Richmond Planning Board Reviews 9-Lot Subdivision Pre-Application

[0:00] Planning Board Chair: application. We have an application and we have another document to sign for approval, which is not a concern. But I can tell you from my experience with this board that our heart is to try to accommodate your requests as fairly and, dare I say, liberally as possible, but we're still bound by book. So it is within those confines that we will be working this evening. Our first item on the agenda, having called us to order, I now call your work. Please call us to order. These correspondence, of which I'm not aware of any. Yep. And then we come to new, and the first item is the pre-application for the nine lot subdivision off Evergreen Ridge Road. And let us hear, introduce yourself, tell us who you're representing, and tell us what you're doing. [0:48] Jan Bushy: My name is Jan Bushy from Cornerstone Festival in Savanian Bowdoin, and I've met most of you once before, and my clients are Chris and Theresa Acord in the back. I don't know if you've had a chance to go through the digital file or not. Not all 93 pages. You can see it's a 9-watt project. If you're familiar with carting machine row, just before you get to town boat hand, right hand side, just before the end, the bell lane solution should be this one right before the town line, which is right here. Project will be coming in on the evergreen lane, which is the project that's just before the bell. This modification of lot six, the division line between five and six came into this year in early February, where basically we drew an angle point and gave a bit more room for the house in this area. So it would be entering in over lot 6, which was a Trey subdivision, [1:50] Speaker C (unidentified): which was this project which was done up in 1996. [1:54] Jan Bushy: So this was remaining land to that project at that time. It was an area between the town line and this project that just I noted on the plan is claimed by Acord, kind of a no-man's land on this side, Jerry Galligan's land at that time. There's a wire fence through here. That was line of occupation, so this was kind of a no man's land, been through this area. I think what they did was they just held a D-distance from Main Street back, whatever that was, 3,500 feet or whatever it was, stopped it there and didn't try to get into where the town line was at the time. This will be a division of that remaining area. This will be a two-plan sheet eventually, so it will show the remainder of the project up to Main Street. And Apple Trade comes in. The Hammond Head was never constructed. Basically, the pavement stops right here at this small little garage outbuilding, and their house is down in this area on this lot. So these lots remain unsold. Collin, their son, has the first lot in on the right. Other than that, there really wasn't much done in terms of selling the lots and developing the project. I think this house was under construction, actually, on the plans at the time. So, instead of set to go, Jeremy Burrington will be working to basically give up this lot to Chris to be able to use this for an access. So there are some wetlands right here which we wouldn't be impacting. We'd be staying just after that, and there's a little finger in which we might touch just a sliver. We'd be well under a 40 grand a square feet for this project. This project is a separate one from Evergreen, two different owners, two different developers. So the wetland impact for this would start at the 0 to 4,300, 560, Deer 1, all that stuff. We don't have any other wetlands that we're planning on impacting, so what we're trying to do is design the road so when we look at contours we'll see that the way the road runs across the contours is mostly flowing with the contour rather than cross contouring. Contour, so it's pretty low grades anyways, you don't get a 10% grades and all that stuff, and when we get to a sidewalk you'll see that when we get out there here at the end we have an engineer on board, Chris Belanger from Belanger Engineering Augusta, and he'll be coming on board working on this probably the next few weeks, yeah, and DEP to review all of this stuff with DEP, [4:43] Speaker C (unidentified): make sure they're all on board with what we're doing [4:45] Jan Bushy: and that we don't get into any glitches. Other than that, the law says they all well owe a requirement of affronted social districts. Of course, they took this house that's already constructed on the Farrington project and used that just as a representative of what a house might look like on these. Just to give you an idea how much room there is for each site. Wetlands were mapped. That came up to this wetland body, Abadagacet River. This is a perennial stream, flows down through the project, exits out on this end. What I did was, oh, these are ephemeral drainage, so basically they're not streams, but they're just drainage ways, like you see down through the woods carrying water when it rains heavy and then they're dry. So these gray lines are the ephemeral drainage lines. They're all up through a mat. I went back out with my GPS, which is centimeter long. This technically isn't a shoreland zone stream. Stream. The shoreline zoning streams are two blue lines on a 7.5 minute topographic map, confluence, come out of Great Vaughn, that type of thing. This doesn't mean it, but regardless, I designed it so that if anybody decided it did in the future, we would still have our minimum shoreline width at 100 feet from the stream. So, 200 feet, sorry, 100 feet from the stream. So those are shown on just to show that it could meet it even if it was decided that wasn't a shoreline zone stream. The river, we don't front on it, we don't border on it, we cross it so we would actually have if anything a 250 foot step back from the edge of the stream that's going to fall down in this area anyways. This stream I've shown both the 100 foot line which is in a step back just to show the 200 foot minimum lot width calculation, as well as the 75-foot minimum NRPA, National Resource Protection Act, setback for a NERPA stream, which is the Permian streams. Only streams we have on the project on the abutting property, which I surveyed for the Bonnesons, is an old farm pond, man-made, and that bleeds out into one of those ephemeral drainages when it has excess water, which is off and on, I guess. So that's, we do have the wetland body up in here as well. These two, again, we wouldn't be impacting them and we have plenty of room to put the houses on without impacting any of that, staying away from the stream and stuff. When you look down through all of the digital stuff I gave you, 'll see the three, beginning with HabitatNet on the state's website. So you can look through those just to make sure you don't see anything you don't like because the site impact is shown on that. I also have blow-ups of each one of those with all of the layers indicated on the left-hand side. So I think there's three or four of them, and of those three or four, they show all of the layers for everything that there is on the inventory maps. They do show some blue lines. They show a blue line, for example, for this stream, but we actually had it physically mapped, and it isn't the stream. That's