think this is probably the top most important area in Kittery. [2:09:42] Chair (presiding officer): The housing committee hasn't seen it yet. Staff has not had a lot of time to really dive into this, and what we're looking at is a pretty big part of, you know, a very significant zone. And, I mean, I think there are some very good ideas in here, and I think I support this direction to get this straightened out so it actually works and people will want to build there, but we have to be sure what are we inviting. [2:10:16] Kate Vellucci (public commenter, 50 Charles Hill Road): We have to be cautious. [2:10:17] Chair (presiding officer): We want to understand what we're inviting, because it hasn't been a success. I think it was designed not to be a success, honestly, and that design has worked. Success for whom? [2:10:31] Planning Board member: The mixed-use zone has always been a problem. [2:10:35] Chair (presiding officer): It's designed to discourage development. It really is. [2:10:39] Planning Board member: The few projects that we've had in the past for the mixed-use zone never have really gotten off the ground because it's just it's just too complicated too goofy and crazy. Yeah, that's part of why I was, I'm trying to look into it, because you know mixed-use development is a priority not just for the town, for most climate action plans, but the creation of mixed-use neighborhoods from scratch kind of really doesn't happen. There they need to be incentivized, or if the commercial demand has to be preceded by meeting the residential demand, so I hope that part of this process will allow planning staff and the applicant to make a mixed-use zone that actually encourages the development people want to see, rather than making the requirements so strict that we see none at all. That's a much more diplomatic way [2:11:33] Chair (presiding officer): to put it than we were saying. I practiced it in the mirror because there [2:11:38] Planning Board member: have been some, I've been through some communities, and in fact Dover is down doing it pretty well now on one area of Dover over there off Dover Point Road. They've got a mixed-use community that has seems to be thriving, that is a point [2:11:57] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): place we did that project. It was a Herculean effort to get it there. It took 12 years to get it to be where it is now. Transfer development rights came into play to make the density just way beyond what we're proposing here. And it was a heavy engineering lift, heavy lift on in you know in meetings and whatnot with town staff trying to figure out how to make it work. It did come to pass and it came out great. We've actually got a one about three times that size coming now again in Dover. But it's just a years and years and years and years long process. And I know that this one Ethan is not going to be quick either to try to get an ordinance change like this. And I understand your concerns about you know the box and chicken coop type of thing. But building a mixed-use project from scratch is no easy feat. [2:12:40] Planning Board member: But I have seen it done. Denver did it when Lowry Air Force Base closed. I've seen properties out in California where they were malls that were failing that they converted them to a mixed use and now they're they're high end very successful places I think. [2:12:58] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): the takeaway that what we wanted to do here is this that 's a great goal and it needs a lot of density it's something that i don't think we're going to get here unless we really want to you know go a thousand square foot per unit for that kind of density that would be great but i think mandating that mixed use component is the tripping point for all the development in this lot and products that i've worked on in this in this zone it's we're trying to craft this or recraft this to allow for the flexibility to do the mix of uses and increase that list of uses but not mandate you have to do those mixes over the entire lot. Yeah and that's that's the real [2:13:35] Planning Board member: problem and that and that and these the successes I have seen are usually like small areas that has one big box tenant and much smaller commercial tenants on the bottom floor while the top two or three floors are apartments or condos. I would argue the Foresight is in essence an example of a successful mixed-use neighborhood as well. It does not have a mixed-use requirement but it is the place in Kittery where you see the most diverse blend of small businesses and housing. And that is something that happened organically partially because of the composition of the neighborhood. It's it's the most walkable and compact place in Kittery but it also is a place where the demand for commercial needs came organically and that's what led to the [2:14:28] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): Mix of uses, it was also built without building setbacks, it was a lot coverage or open space or any rules of any kind. I'm using them into it well, and that's where the incentives [2:14:38] Planning Board member: can come in. Yes, yep, I think the incentives are going to be huge, at least from my experience. I mean, doing mixed use development doesn't pencil out as well as solely residential, so yeah, to do mixed use we got to incentivize it. But I would say, you know, particularly as if the malls are starting to empty, and I'm not saying that they are, but if they do, then let's create the incentives for them to redevelop, right? Yeah, which is why I say [2:15:12] Chair (presiding officer): combine the C1. Freeport is bringing residential back into their downtown, which was, you know, eviscerated as far as the resident, residential uses, and they're trying to bring those back in to integrate them with all shops and [2:15:28] Planning Board member: malls. We said Rock Row in Westbrook or Portland right now, yeah, Rock Rose, they're doing that right now, really cool. Let's see, that's why I'm suggesting that we combine the two zones and then create the [2:15:39] Chair (presiding officer): incentives and bring in the mixed juice. It would be nice to see your wish come true once [2:15:44] Planning Board member: one step at a time i feel like it's only one zone it's probably worth mentioning i think i wrote with the staff member that click preferred the incentives there was some pushback against the zone make merging just because of the history of this zone it was it was created in essence I've heard it described as the anti mall ordinance it was created in essence to kind of stop the spread yeah and then part of the reason we're here it is because it's it's had the inverse effect now is that a worry now? Yeah, that's the question, is it would merging the zone scare residents into thinking that we're getting rid of the protections that stopped the mall sprawl? So just something I just felt that was worth pointing out because that was discussed at CLIC. Well, it could be good to bring [2:16:35] Chair (presiding officer): it up, but I don't see any new malls going in up there unless, well, unless [2:16:41] Planning Board member: there's apartments on top of them, yeah, right. Process wise, I guess I'm asking both the applicant and the planning board, I think the next step for this is it will go to housing. I think the next housing committee meeting is this [2:16:55] Chair (presiding officer): Thursday or next Thursday, yeah, and housing is pretty damn slow, not to denigrate the committee, I talk fast, right? No, it's, it's good, but I mean, I think we'll receive some information and then we'll say, okay, we're gonna deliberate this on the next meeting, and that's okay, I guess, or not, I guess it's more a [2:17:20] Planning Board member: Question of the applicant then. I've already gotten feedback from CLIC. I was thinking maybe I would get the initial feedback from housing and then we could [2:17:29] Chair (presiding officer): I think you'll get some feedback. Yeah, you'll get some and then we could [2:17:32] Planning Board member: discuss potential whether you would want to amend your. Yeah, I think [2:17:37] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): that we do want to amend it, you know, in certain locations, but we want to take as much feedback as we can. Okay, present a cleaner draft, come back to you guys, whatever other boards. I think it needs to go back to CLIC. Is not CLIC [2:17:48] Chair (presiding officer): is in process and you know if we can get their review sort of tightened up a little bit so we have some idea of what CLIC. Yeah, I don't think we're ready [2:18:01] Planning Board member: for a scheduling a public hearing by any means at this point. Definitely not. No way the board want to consider a workshop or wait until we get more [2:18:11] Chair (presiding officer): feedback. We need a little bit more feedback than in a workshop would be [2:18:14] Planning Board member: good touch pause. Yeah, I would wait until we get the feedback from click and housing, let the applicant get another chop at it if they're so inclined, to staff input, particularly with combining the zones, and then and then and then come back and decide if we need a workshop. Right, because we have, I mean, this is this is an excellent start, it is. Yeah, I mean, somebody's done some work for us. Unless there's some, you know, some objections to from the housing committee or from click that need to be discussed what the housing [2:18:52] Chair (presiding officer): committee is gonna look for. It was to have affordable housing incentives and I [2:19:00] Planning Board member: think the key, as Justin pointed out, it's gonna be the incentives and how do we create the incentives. Right, yeah, there was also another incentive brought up at click about, you know, open space donations to conservation stewards. I 'm mentioning that for you, Mary Alice. You're welcome. So what I'm hearing is the incentive question and maybe the zone mixing question is what the board wants to look into. Any other feedback and having somebody here like these guys that would help craft incentives that might be appropriate would kind of give us give us some insight. Sure, not if I go not minimizing town staffs ability, but I look at the scale of this, right, you know, this is Kittery changing subject here, right, what's the process for hiring outside side consultation for development of ordinances of this scope and changes of this scope. I don't know What the process would be for ordinance? Has anyone been here for a ordinance amendment of this scope? I think the business local zone was amended in 2020 to 2023 in a similar fashion. I wouldn't consider that anywhere close to this impact wise, right? I'm just, you know, tying in with my caution, right? You know, the last time we revised this zone, it hasn't turned out well. I would say that was weird. That was a reactive revision. So yeah, sure, I'm just saying something of this scope, of this magnitude, of this effect. I'm not seeing the same magnitude and effect that [2:20:57] Chair (presiding officer): you're implying. Really? No, okay. Well, I think I think it's pretty substantial question. I think it's a questions up in the air. I mean, if we if we make a compelling case that yes, we've gotten this far, but we need a consultant to, you know, assist with the process, but I think that's partly also the purview of town staff. Jason, did you want to speak, sir? Would you like to go to the microphone? [2:21:25] Planning Board member: Obviously isn't something we need to hash out. No, just bringing it up. No, yeah. [2:21:31] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Yeah, the short answer to your question, Ethan, oh, you're okay, I won't. [2:21:35] Planning Board member: Oh, would you sign in, please? [2:21:36] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Yeah, let me sign in. I'm Jason Garnham. I'm the Director of Planning and Development, and I reside at 10 School Street. By and large, you know, putting out a request for proposals for a consultant to do a project like that, the direction would come from the town manager. So it would it would really be a matter of convincing the manager and the counselors that Effort is needed, you know, for the project. So, you know, put some thought into that. You know, if the board wants to, you know, come out with a with a with a position for the for the manager to consider with the counselors, they can do that. You know, it would cost more than I can spend without. It's maybe a one-man position. So, no, I'm just letting you know. You asked a question that I know the answer to. I appreciate it. Yeah. So, you know, when the town staff are either working on a project or we publish an RFP to hire a consultant to help us work on a project, it's always to implement a priority project or achieve a specific goal that was set by the council and the manager that's, you know, we don't get to pick and choose, just so everyone knows, okay? [2:23:06] Planning Board member: Yeah, thanks for thanks for answering that, Jason. Yeah, no problem. When we were Talking about affordable housing and affordable housing incentives, and I really think if we're gonna have affordable housing somewhere, shouldn't to just be, we need, they have, people need to have access, walking access to amenities and food and restaurants, so we should tie that to more of a mixed-use, because right now this is like the farthest end of town, and I don't want to be consider that we're just throwing affordable housing, you know, at the outskirts, there needs to be something, yeah, which is People out there, then they need to have food stores, needs to be someplace you want to be, not some in place you're stuck, so that might go with the mixed-use incentives, I mean Yeah, my point is kind of what we're talking about right now will encourage development in areas where we