the only thing that doesn't correlate with this stuff. And because it was done from the area photographs, they see a pond, they see a drainage, you know, topography, and they figure it's a stream. But I think what else? I also gave you some well data from the state so that you can see all the wells in the area. They're all designated with numbers, and if you go down through the charts, you'll see there are flow rates for each one of those wells. Although this subdivision had plenty of adequate water right next door. And I only saw one or two that were down in the two or three gallon perimeter range. Everything else was well up above that. I showed you also the flood mapping from the state, so there are no flood zones on the area, other than down at the Abacagasta. Wildlife habitat, there is a deer wintering area, which would be down in this area when you look at it on the map, down along the edge of the brook, which makes sense. That's where they're hanging out, it's down in the thick stuff along the streams. Nothing else. There's also letters from the states in there, so you have a letter from the National Areas Commission, one from Maine Fish and Wildlife, and we have one from Maine Historical, and I think we've got one other in there. All of the typical state letters that you would do for a typical DEP submission, I did also, so you can see that they all came back with nothing mapped on the site. And don't forget the BATS. The BATS survey, yeah. Usually what they do is they will tell you in June or a time period for when they would prefer that you do or don't do a work period. That'd be May 15th? Yeah, it's in the beginning, yeah. Up through June or something like that. If someone's in May-June, I forget. I went through that once with them, that's what that was, yeah, there's probably other stuff in there that I gave you I just can't pick up top my head, oh, so we do have all the soil logs for test fits, we have two on each site, so we have the backup system plus an additional one, those are all okay with the GPS, a lot of waiver requests you have to submit your waiver request for site inventory and analysis at pre-app. So I did submit those. They're the same ones that I asked for in every project that we go through. I did also give you the county medium intensity soil survey, which is that 175 or so page at the end, so you could see what that would give you versus doing a class B high intensity, which is probably one of those you're asking for. The waiver was granted on the Farrington project. Alex Fenimore just put a blurb in there that said that the soil test data that he had matched up very well with the medium intensity soil survey data. And I didn't feel that it was really necessary to do a class B. I don't know why we would do a class B. Typically all you'd need that for would be for the soils for test pits and stuff anyways, which we have passing. But I can run through those if you'd like or answer other questions. [11:50] Planning Board Chair: I'm having fits with my computer. I have a page on it, but for whatever reason it's not opening. So my understanding then, to sum it up, is that we're looking in this pre-app for ultimately an approval for this subdivision and for approval to access it through the Evergreen Lane, is that correct? Yeah. Is Evergreen Lane a public road or [12:20] Jan Bushy: is it private? No, it's private. It's controlled right now by Jeremy Perkinson, and eventually will be turned over to the association, right? And there's a thought of making both and on that extent, but that's to be worked out, and that'll be part of the attorney's stuff that I won't be [12:46] Planning Board Chair: All right, let's hear from my board members at this point. Any comments, questions? [12:53] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, I think first we should move to make this a major. [12:57] Planning Board Chair: Oh, major, yes indeed, I think so. Second, all those in favor, it is a major. All right, having done that, then what questions or comments do we have concerning this? [13:14] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't see any issues with any of the makers who requested, and the only issue I see is with this road existing. [13:23] Speaker E (unidentified): We've got some people here [13:24] Speaker D (unidentified): who may have some concerns about that too. [13:28] Planning Board Chair: Yes, I would say at this stage I'm in complete agreement with what Jen has said and you young lady in our consideration of it at this point. I think collectively the thing that stands out to us is the question regarding going through a pre-existing road that is a private road and the expectations of the residents there in relation to what they purchased and their and the consideration that they had from that. I question that came to my mind is I'm looking at this eventually long term is there an Expectation to have an entrance coming in off of Main Street as well. No, so this will, if it were to be approved, be now and forever more the access to that subdivision through every night. [14:29] Speaker D (unidentified): Yes, please, James asked me to make sure that we vote on each one of these. [14:34] Speaker F (unidentified): Waivers individually. Thank you for the. [14:36] Planning Board Chair: Reminder, yes, to ask me the same. [14:38] Speaker D (unidentified): I appreciate it. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have let you go. [14:40] Planning Board Chair: I'm the emcee, but these are the people with the brains, so thank you for that. They keep me on task properly. Let's go ahead with that. [14:49] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, alright, so we've got. [14:50] Speaker G (unidentified): Several waivers requested. The first one. [14:52] Speaker D (unidentified): Is a waiver of the requirement for the payment of the utility impact fee because the project will not tie to any utilities provided by the Richmond Utilities District, so I will move that we grant this waiver. Okay. I second. All right. Discussion? Those in favor? Yep. All right. Next one. Second one, patient requirement and all information. It's about the scale of the inventory plans, which is, it's a reasonable request because you can't show everything at the same scale. Yep. Yep. I will move also that we grant this waiver as well. I would second. All those in favor? And the third one? Third one is to not require the class B high-intensity soil survey and to accept the information they've provided by, they've already given to us, which we always do. So I will ask that we grant this third one as well. [15:48] Planning Board Chair: Second. All right, there we took care of the book. Housekeeping. Is there one more? [15:53] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, we're done. Oh, yes. Yeah, you know, it's nine homes, and it's close to the highway, so I don't think that we need to require them to. This is also something with the subdivision, the size of the douches. [16:06] Planning Board Chair: Right, so for clarification, what she's speaking of here has to do with the traffic on Carding Machine and Main Street,. [Speaker F (unidentified): Not on Evergreen.] Right,, exactly, yes,. So I'll move with the grant as waiver as well. I second. All right, all those in favor? Okay, so, I'm puzzled. I have not dealt with a case such as this before. I'm puzzled. How is this even before us as far as the question of the private road is concerned? I don't see how that's our... [16:46] Jan Bushy: Well, that's a legal question, and legally he has the right to allow access through it into this project. [16:51] Planning Board Chair: So it would be Jeremy who would be making that decision. And if Jeremy makes that decision, we don't really have any say over that, do we? [17:02] Planning Board member: No, I mean, we could hear your concerns, but we can't make any motion on it to move forward for you. But we're concerned, and we would like to hear your concerns. [17:18] Planning Board Chair: How unsatisfying is that? Yes. Yes, you've heard it, you know, on your court shows on TV and at different times in your own experiences, of course, you've heard that there's no standing, so to speak. This is not a matter that's, I forgot the legal term, but I don't see that this is this particular aspect of it. [17:41] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, I don't think we have to allow this. [17:43] Peter Gadsden: I don't think that we legally have to. [17:45] Planning Board Chair: Well, no, but I'm saying, I don't even know, I don't see how we even have the consideration of it as a planning board. It seems to me that it's between Jeremy and... [17:57] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, no, clutters. I mean, that is something that we're certainly allowed to consider. I'm not saying one way or the other, whether it's a no or a yes. I just mean that we are certainly allowed to consider that. And, yeah. I don't think that we're obligated to grant permission for this. But we may. [18:17] Planning Board Chair: So, I'm curious to know why, I'm assuming it's for cost purposes, that we're looking to use the existing road rather than to bring one's own road in. [18:32] Jan Bushy: To bring it in the other way would be a long haul through the woods, a lot more intact than this would be. This comes right off the cul-de-sac. Yes. And it's going through a lot that's going to be developed anyway. One way or the other, you'll have a house and a driveway. So the only impact that would be additional is gonna be from lot six in through the tail end, which is a thousand feet or so. [18:57] Speaker C (unidentified): How long do we expect this project to take? [19:00] Planning Board Chair: I know you can't say for sure, but what are you guessing? [19:03] Jan Bushy: Usually takes a couple of, to get the road and stuff and go fairly quick in the summer. And then it's a matter of selling and building out the houses is because the town has a restriction of three units and 12 months or whatever. [19:18] Planning Board Chair: And ultimately, how many additional are there? [19:21] Applicant/developer representative: Nine. Nine, thank you. So potentially three years. [19:24] Speaker D (unidentified): And that's the same size as the existing nine, is that correct? [19:29] Jan Bushy: These are a lot bigger lots. [19:31] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, I wasn't, yeah, but just the nine lots in the empty? [19:34] Jan Bushy: So the first one's a nine-lot project, yeah. So really it's the same thing, it's just a back end, the same exact thing. [19:40] Planning Board Chair: And so there's no option to come in off of a carting machine. It would have to only come from Main Street? [19:48] Jan Bushy: Yeah, so it's either here or here. This is land? Yeah. This is only developed to here. You'd have to build this much road just to get in. Tell me what impact potentially it would have on the wetlands from here. [20:05] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm not sure. I don't think there's any way to get from the end of the train to that without crossing a wetland. I was looking at the map today. It's pretty flat, [20:12] Planning Board Chair: because I'm not sure. So has there been, there has to have been, a conversation with Jeremy? [20:19] Jan Bushy: My understanding is they all met here. [20:21] Speaker E (unidentified): Oh, sorry. Sorry, I didn't see you, Jeremy. I apologize. [20:23] Speaker K (unidentified): Don't start talking to me. I remember him well. [20:26] Applicant/developer representative: They all met last night, so I don't know. [20:29] Speaker F (unidentified): So, Jeremy, talk to us. I was late. [20:32] Planning Board Chair: I walked. Okay, I apologize. That's all right. Must have been a cat. So I'm curious to know what you're standing as on this. [20:45] Applicant/developer representative: I personally am excited about it, and I understand the reservation from everybody that lives in there. I get it. My goal is that you guys have been in there. It's a beautiful neighborhood. It is, yeah. It's something I'm proud of. I kind of teamed up with the Acords to continue it. I feel just like that. I think it's more realistically another five years, not three. [21:14] Jan Bushy: I appreciate it. I'd say the max would be a minimum of three. [21:19] Applicant/developer representative: Well, realistically, the first phase, we had nine. I built out eight. It took five years. I built a mini-golf while I was doing it. So I kind of got bogged down with other projects, but the evergreen will basically be gone. [21:44] Speaker D (unidentified): So this is a lot that would have been a house lot, and now it's going to have the role of the access. [21:49] Applicant/developer representative: Yeah, it's going to create the access. There's going to be a feel of separation between the two, just because of the road between the cul-de-sac and the Acor's property, which is 300 or 400 feet long. So, you know, the first neighborhood won't actually, you know, the first neighborhood is really small lawns. They see each other. The second neighborhood will not really see the first neighborhood because there's quite a large tree area between the two. [22:18] Jan Bushy: So from here, this is all wooded up. [22:21] Applicant/developer representative: But I think our goal is to make it a uniform neighborhood, not a field of two separate neighborhoods, products and the association would be you know one the covenants that are in phase one would also be the same covenants that are in phase two I plan to build all of the homes in the next phase and kind of keep the same character and uniqueness that we did in the first day so I think the first phase [22:51] Planning Board Chair: So, I confess that my personal curiosity has caused me to engage at a level at the pre-application that probably exceeds the normal pre-application conversation, and I apologize for that. My responsibility with a pre-application is simply to determine, which we've already done, if it's major or minor, and then to determine the fee, which is obvious, the major development fee is, reading my notes here, is three dollars, and then for this board to determine if there were any letters of approval that are needed. And this conversation, don't be disheartened folks, I'm not cutting you off, this conversation really is for at the application meeting next month, and I have no doubt that a public hearing may follow that as well, based on, yes. [24:05] Jan Bushy: Did you want to