want it, yeah, and the next topic we're going to talk about is probably going to have more significance to change the Community, the longer term, I don't disagree, I still think this one's Important, significant scope and the amount of effort that's going into this, what [2:24:17] Chair (presiding officer): I'd like to do is see us continue this with the potential of it coming back in the next couple of meetings sometime, we've got some scheduling issues that we're going to get to a little bit later in this meeting, so I think it continuance and then when we, when we're hearing that CLIC has done some process and housing has done some process and staff has a little more, has digested this a little bit more, motion, yeah, before, are you guys kind of [2:24:56] Planning Board member: Comfortable with what you're hearing here, absolutely, we know this is gonna [2:24:59] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): Take months and months and months, we know this is not a one-and-done deal, this is gonna change, it's gonna morph, it's gonna do, might take a hard left and be completely different from what we thought, right, but I just want to make [2:25:08] Planning Board member: Sure you're getting, kind of getting that, they just, oh yeah, this, we're not [2:25:13] Chair (presiding officer): Out there not trying to give you the brush off, no, we weeks [2:25:16] Planning Board member: Will be here a lot for me to like you on the dimensional standards, just understanding why we're picking certain, like why it or whatever we're trying to [2:25:29] Eric (All This Engineering, applicant's engineer): Encourage to be developed, yeah, the lot sizes or the area required for a unit per se, those are state mandated, it's not something that we created out of the air, that's something Kittery has to do anyway, this 5,000 square foot thing on water and sewage, that's a state law, that's what's coming, that's, it's, yeah, it's a law, yeah, it [2:25:46] Speaker N (unidentified): has to happen you had something to say that you didn't get to say no i 'll save it for next time [2:25:52] Chair (presiding officer): You sure? Yeah, okay, all [2:25:56] Planning Board member: right. Was there a motion partly made? I'll move to continue the review of the proposed amendment to the mixed use zone dimensional standards 16.4.23. Second. All right, [2:26:10] Chair (presiding officer): all in favor? I appreciate it. I'll be in touch about next up. Okay, continued business park zoning amendment potential action. Continue review and discussion amendments proposed by housing committee and other suggestions by conservation Commission. The director planning development on behalf of the housing committee is proposing amendments to the business parks. [2:26:54] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Good evening planning board members, friends of the planning board. I honestly thought it was going to be a lot later than this when I was speaking with you. We thought so. I'm glad for everyone's sake that it isn't, but I will start by saying I was not planning to talk about a whole lot right now. I have just a couple brief things unless you all have more you want to talk about. So without further ado, I'll, I'll go ahead with my updates. First one is one, two, last time we spoke about the business park, which was two, three meetings ago or two, three scheduled meetings ago. You all had suggested that you wanted a firmed up review from the land issues committee, also known as click. Did spend some more time looking through the various suggestions and drafts and they, we made some progress, but we were only able to spend about 35 minutes in the most recent meeting on September 16th, and so that effort was not finished. So I don't have a committee sanctioned, you know, set of recommendations for you and the other update that I wanted to share from click is that click members inquired about a workshop, which is something that I think I mentioned that you could consider as one of the next steps going forward, and they also inquired about a public information session, which I'll be honest is something the housing committee discussed and decided at one point not to do another one anyway. So that's the status report on that, and then the other important update is our initial report that zoom capability. would be installed at the star theater in the community center turned out not to be true. As the project team has looked into it, the project has meant, as often happens, it's become more complicated and expensive, and town administration is not set a plan in motion or committed to doing it within a certain timeline. So I'm sorry for that. Our initial feedback from our support team was that it could be fairly simple and quick, and that's turned out not to be true. So point is the star theater will not have zoom capabilities anytime soon, and any public hearing scheduled for that room won't have zoom capabilities. So if the board schedules a public hearing soon for the business Park zoning effort, we'll either have to do it here and get some more chairs, or do it in the theater without a zoom option, and maybe think about a multiple meeting format to, you know, to be really inclusive, or get creative. As long as what we do is notice to the public, you know, with ample time and make sense, we can do that so I'm bringing it up for a couple reasons. One is after you all decided not to go forward with anything on September 24th, which was the initial date that we had tentatively pegged, we've also looked at October 22nd, in part because I'm gonna be sitting in the staff chair for that meeting anyway, and also in part because we don't currently have a lot of other items on the agenda. Third reason is you only have one meeting in each of November and December, and if it happens that we do continue to have a lot of permit business for you and you know we have what you need, what you feel like you need to schedule a public hearing, we could wind up in a situation where we're asking you to schedule an extra meeting. So if you want to, you can decide to schedule a public hearing for October 22nd, but that was not my expectation coming here tonight. I'm just really providing you with an update. That's all I got for right now. Do you have any questions for me, or anything you want to go through and go over again? I wasn't prepared to do much more than what I just did, so I may not have your answer. No, this is an easy one, right, so we wouldn't have zoom in [2:32:04] Planning Board member: star theater, correct? We didn't have zoom the last time we did the public hearing related to this [2:32:11] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): subject four years ago, five years ago, right? I don't know, I wasn't here. I know it was recorded [2:32:19] Planning Board member: No, but it was very well attended in person. Yes, right, and that doesn't preclude the public from providing letters if they can't attend. But this