schedule a site walk, so let's look at that face, certainly, yeah. [24:11] Planning Board Chair: So as interested and curious as I am about this, I should stick to the with the proper procedure here. Having determined that it's a major development, do we need a separate motion for the fee, or is that inclusive with the fact? Yeah, that's just... Yeah, all right. And then it's our responsibility, of course, to see if there are letters of approval that are needed. I would certainly like to see one from the fire department in particular. [24:40] Jan Bushy: So I think it's like inventory analysis, then the board can vote if they want letters from the next stage. [24:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Police, fire, maybe school even, maybe kids moving in. [24:52] Jan Bushy: But we can work on those in between. Right. Yeah. [24:55] Planning Board Chair: But normally at this pre-application time is when we tell them what it is that we're looking for. [25:00] Jan Bushy: Yes. No, it's in this phase, yeah. Okay. [25:04] Planning Board Chair: So schools, fire department. Say it again. Police. These, oh, those guys, yeah, all right, yeah. Who was responsible for the snow removal and such at this, I'd set it [25:30] Applicant/developer representative: up so that until I finish the neighborhood I take care of all the cops to me, yeah, what's currently being done as far [25:37] Planning Board Chair: as scratching with this concern. [25:45] Speaker D (unidentified): So there's no association right now for Evergreen yet, is that right? [25:50] Applicant/developer representative: There's a recorded covenant, restrictions and covenants, that outlines the requirements to do one at a date. [26:00] Jan Bushy: So school, police, and public works? [26:02] Planning Board Chair: That's what we have so far. Just looking to see if there's anything else we may need. Is there anything else that you think we need? We got that, I think that's, I think that's sufficient, and of course you'll want to be placed [26:23] Applicant/developer representative: on the next meeting's agenda [26:25] Planning Board Chair: for the application meeting [26:28] Speaker D (unidentified): we also want to do the public hearing at that time probably [26:31] Speaker C (unidentified): we could do them both [26:33] Speaker D (unidentified): yeah I think [26:34] Speaker F (unidentified): Do you need a motion for that? [26:37] Planning Board Chair: Maybe why don't we do it? [26:39] Speaker D (unidentified): I'll move we do the public hearing the next meeting. [26:41] Planning Board Chair: All right, so at the next meeting will be the application meeting where the larger conversation takes place, and that will include your completed application as well as the additional information that we've requested, and I think we're already well aware that must be submitted to James two weeks before that scheduled meeting. We will also plan to have public meeting at that time as well. We probably won't do any road engineering [27:18] Jan Bushy: until after our pre-ep would be even hard to get into. Yeah. So for inside inventory analysis it would be basically what I've submitted now with some refinements like if you sold there and stuff and bring some of that up to see. I'll also do a 100 foot radius circles around these test bits so you can make sure you guys are going to look at that on foot, sign, and you're going to set that song. All right. [27:44] Planning Board Chair: How many of you, by show of hands, are here tonight in regards to this application, to this pre-application? All right. You will have the opportunity to speak because we do have a section called public comment. But I think you may have inferred from what I've said now that the major event will be taking place next month rather than this month. The process is pre-application which we've just done now, an application in this case application slash public hearing, and then we proceed to the third meeting in light of what transpired at the second meeting. I know that's not necessarily satisfying. I'm guessing you'd like to have things all ironed out tonight. I wish that we could do that for you, but this is indeed the process that we're bound by, and so we'll proceed in accordance with that. For you, dear friends, what's easy? What's easy in life? Nothing. The sidewalk. Oh, we forgot to schedule the sidewalk. Thank you for that. Yes. Yes, let's schedule that. Okay. Well, [29:04] Speaker F (unidentified): let's see. I don't know what time [29:08] Speaker D (unidentified): it's good for everybody else we should have [29:11] Planning Board member: Saturday we should have Saturday we should have Saturday [29:16] Speaker D (unidentified): we want to get this over soon [29:24] Planning Board Chair: yes, let's try to do it next week as soon as possible [29:28] Applicant/developer representative: I'll do it this weekend not this weekend [29:31] Planning Board Chair: no, I'm booked this weekend too [29:33] Applicant/developer representative: no, I mean the rain [29:34] Planning Board Chair: Oh, that? Okay. [29:38] Speaker D (unidentified): Wednesday the 30th? Is that okay with everybody? Wednesday the 30th? What time of day? Before dark? Yeah. I don't know, three? [29:50] Planning Board Chair: How's four? Four would work. Yeah, I don't know when I'll be done driving is the thing, yeah. [29:57] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, all right. Wednesday the 30th at four o'clock. [30:04] Planning Board Chair: Wednesday 30 September 4pm site watch. [30:08] Speaker K (unidentified): Thank you for your time. [30:10] Applicant/developer representative: And we just all meet maybe at the cul-de-sac at the end of the evergreen. [30:15] Planning Board Chair: That makes sense. That's all we can do tonight on this pre-application. [30:33] Speaker F (unidentified): If any of you [30:40] Planning Board Chair: chooses to, you're welcome to stay until the public comment section and speak. We'll hear you, of course, but I think it would be more productive at the next meeting. [30:50] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, I'd actually like to hear what they have. Yeah, me too. They have discussed everything, so anybody that wants to stay, please. [30:59] Speaker G (unidentified): We're almost there. [31:01] Planning Board Chair: The other things we have should be briefed. [31:04] Speaker G (unidentified): Can they leave the map? [31:07] Planning Board Chair: Alright, is it possible to leave the map? Or do you need to take that with you? And my co-chair has just said that at the planning board, you tell him. [31:28] Planning Board member: He can make a request that we hear the public comments out of order. So you don't have to stay until the end of our meeting. So I'm interested in hearing all the comments on that. [31:40] Planning Board Chair: Do we have an agreement on that? Sure. [31:42] Speaker G (unidentified): Yes, I think so. We need to start reading the notes. [31:46] Planning Board Chair: Thank you for that. Third Wednesday? [31:49] Planning Board member: Third day, front day. I'm going to have to look on the town website. [31:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Is it the fourth Wednesday? Say again? Is it the fourth Wednesday? [31:58] Speaker D (unidentified): It is the fourth Wednesday. It's the fourth Wednesday. Don't mind me. I'm only the chairman. [32:03] Speaker G (unidentified): It should be October 28th. October 28th. That's 6 o'clock. Right here. 6 p.m. Yeah. [32:12] Speaker E (unidentified): Bring the fireworks. All right. One second. One second. It's October 1st, 12th, 7th. You're right. I'm wrong. I apologize. I was coming Thursday. [32:27] Planning Board Chair: So it is indeed the 28th. All right. It's okay. Yeah. What? You're human too? All right, so we are then indeed going to move to public comment now and hold the other items brief, though they are following the public comment. So if you'd like to speak, please come forward and identify yourself and tell us what's on your heart. [32:56] Speaker G (unidentified): Looking at the... Your name, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Julie Bernard. Thank you, Julie. 12 Evergreen. Yep, all right, go right ahead. Going by the map and we had a brief meeting with you know a lot of a lot of us and it was very nice that Chris and Jeremy you know came in just to answer some of the questions yeah. Our sort of other alternative was why are they not going down the other road to get to, it seems like a straight shot, kind of an easy way. I don't see where that wetlands were an issue. It doesn't look like it on the map to get everything in there so you could create a right-of-way. No, I didn't say create a right-of-way. [33:55] Speaker K (unidentified): I said I just I would create access. Yes, so your daughters right through our through the pre-existing that the law last law on the hammerhead which is the end of the call your sack road. Yes, I would be open to go through that way for the construction of the road and the clearing, the clearing of the road, construction of the road and the clearing of the lots. So the heavy, you know, the heavy access to keep the both. I actually, you know, I talked to Cody's logging. I did get in touch with Ben today and I asked him how long they thought something like that would take, and he said he'd have to come over and basically walk away and look and see how much basically, how much timber is on there. [35:00] Speaker L (unidentified): Which there's not a lot. [35:01] Speaker K (unidentified): It's not heavily timbered. It doesn't cut like 20. No, it's cut a long time. So I could be off in five years. [35:10] Speaker F (unidentified): But it's not heavily [35:12] Speaker K (unidentified): into every road sure [35:22] Planning Board Chair: Is there more you wanted to say? [35:23] Speaker G (unidentified): I was just wondering that map that we saw was that real or was that a creation from the survey company that was working? [Applicant/developer representative: There was some] I'm sorry that came out wrong. So what would we move down in the house? [35:44] Applicant/developer representative: I don't know, is there more detail? Are you looking at a wetland map? [35:49] Speaker G (unidentified): No, it was basically the map that was created for Evergreen. That's what we got. [35:56] Applicant/developer representative: And referencing the butters? Everything. [36:01] Speaker E (unidentified): In IR, we were given the close-down of the house with PGA. That shows, that's what I asked last night. It's weird because on this map it only shows half the wetlands. I want to do a conspiracy theory so we can read. [36:17] Applicant/developer representative: I'm not aware of anything we've changed on the maps. I'll look at it though now that you say it. [36:22] Speaker E (unidentified): That's precisely what I'm talking about. If you look at the entire back end of this lot, which is the one that the road would go through, it shows wetlands. I know it. Thank you. I'm not crazy. [36:34] Planning Board Chair: We think you're not crazy too. [36:38] Speaker K (unidentified): But if there's wetlands, how do they get [36:40] Applicant/developer representative: to close the total house on it? Are you looking at which subdivision plan are you looking at? The amended plan? I don't know what one she just showed you. [36:55] Speaker D (unidentified): It's in both of them, Jeremy. You can also see. So this is the amended one. He's talking about this area right here, I think. And it's not as prominent [37:10] Speaker F (unidentified): It looks a little different on this map to me than it does on that one. [37:17] Speaker D (unidentified): I think that's what he's saying too. [37:19] Applicant/developer representative: Yeah, I don't know if his scale, I can tell you it's not going to be changed. [37:24] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, that's the same question I asked last night. [37:26] Applicant/developer representative: I guess I didn't hear what you were asking. [37:28] Speaker E (unidentified): The map you have there, it shows one thing on the map you were given, it shows another thing. [37:32] Speaker G (unidentified): I just didn't know if he created for visual, you know, for this. [37:37] Applicant/developer representative: I would suspect that's pretty accurate. From earlier when he was here, I think he was talking about having gone out and physically located all of the different things, the wetland map, the flags and stuff like that. That would probably be a question to ask, again, a public hearing. [37:55] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, and I bet that would be interesting on the site walk itself as well. [38:00] Applicant/developer representative: Yeah, you guys are all welcome. [38:02] Planning Board Chair: Yeah right oh yeah all right who else would like to speak please tell us who you are my name is Jack Smith yeah Gail Smith [38:17] Speaker E (unidentified): We have eight years old and we moved from Standish to Richmond and we very much like the development of the town. We have two issues. One, I understand, is not your issue, and that is that when we bought this, and up until the advertising on Zillow and on Redfin and all those things until this August, when the last house sold, number eight, it says it's on a quiet cold stack. And we can argue about the definition of a cul-de-sac, but what we bought was a new community with a dead-end street. And by my estimation, it's somewhere between three and a half and five million dollars worth of houses were sold in there with that understanding. That is not the understanding of this plan. So that's a great concern to us. The second thing I'm concerned about is, based on the conversation we just had, or you just had, if it's five more years that means for ten years that praying team construction will own the road that we live on and will make all the decisions about what happens with that road so if somebody else wants to put something through seven years from now I don't think that's reasonable there is a statement in the covenants about the year 2030 and what will happen which is less than four years from now And so I think that is a grave concern to our community, and I can't speak for them, I can't speak for my wife and myself, but we're concerned about that. It's just a long time, and, you know, it's been five years of construction, we've had two years and two months of construction, everybody's pretty cheerful about it. I became much less cheerful