would be just, this would be just for a planning [2:32:32] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): board right you are not required to provide a remote option it's just not very well utilized it may not be well utilized at this point you are not required to do it is something that has become 100 customary however again i would think it sounds like you may be inclined to think this way as well if we are very clear in our in our notifications to the public that it's an in-person meeting only or whatever and we and we distribute that information you know as broadly as we can i see no reason that wouldn't be satisfactory. But again, I'm just presenting you with the facts. It would still be televised. Oh yeah, oh, we have channel 22. We have a big beautiful [2:33:21] Planning Board member: projector. Could attend in person, some comfy seats, still could provide written comment. It would just be the in meeting zoom interaction would be unavailable. Correct. Not sure how the rest of the board feels about that, but I'm good with that. You make a good, you make a good case. That's what we did last time. Yeah. So what's the capacity at Stars Theatre? A lot more than here. Yeah, I don't know [2:33:49] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): the number. 10, honestly, 10 more people. It's probably like 400. It doesn't look that bad. [2:33:56] Planning Board member: It's a couple hundred. Yeah, probably. Right. Okay, maybe depending on whether they pull the bleachers [2:34:01] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): out or not, and whether the fire chief. Yeah, they would for that. I mean, we did those couple of, you know, public info sessions, one in 2024, one last fall, and we pulled the bleachers out. And while I'm sure a planning board public hearing will draw a bigger crowd then go listen to staff talk presentation, but there was still plenty of room in the theater for an event that would have felt very crowded in here. Plus it gets very hot in here when it's wouldn't [2:34:35] Planning Board member: speak to the rest of the board, but that would be my preference, would be redo it in Star Theater, adequately publicized, [2:34:40] Chair (presiding officer): and yeah, with an adequate advance notice. Yeah, more than the, yeah, the required. And do we feel Jason needs to be there, because you're not available on the 22nd? I, well, the star theater [2:34:55] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): is not available on the 22nd. I learned that very recently. What is more important than? So I'm sorry I didn't mention that in my very initial pitch. So you know if we're committed it to the star theater, I can't argue with that. Then the question is do I go start looking for dates sooner so I can report them to you for your action in the next meeting, or are we holding off until as we discussed in your last meeting, are we holding off until hopefully in one more meeting the Land Issues Committee can vote on a set of recommendations to ride along with all the stuff that's in your packet. [2:35:43] Chair (presiding officer): And I don't know if housing is going to amend their position at all right now. I mean, I think if we have some— They seem very stubborn. [2:35:52] Planning Board member: Huh? They seem very stubborn. Well, they're focused. Sticking with their proposal. And they probably haven't seen CLIP's recommendation either. [2:35:59] Chair (presiding officer): No, they haven't. And they would like to, I'm sure. Because I think if they're good ideas that would improve that proposal and give it a better chance of success, housing should consider supporting it. [2:36:15] Planning Board member: Yeah, I would wait until we get the click report, get all the troops in line. Yep. I don't think we should wait too long, though. Yeah, I think we should try and maybe discuss a special meeting in November before the holiday season, right? Why not just use the meeting in November? [2:36:34] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Well, Jason, you only have one meeting in November. And there is concern, I think, of gumming up the works on. [2:36:45] Planning Board member: So we just have. I don't want to have a plenty more meeting in front of everybody who's coming out. Oh, I think it would be great. Oh, don't. No, I think this should be a. meeting where this is the only item on the agenda. I agree with you personally. I don't want to talk about subdivision review in front of the whole town of [2:37:03] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Kittery. I'd love to see a junior engineer public here stepping up to do their presentation, one of their very first projects. I mean, it would give the [2:37:16] Chair (presiding officer): public a lot of time for public comment. You know, we could have like a hour and a [2:37:22] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): half of public. The goal is to is to get through it, right? It's gonna be a long [2:37:28] Planning Board member: night, right? Yeah, so I think we should shoot for early November, right? Election day? No, I think I think we need to get the I think that's a decision we need to make in October. So I have an idea is we're coming up on the end of the year, right? This is the big ticket item, right, for staff and us. We have several members, myself included, who are coming up at the end of our term, and it would be nice to Adequately ensure that we get this on our docket. I'm not, I'm not saying we don't have it. I'm suggesting that let's make sure that we have the input that we need, that we have a product that we can support in front of it before we push it [2:38:23] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): out there. Well, if we, you don't have to support it, you just have to understand [2:38:27] Planning Board member: it. Also on that note, right, we haven't, well, supporting it means we recommend it [2:38:34] Chair (presiding officer): to counsel. Well, we can say we recommend it, we don't recommend it, or we send it forward with no recommendation. [2:38:43] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): We recommend it with these amendments, A, B, C, and D. I'm going to do my best to make those options clear to you all. With what we have right now, that's not easy to do. [2:38:58] Planning Board member: Here's my concern, too. You know, you want to be quick. If we don't give the council a solid recommendation and we don't give them a product that we can live with, the first thing they're going to ask, let's have a workshop with a planning board. And that's just going to slow the whole thing down. Unless it's the day of the meeting. Or they're going to just kick back. I'm certainly not for going quick. [2:39:21] Chair (presiding officer): Let me rewind and ask, do we want to have another workshop with anybody when we get the CLIC recommendations finalized and the housing to the CLIC finalized and say okay we like this we like this you