when I found out it would be 3, 4, 5 million years of construction traffic Mr. Ackerman graciously said he could put a haul road through there for the heavy work last night. I would ask the planning board see that in writing before you make any final decisions, because what we don't want to have happen is 2 years from now or a year and a half from now when they start doing this or next summer when they start doing it, but somebody come back and say, well, we did another check and now there's a wetland that we can't cross on his property to get in there, so we're going to have to do all the heavy road through our front yards. And I think a written agreement is only reasonable to understand what's going to happen to that little community. And you know, I was a public servant for 41 years, so I don't, I'm not grumpy about development, I'm not grumpy about taxes, I'm not grumpy about any of those things. But I am grumpy when I buy A and I wind up getting Z. And I'm also grumpy when something goes from, when this development is done, when the last house is finished, we'll pave your road, and you will take ownership of it, you will pay for it, you will plow it, you will do all the things that need to be done, and now it looks like that will be four or five or more years down the road from right now. And, you know, we, at least my neighbors, Peter and Val, and I, we have grandkids that come to our house a lot. It was our vision that they'd be riding bicycles in our neighborhood. They live in Whitefield, and their kids live in Chelsea, and they're grandkids. And that's not how we see the future now. And I do think the planning board, when you don't have control of the road, you have complete control over the development approval. You have a lot of latitude. And as you heard Jeremy last night, I have a lot of experience in this. In other states, but not in Maine, but I don't think it's that much different from Washington State and Maryland where I had previously, I did a little in Tokyo, Japan, and I knew nothing about how they decided to find me. I built a new school there, but I didn't understand what they said. So I just ask you to consider those things, you know, as people who are residents in this community support the community and believe in the community. [42:34] Planning Board Chair: Who else would like to be heard? The little guy in the back, you can speak from there if you want to give us your name, Wade Bonison [42:45] Speaker C (unidentified): And I'm an adjoining property that's going to go around the back of our property, and my hat's off to Jim. I have no objection to growth and development, but the reason why my wife and I moved here, we did a lot of research about before moving here, was that it was this quintessential Maine community. And what I'm seeing with, you know, every house in this new consideration, every house is going to have two cars. And to Jack's point, a lot of times the cars are going pretty fast. And we have a couple of grandkids, too. And then we visit with the folks that were named by the name. So one of the things I was really thinking about is that just because a development can be done, it doesn't mean that it has to be done or should be done. Considering that I'm sure that it's a huge bump to the town's revenue with taxes, I just think that the mood and the coziness, and I don't want to sound silly, of Richmond is beginning to change dramatically. And like, for example, the family dollar, that's like a black eye. And I don't know if you guys feel that way, but I was thinking that you guys, and I'm not pointing fingers, but it was approved. And it was approved in kind. So I like the balance between, and I'm not a tree hugger too much, but I like the balance between natural habitat and development and growth. And since the homes on Evergreen have gone in, we've noticed a dramatic impact on the deer and the wildlife population. We're seeing spots, we're seeing every manageable animal that can live in this area is coming to our, we have a few acres behind the house. And I'm concerned about, when I was in my younger years, I studied septic design, and I'm concerned about the aquifer, because it is a lowland. And the back part of our property is a wonderful habitat and it's very wet. And it abuts the other, I don't know what the numbers are, but there are two lots that will be affecting us. And I mean that personally. So, and again, Jeremy, I appreciate your craftsmanship. I love the community. You've done a great job. But I think that it doesn't, you know, doesn't, Richmond has changed so much over the past three years and you're helping. Right. And I'm not enjoying that. [46:19] Applicant/developer representative: I'm not going to say I'm sorry but I can respect your opinion. [46:22] Speaker C (unidentified): So that's essentially it. And I am concerned about young kids on that road with 18 more vehicles coming through. Because a dead end street is a beautiful thing for kids to learn how to bike ride and all that. I don't know if this really makes any difference to you guys, but the fact is that my wife and I chose Richmond because of the coziness. Yes, not to sound silly, but it's just a quaint, quintessential Maine town. And I know that there are areas of Richmond that are a little bit more congested, but there's a lot of open space, and Jeremy can find those open spaces elsewhere. So thanks for hearing me. [47:16] Planning Board Chair: Thank you, and thank you for your courteous demeanor as well. I understand that in cases such as this, passions can run strong on both sides. But if we can maintain our civility in the process, which we are doing very nicely, I think that helps the process along the way as well. Is there someone else who would like to speak tonight? [47:42] Applicant/developer representative: Yes, please. I'd like to say one minor thing. I'm not ashamed of what I've done in this community. I'm pretty sure you guys have become very close friends that you would never have gone close with if that community wasn't there, right? So, there's positives and negatives. So, let's acknowledge the relationships that... We're looking for the balance. The balance, I guess. It's not all bad, I guess, in my opinion. [48:09] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm not saying that it is all bad, but I think that there's a balance. [48:12] Planning Board Chair: I have to say, you know, as an Old Main boy myself, that my personal perspective, irrespective of this specific instance is I'm old school and I love Richmond as it was in my earliest memory and it's a lot like that still but changes inevitable and the challenge upon us all is the desire to do it in a way that how do I say so the balance you spoke of the balance that is mostly positive. You know, I spoke with you one time, Chris, about my family's church there and how disappointed I was to see that changed into apartments. But you did a beautiful job with it, and it makes me happy driving by it every time to see that the building is still a beautiful building. And that's a change I would have preferred that wouldn't take place, but time passes and things change, and you know, the ancestral farm is still intact at 1100 acres. That's miraculous, and thanks to those who own it now as it was with our family, but change is unavoidable. And as we make those changes, can we do them in a way that most likely to benefit in the main? And again, you've done a beautiful job out there. It's really very nice, and everything I've ever seen you do, Chris, you know I'm right there with you. I think you've got to be up throws me to see the old family house there on the corner across from Pierce's redone, and it didn't, you know, having life and again an energy, and yeah, I, we don't go backwards, we only go forwards, hopefully we go forwards in the best way possible. Thank you my friends, and you're welcome to stay or move. Yes please, your name [50:08] Peter Gadsden: Your name, please. Peter Gadsden. I live in Evergreen Lane. Thank you, Peter. I would just ask you guys to please consider the people in Evergreen Lane who are becoming a very close-knit community. You know, enough where we're even doing favors for each other. And this is going to be a huge impact for us. I know. I understand. Development, we can't stop that. But we would just really kind of like to see that separated so we still have our community, our nine home community, to which we moved in there to enjoy. So please do just consider that for the people that are going. Thank you. [50:52] Jan Bushy: Thank you as well. Just real quick. Yes, Brian Smith. I don't want to over read. When we bought recently it was still going to be a close call at our closing, it was no, we have one more house to build that we're done. I would reiterate what was said about if we can mitigate all the construction traffic going through trade on age, then that eases some of my pain. I think I'm still not happy, I'm still not, I'm still not going to like that there's another 18 cars or whatever, and it's a huge development, and I would reiterate that ability to go through pig lane is in writing that doesn't get, well, we can't do that now, you know, we've got construction vehicles, I'm at the end, I've got construction vehicles coming by me all day long, and I also, I agree, you can't stop change, and then don't be getting, you know, I grew up in the county where on county seat we literally had, I had one red light when I was a kid. Yeah,. [52:02] Planning Board Chair: And that was almost excessive. [52:07] Jan Bushy: Considering I got a ticket for running it. Yes. Yeah. But that's all. I think if that concession could be made, that mitigates some of the pain for the next five years. Yeah. And I would also ask, what is the scope? How long will that road go back to what scope? [52:27] Planning Board Chair: So is it just to clear trees, just to start a road? [52:32] Jan Bushy: Will it be for construction? I don't know that for sure. That's it. [52:41] Speaker F (unidentified): Thank you for all of your help. [52:42] Planning Board member: Everything was very valuable. Thank you for being so courteous. [52:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Thank you for listening. Good night, everyone. [52:50] Speaker E (unidentified): Good night. All right. Thank you for your service to the community. [52:54] Planning Board Chair: You know, we do the best we can, and I hope it's helpful. Yep. All right. [53:03] Speaker F (unidentified): What? You're the only one left? No, I'm sorry. [53:09] Speaker L (unidentified): I thought that... [53:11] Speaker K (unidentified): I thought you were... [53:12] Speaker L (unidentified): I had me crying over here in the corner. [53:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, the best is yet to come. Mercy me. [53:20] Planning Board Chair: All right. This will be the replacement of non-conforming structure. There we are. Tell us again your name and what it is you're here for. [53:28] Speaker L (unidentified): Alan Ballard. 75 hour drive plus a pod I'm here to request to replace my existing DeZero deck [53:39] Speaker E (unidentified): with a new deck [53:40] Speaker L (unidentified): with the same square footage in the same location alright [53:44] Planning Board Chair: and you have [Peter Gadsden: submitted obviously] your completed application I have and it's our responsibility this evening briefly to discuss that and to make a decision concerning it. Is that correct? Yes. Another few years I'll know what I'm doing here. [54:12] Speaker L (unidentified): Alright. My cliff notes [54:16] Planning Board Chair: say allow the applicant to do a short summary of the development. I think we all are well aware of that. [54:22] Speaker L (unidentified): Did you guys all get the updated one? Yes. Okay. All right. [54:26] Planning Board Chair: That's correct. Allow the board members to ask any questions and for the applicant to answer. So that's the step we're at. Board members, questions? [54:34] Speaker D (unidentified): No questions, but I just, so we have heard, James has heard that from the DDP, and they're not going to permit this. So it really doesn't matter what we do. [54:49] Speaker L (unidentified): I talked to him the other day. He said he hadn't looked at it yet. He had called me, I think I told you guys that the first time I was here, right? They had called me. I was up in Bangalore. He says, hey, I've got a 15 minute window, but can you meet me outside? I said, no, I'm in Bangalore. So he went down there, and again, I said, no, I want to be there when you're there, so we can actually look at it and discuss it together. So, I don't know, I guess my thoughts are I'm going to reach out to him and see if he can meet me down there again. I don't know what the procedure for that is. What up? I'm sorry. [55:22] Speaker D (unidentified): I'll just read you what the DEP representative said to James. He says, my initial response is that this will have to go in front of the planning board and be moved back away from the water since the gazebo and deck are not functionally water dependent and there is clearly room to move it back. The PBR should not be approved with the structure going back in the same location unless the town supplies you with the greatest practical extent of the new documents indicating they have approved it in this location. So what that means is that you need to move it away from the resource to the greatest practical extent you can. [56:00] Speaker L (unidentified): Which is almost impossible. There's really nothing there. I added another submission into this year just to give you a general idea. That's where the dock has to go, that's the only way to get up, but there's no place to move it back. If it goes back, it's going to be another probably 10 feet off the water. Yeah, it will be. So the plan is going to be, the plan always was to put the dock back on the gazebo where it was, so you can use that, but right now it's stuck over on the side. So if I move it back, that wouldn't even work. So that, you guys from there, it's a tough site. There's no, I got a hard one of your feet and that only area is pretty much right there in that little end piece. I even have a shot at putting it down. So we spent a lot of money on this place. Yes. 20 years. Burned all the way back. It's a lovely place. It is. It's a critical element to utilize the facility. Come down for the kids to go swimming and everything else. And tie the boat up. [57:01] Planning Board member: I had an idea. I just wondered if