know if we could get their input and [2:39:45] Planning Board member: this may be something that we let the staff make the decision on it clicks input is relatively benign there's no [2:39:52] Chair (presiding officer): need for a workshop right we got to see it to know it though that's why I'm suggesting [2:40:00] Planning Board member: maybe this is a we let the staff make the call in order to keep the process moving yeah okay and as far as whether we need to do a workshop and [2:40:13] Chair (presiding officer): if we did a workshop it would if we don't do it first meeting in October it would be second meeting in October and we could do the workshop before the meeting the hour before the meeting right oh yeah this is direction I can use and we know we can ask that you look into potential special meeting dates in [2:40:36] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): November who's at the workshop on October 22nd who was well right now who right now who are you bringing in is it is it click housing Conservation Commission all three no Conservation Commission I think have already shot [2:40:56] Planning Board member: themselves in the foot. That's, that's my take on it, you know. They have made their suggestions to the housing committee. The housing committee has suggested, based upon those suggestions, to us. I am comfortable with what the housing committee has put forward. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm comfortable with it. It's called a consensus. And then, so the only thing I'm waiting on is to hear from CLIC. so if click diverts their opinions from the current product we have in front of us significantly then we need to have a workshop and talk about it but i don't think we need to talk to conservation commission i don't think we need to talk to the housing committee they've made [2:41:47] Chair (presiding officer): their positions very clear. I would agree we don't want to talk to you either. Yeah, what do we intend [2:41:54] Planning Board member: Ken, what's the board's feeling on what we're going to put in, if anything, for amendments, right? Because the easy answer is whether we do or do not recommend the housing committee's proposal to town council, right? The hard option is we propose amendments, be that whatever scope that way. You know, I disagree. We think the frontage should be changed or the building height or whatever. We haven't taken any time in the last year to nitpick apart their proposal, right, which will lead me to believe that we're leaning towards either yay or nay on the housing committee's proposal as it stands. Or are we going to really plan on sitting down and going line by line and making amendments to it? I don't have a problem with that because, you know, I have gone through and highlighted at least the areas that I would have a problem with. They aren't, some of it is just language that they use that is, I find, nebulous and unenforceable. But yeah, but we're running out of time to do that, right, but sit down in detail as a board. We need an agenda item to do it, [2:43:14] Chair (presiding officer): and we need to have click stuff in writing and then we need to and that [2:43:18] Planning Board member: would be that would be a good time to discuss it is when we have the click [2:43:21] Chair (presiding officer): stuff, then we go through line by line, and that's not a workshop, that is in a [2:43:26] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): meeting. Yeah, and that's also a whole meeting that, well, maybe not our [2:43:31] Chair (presiding officer): hour and a half, the most, that's one of the, you've already had these, you know [2:43:42] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Know the paper of this for over a month, you know, and that's, that's one of the arguments for giving you that kind of time is, you know, I mean, I'm sure you're waking up every morning and studying this while you enjoy your breakfast. If you have those very specific things, you know, I think we will be able to discuss [2:44:02] Planning Board member: that as a board, you know, what our plans gonna be, because as it stands right now, personally I'm opposed to the housing committee's recommendation as it's [2:44:11] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): written. If we're going to work to amend it and you do and you do, you have to have a public hearing, and we can predict probably 90 of what we're going to hear, but we can't predict the other 10, and there might be the most brilliant idea in the world sitting in someone's brain who's going to come to that hearing that, you know, like, oh, let's amend section 3d to say exactly what that person said, right, like, that could happen. That's the purpose of these things. You're right. [2:44:40] Chair (presiding officer): Sometimes we say let's get the public hearing and make that the priority and use that feedback as well as click and all the other stuff, and then make, have bang our heads together and try to get a recommendation. I do think click will [2:44:57] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): have manageable, a digestible list of recommendations, you know, to add or change. I can say that, you know, I don't always take a personal, you know, make a staff recommendation on something like this, but I very well may, and I think some of the things that will come out of click are things that I personally would recommend adding or changing. So Jason, again, I'm not going [2:45:27] Planning Board member: to speak for the rest of the board. I personally would like the town planning manager's opinion on this proposal. Are [2:45:36] Chair (presiding officer): you talking now or later? No, later, I mean. [2:45:39] Planning Board member: Okay, I would love Jason's personal take on this proposal. Yeah, I mean, with [2:45:50] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): regards to this project, I'm really a project manager more than, you know, the designer and creator, frankly, so some of my opinions I will probably keep to myself until long after I, but with the things that come out of the various committees, there are, there are things that I personally will recommend and defend, and things that I might not. I'm sorry, I think I mistitled you, director. [2:46:17] Planning Board member: Right, planning director. I would certainly like, I have the privilege of [2:46:22] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): being a middle manager. I'm sure some of you know how much fun that is. Yeah, so you may wind up with a three or four column thing, you know, this is from that committee, this is from [2:46:35] Planning Board member: That committee, this is, that's not a bad opinion, but whose amendment are we recommending or not recommending to town council? So that's a great question. So is it our amendment? It's not our amendment. Is it the housing committee? Are we going to pick which one we want? That's a great question. [2:46:49] Chair (presiding officer): Committee is processed by us with all that other input. In other words, if we say okay, we agree with a couple of things that the Conservation Commission recommended, as you know, process through click, you know, and all that, and we agree adding, and we listen to Dutch's concerns and Ethan's concerns, then we have a product that is partly their proposal and amended by us, but it's the [2:47:21] Planning Board member: housing committee's amendment. Yeah, basically, I mean, that's the task a little, but if the housing committee doesn't incorporate any of clicks, they don't have to. Very stubborn, and we think that clicks suggestions are valuable, but housing still gives us the amendment. We're like [2:47:40] Chair (presiding officer): so it goes. We don't know if housing is gonna, what click is suggesting, but it sounds like, if it makes that more saleable, I would be in favor of the housing endorsing some changes, but I don't know what they would be at this point. [2:47:57] Planning Board member: And the reality is we are the ones that are going to have to live with this ordinance when it's presented to us. Housing committee, click, they don't have to worry about it once people come in front of us. We still might have to live with it even if we don't recommend it. We may. Yeah. Because there's no, if we don't recommend it, there's no, we don't know what council [2:48:17] Chair (presiding officer): know what you never do, you never do, so at the end of the day, yet, right, so let's [2:48:24] Planning Board member: make something that we as a planning board and those that follow behind us [2:48:29] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): can live with, support, and enforce, and I think that's what the council wants you to do. Yeah, right, the, unfortunately, this specific project is unfolded in a way that's more complicated for everyone than it really should be, and part of that is, I think we have, what we ultimately have is a lot of good people working in a not very clear or efficient process. It's kind of confusing. The pre, all the pre-planning board steps are frankly kind of made up, you know, by, they're, they're like leaves in the forest. These committees, and you know which one relates to whom, have evolved over many years, you know, through council and town manager action, and you know, ideally the way this really should have gone is the Conservation Commission's recommendations either should have been brought directly to the housing committee by having commissioners go to housing committee meetings and say hey we have these ideas we want you to consider them at least or you know and this is where you know trying to remember the reasons Kendra established the land issues committee it should have happened there so you know the conservation commissioners again they put a lot of work into this and I think some of their ideas are really good but they didn't necessarily know that you know that's what should have happened. And, frankly, they didn't ask me, and I don't take any offense to that. But, you know, ideally what would have come to you was one set of recommendations, but that's not what happened because you were basically given directly from the committees two separate drafts within a month of each other. So that was not planned. That's not what I would have done if I was allowed to manage the project. But I'm sorry now we're trying to we're trying to back fill why don't we [2:50:38] Chair (presiding officer): just try to act as a catalyst and a motivator here because it has gone on quite a while and I think it needs to get to a point where it can get to Council so I think we should schedule some time next meeting schedule an hour to work on this in the line by our proposals and hopefully we'll have the stuff from click and we'll have some initial reaction from housing because both of those committees are meeting before our next meeting and then just task ourselves to work on it for an hour at least and to I don't know what our agenda is looking like I can't be here for the next [2:51:19] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): meeting but you can do that without me if you're comfortable with that fuel you might even it might [2:51:25] Planning Board member: even be better I don't know that's up to you I also won't be here for the October 22nd meeting [2:51:29] Chair (presiding officer): so will you be here for the next meeting and you know what it looks like as far [2:51:36] Planning Board member: as meeting in October first we have two small shoreland projects and possibly a continued possibly a subdivision that was continued tonight we'll be coming back so to two to three items honestly I it's probably just it probably will be like an hour or less of content before this but so but like Jason said he won't be here for The October 8th meeting, which is okay. My suggestion though, yeah, and I think Ethan, point taken. If you could give us your thoughts, because you will have seen now all of the inputs, if you could give us [2:52:15] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): your thoughts in writing. You comfortable with that? I don't know if I'm gonna have time. I am comfortable with some of it, but given me one week to do that. No, not a week for the packet. Yeah, for your next meeting. Yeah, that's a week. [2:52:36] Planning Board member: You can get a special, you're the planning director, so you can special dispensation. Well, and it could, you could come. Yeah, I mean, we accept, we'll have a [2:52:49] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): quick meeting between now. We accept public input, so because I think what I would rather focus my, you know, my limited time on is preparing something for them so that they can get that much closer to a vote, because one of the issues we had in the last meeting, one issue was time, I already mentioned that, but the other one too was I prepared a bullet list, I went through, I have a color-coded paper copy of the amendments, and there's like a color that means they recommended, a color that means they didn't, color means they can't agree, a color that means this was in the other version. Anyway, so I made a bullet list of that, but I wasn't able to do it until the day before the meeting, so the committee members didn't really have a chance to study it, and they 've said verbatim, we're not comfortable, you know, taking a position on this because we [2:53:46] Chair (presiding officer): haven't had time to look at it. Scheduling wise, it would be great to be at a point where we could schedule, if we need a special meeting, to schedule that even as soon as the next meeting, because that gives us more than a month to publicize it. I think we should plan on it. Yeah, [2:54:07] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): and that gives me, so you know, a step that we can definitely do Monday is get a list of dates the Star Theater is available. You can have that for your next meeting and pick one, and then we can, we can print the postcards. I think we got it Monday. [2:54:26] Chair (presiding officer): Tuesday, we can't just sit here and wait for everything to happen. We got to start. [2:54:30] Planning Board member: Making it happen a little bit ourselves. So timeline wise, what I'm hearing is next meeting on October 8th this will be a continued business item again, and then you will have a list of prospective dates from Jason and you'll still you'll choose a date to schedule for the public hearing, right, the 22nd. It sounds like you'll have a workshop before the meeting depending on what the schedule for the planning board will be, and then at some point in November to be determined by the planning board you'll have a special meeting that will be a public hearing for these amendments. Is that I'm getting, I'm getting head nods, is that yeah, torches and pitchforks. And then that way that won't, I don't think that'll negatively impact the timeline for planning board items. I'm not anticipating a huge number, but the flexibility is helpful, especially because we only have one a month. Sounds good to me. Do we have a deadline this needs to be, right, July of next year, because well if we have the public hearing in November and then would we get an amendment from the housing committee [2:55:40] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): committee, a revised amendment based on the public hearing. I mean you would have a public hearing, that's a discrete step, and then the housing committee can or cannot. I don't think it's [2:55:50] Chair (presiding officer): going to circle back to the housing committee. I mean I think if the housing committee had particular reactions out of the public hearing they might send us a letter, yeah, or something [2:56:01] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): or I don't think they're going to regurgitate. I get the impression that they're throwing their [2:56:05] Planning Board member: dart against the wall and they're they're shooting for what they have, right, and it's up [2:56:09] Chair (presiding officer): to us two years to get that product where it is and it's it's not a bad [2:56:17] Planning Board member: product. Do we have the ability to amend? Yes, you can recommend, you can recommend anything. We could say it's recommended with our amendments, yes, right, you can [2:56:28] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): recommend making it a circus amusement zone and rejecting everything that before you, but then it goes to town council and they make. I'd like to say [2:56:46] Planning Board member: something please. Look at the conservation Commission's version because there are some good things and when I read it for the first time my heart sank a couple places because I knew they were gonna take all the air out of the room and it was unfortunate, but there is some good stuff. Oh yeah, I [2:57:05] Chair (presiding officer): don't think anybody feels as them there's not, but it's it's all the [2:57:10] Speaker N (unidentified): bespoke things that make it more affordable to develop, well and some and [2:57:15] Planning Board member: a few other things, yeah, so I mean there is some good stuff in there so I think The Housing Committee in their report pointed that out. Mm-hmm, yes there are. [2:57:27] Chair (presiding officer): Are some ideas there that would be useful, and I think not enough attention goes to the quality of the existing product, which has a lot of this, the goals and protections in it that are being, more, you know, reappear in the conservation. Anyway, we don't need to continue this. We just need to agree to. [2:57:49] Planning Board member: Take it up again at a previous meeting you had mentioned that there was going to be a briefing for Town Council on the water district situation next week, Monday 30th. Oh, it's. [2:58:04] Chair (presiding officer): At the next, is that the schedule, 28th I think, is that a workshop, Monday the 28th, Monday the 28th. [2:58:10] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Is that a workshop before or during the regular PM? Yeah, oh all right, is it on Zoom? Yep, 28th, I don't quote me on that, it's definitely televised, okay, but that's the next, 28th at 5, okay, yep, Monday, awesome, thank you. Yeah, real quick, your packet for this item, these last couple times we put it together, is pretty lean. I just have the two documents each from Housing Committee and Conservation Commission, but I also have FAQs from the Public Information Session. I have a letter of support from the DEI Committee. We have presentation slide decks, you know, a variety of things. What of any of that do you want, or do you want to link to? I think we have a Business Park page that I haven't updated for a while. The Housing Committee web page, what do you all want, because you're gonna, you're gonna talk about this next meeting, I'm not going to be around, are there any of those kind of tools or resources you want to have at your disposal? We have housing needs assessments reports that you could fill the trunk your car with. [2:59:36] Planning Board member: If you want, you can tell me if this is totally unreasonable, is there any way to change the format of the proposal so that it's larger space between the lines to allow written notes a little better? Oh sure, double space it or triple space word. [2:59:53] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Yeah, in words, does everyone want that, so that for just for you guys work it up better? Oh yeah, that's easy, okay, that's a three clicks of the mouse, that would be great, yeah, it's hard to fit. [3:00:05] Planning Board member: Notes on, sure, the current format, yeah, and is it easy to get a link of all the documents in one. [3:00:12] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): Location, or we got a lot of them, a lot of them are in a lot of the things I just mentioned are in our on a webpage, I think under the Housing Committee banner, but probably not all of them, it's been a while since I've updated that, so you want, you want the link or you want a big pile of stuff in your packet, what do you. [3:00:37] Chair (presiding officer): Want, I think a link is fine. I mean, we have a lot of those documents from prior packets, so we don't need to get them again. So I'll get you theater dates and [3:00:58] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): a packet of info. Hopefully there will be something clear and, you know, inspiring from the land issues committee, along with input from the planning director, along possibly with some feedback from me. At the very least, you know, my views on those parts of the Conservation Commission proposal that I do think there are a couple things in there that definitely, you know, improvements and worth incorporating. So all [3:01:38] Chair (presiding officer): right, I don't think we need a motion to continue. We just understand this will be scheduled as an agenda item next meeting. I'm so sorry for the squeaking in my chair. Oh, I kept you here past nine, I'm sorry. All right, I thought it'd be 9 30, so yeah, I was worried it would be 10. Guys, I saw that agenda. Okay, minutes, next item, are we nominating [3:02:13] Jason Garnham (Director of Planning and Development): it for a literature prize? Yeah, I'm gonna say good night while you deliberate. [3:02:21] Planning Board member: I move we approve the 13th. [3:02:25] Chair (presiding officer): Were you here? I was here. Yeah, you were here. Okay. Second. All in favor? Aye. Abstain. Yeah, Bob, yes, you abstain. Okay, that's six to six, yes, and one abstain. Okay, we got another set. [3:02:47] Planning Board member: Yeah, and that one was even better. [3:02:49] Speaker N (unidentified): I just loved it. Who is here? Okay, you liked it. Yeah, oh boy, such promotion. [3:02:58] Planning Board member: That's better than the meeting. Mmm, motion to approve the August 27, 2026 [3:03:04] Chair (presiding officer): meeting minutes. All in favor? All right. No, I, oh, I wasn't at the first one, which is why I abstained. I was very ethical of you, thank you. And yeah, board member items, rescheduling the sidewalk for a follow-up lane was duly scheduled. Quite a few members of the planning board showed up, the neighbor, who's a very informative nice gentleman, was there, and engineer and applicant were not there. So we need to, it wasn't a site walk. It was just a casual meeting of the planning board. [3:03:53] Planning Board member: Casual stroll around the property. Stroll. Yes. Yeah. [3:03:55] Chair (presiding officer): And so we need. Led by the neighbor. To reschedule. [3:04:00] Planning Board member: Can we do it? What was the reason, what happened, and is the applicant okay? Is he able to support another site walk or? He had personal reasons that he had to miss it that I don't feel comfortable disclosing. Oh, no need. Okay. I don't know why the engineer or surveyor wasn't there. I think... Miscommunication. Yeah, so procedurally, you can schedule a site walk tonight. He doesn't need to be present, but whatever date and time you pick, I will obviously relate to them and let them know that the board wants another sidewalk with at least with some member from the design team there well we [3:04:38] Chair (presiding officer): can ask him I mean the other thing is he could zoom in next meeting and we could do it next [3:04:43] Planning Board member: meeting I just remember he was a little urgent for needing it and I'm sure he would be pleased if we could yeah do we need to specify a date can we just say I moved to schedule a site walk at the [3:04:55] Chair (presiding officer): next available well we got to coordinate our own personal calendar and then we do it by email or [3:05:01] Planning Board member: something I think logistically it would be better if you just did it now and then I can communicate to them and if there is a problem then sure why don't we do it let's try to be helpful then [3:05:22] Chair (presiding officer): Do you want to do it October 6th, or is that too soon? [3:05:28] Planning Board member: What? Six is climate action. The day of the week. That's a Tuesday. Oh, okay. I could do the sixth. You could do my schedule. I do. October 6th is climate action committee. And then trivia and then trivia which is more important the fifth the seventh sure [3:05:51] Chair (presiding officer): I could do any of those [3:05:54] Planning Board member: I'll do the fifth I'm not available fifth or the seventh [3:06:00] Chair (presiding officer): and are you available the sixth [3:06:04] Planning Board member: I could do the fifth I can't do the seventh can you do the sixth Bob would you be okay not we fill you in the last one Dutch had some specific questions about this one so yeah the other one is just next week you [3:06:23] Jamie Garland (Mainland Development Consultants): could do it next week October [3:06:24] Chair (presiding officer): 13 saying the next week no the following week right after Columbus whatever why don't why don't we try and do it on the 6th yes yeah it's be nice to get it done first six at four I [3:06:47] Planning Board member (Max): hear five and four at the exact same time four is tough for me but also I might not be there so I don't know if you guys like how about 4 30 it's just light the light is starting to go yeah 4 30 is better okay October 6th at 4 30 p.m. we [3:07:07] Planning Board member: need to make a motion sure what's the address again I make a motion to schedule the reschedule the site walk for October 6th for 6 Follett Lane at 4 30 p.m. [3:07:29] Chair (presiding officer): seconder second all in [3:07:31] Planning Board member: favor aye I will let the applicant know and if that time doesn't work for whatever reason I'll I'll let you guys know what's up okay [3:07:52] Chair (presiding officer): Let's see, board member items. I don't have any. We discussed housing committee [3:07:56] Speaker N (unidentified): enough tonight, so I don't have to say anything, and I don't think they want to [3:08:00] Planning Board member: hear about any more. Click, comprehensive plan committee for the month got [3:08:04] Planning Board member (Max): got canceled. Max, you have anything? I will be on vacation October 22nd, so [3:08:21] Planning Board member: Jason will be filling in. The climate action committee and SMPDC are hosting an open house for climate ready Kittery. I think it's been mentioned before. It's meant to be for the director butters for the gate to project, so if you have any friends who live right by gate to let them know to come to rice library on Tuesday. That's what day again? The Tuesday the 29th. Okay, yeah, definitely go, it's pretty crazy. Yeah, again, that's that's geared for the director, but we're trying to get their feedback and that's at the KCC at the rice library. Oh right, and my last item is I want to go home. Do you know, I second that. Very good. Do you know if that homeward meeting that Jason said to us, is that going to be televised or anything? That's a great question. I can't be there in person, but it would be, I wouldn't mind listening in or recorded or something. Word meeting, I'll I'll I'll ask him. Okay, it's on September 30th. All right, oh [3:09:28] Chair (presiding officer): that's the urban land institute. Yes, yeah, I just have that. [3:09:32] Planning Board member: It's then I don't have where it is or what time it is. All registered, there's only 30 slots open in person. I'm working, so yeah, I can't go, but it would that would be done for you. Okay, I move to adjourn the September 24th 2026 sixth Kiddery planning board meeting. Thank you. Motion. All right, all in favor? Aye. I'm about to have a good day no matter what they say. [3:10:51] Chair (presiding officer): The sun is shining down on me right here just singing praise. I'm about to have a good day.