they moved it back like that, then it interferes with their access to get the boats down to the dock. But if you took a section of the stairway off here and then turned it to the left so that you come down and you're actually to your right. And so that would give more space here for the dock. That was what I thought about. [57:28] Planning Board Chair: So Ann is suggesting the possibility for consideration that the stairway that exists down from the house to the lower level, if that were to be brought down a few steps and then a little landing put and then a turn at 90 degrees, turn it alongside the bank instead of continuing straight down, that would open up several more feet there as far as your answer is concerned. Yeah, we've looked at that. [57:52] Speaker L (unidentified): I've actually found it's almost impractical because that stair sits on it. It's literally right there, then it goes flat. You know, the person before me flattened that thing out. Literally, when that thing, well, I don't know if you can see it in this picture here. The second picture right there. This shows it the best. You can see it. Did you guys see this one? This is the other thing. Yeah, I sent this over to James. He didn't know if it made it in the pack or not. [58:18] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, I have a copy at home, by my desk. [58:23] Speaker L (unidentified): See, now the docks have a water, because they're a little bit of water right now, and they work on boat ramps, so they're supposed to get their docks out. That's where the doctor was, on top of that. [58:30] Planning Board member: But if you walk down there, then you... [58:43] Speaker L (unidentified): Excuse me, he'll put some pressure on you now. Show me. Did you see where I said I would take this piece off here, though? [58:52] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, that's not the primary concern. [58:57] Speaker L (unidentified): He probably said that the DEP guy, when he saw that thing in the water, that one leg there, he said... [59:02] Planning Board Chair: Right, that's correct, yeah. So here's the rest of what the DEP said that she read part of. He said they should not approve it in the same location since there is room to move the structure to a more conforming location. Now that's his opinion, and we are subject to their opinion. So it seems to me that if there's further work to be done, it's going to have to be somehow in consultation with the DEP. He's the one you were talking about coming out and meeting you with there. [59:32] Speaker L (unidentified): Is that who it was? Yeah, I didn't mean it because... [59:34] Planning Board Chair: No, I know I'm wrong. [59:36] Speaker L (unidentified): But I'm sure I have an opportunity. [59:38] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, well, I would suggest that as being the next step because as it is now, we can't prove it where it is. And, you know, we're bound by that. [59:51] Speaker F (unidentified): Because of these features. Yeah. [59:56] Planning Board member: So why can't you take this section here, right, and then build a stairway, a bottom? So when you're coming downstairs, you move those chairs away. That opens up this section here, so you can put your dart. You have room to slide it through there. Why can't you do that? [1:00:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Why can't you do that right now? [1:00:17] Planning Board Chair: In other words, if this moves back, which is at this point, that's the requirement. [1:00:23] Speaker L (unidentified): The other part of that moves back. This is going to come up probably another time. Yes,. As it goes up, you sit there, and you can see it straight down there. Yes,. And then the dock can't get back in here. [1:00:34] Planning Board Chair: Can, is it within compliance to then put a floating piece out here and have a stairway that goes down to it that's hinged, you know? [1:00:46] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, we were going to put the dock. [1:00:48] Speaker L (unidentified): The dock rolls out and something is right. It's a fixed dock. [1:00:52] Planning Board Chair: Right, and you could have a stairway down from this, wherever it was, yeah. Obviously, yeah. Yeah,. [1:00:59] Speaker L (unidentified): But if you're back, you know what I mean. Yeah, I know. You know, and the money goes. [Planning Board Chair: Yeah, longer stays.] And again, I think where I'm at, and I should have, in retrospect, when he called me that day, I should have said, hey, no, I don't think you should go out there without me out there with you. [1:01:15] Planning Board member: I should have done that. I think he should have come out again. [1:01:18] Planning Board Chair: I encourage you to do that. [1:01:19] Speaker L (unidentified): Because James called me right away and told me. Yeah. He said, Susan's on the wedding. [1:01:24] Planning Board Chair: I encourage you to talk with the DEP again, because as it is at this point tonight, we can't approve it as it is. [1:01:31] Speaker L (unidentified): So unless they approve it, you guys can't. [1:01:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Exactly. We can approve it, but it won't do you any good. It won't do you any good. Yes. Exactly. Right. Yeah. [1:01:40] Speaker K (unidentified): It's all right. So, okay. I work out of time. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. That's all right. Yep. [1:01:48] Speaker L (unidentified): That's all right. All right. I'm going to see if you want to go for a ride in the boat ride. There you go. [1:01:55] Speaker E (unidentified): There you go. The other new construction that's going on there. [1:01:59] Planning Board Chair: You know that, or take him on the jet boat and open it up and say, okay, are we agreeing now? [1:02:05] Speaker L (unidentified): Right, so here, I'll just stand by with you guys. I'm going to probably call them first thing in the morning. Yeah. [1:02:11] Planning Board Chair: Sorry, Dr. James again, but in other words, we can't make a final decision with an adverse opinion by DDP. [1:02:20] Speaker L (unidentified): So what if he submitted that in my application online? [1:02:25] Speaker D (unidentified): I should have that? I don't know. You would have to ask James. [1:02:29] Speaker L (unidentified): So this morning. No. [1:02:32] Speaker D (unidentified): Really, we need to know what the DEP will permit. There's no need to keep running around and make you jump through all hoops. [1:02:39] Peter Gadsden: We need to know what they want you to do. [1:02:42] Speaker D (unidentified): And then we'll approve a plan that they will approve. That's it. Exactly. Okay. [1:02:47] Speaker L (unidentified): All right, my friend. Good night. So, probably see you next month. Probably. Yes. Yep. [1:02:58] Speaker F (unidentified): Minutes from last month, yeah, so do we have any to approve tonight we have [1:03:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Assigned to do for the retail, oh, thank you, thank you, forgive me, yeah, we have to [1:03:17] Speaker F (unidentified): Decide that is all, yes, there's no voting we have to do or anything, no [1:03:25] Planning Board Chair: There it is. Yes, that's it. That's the very document right there. And today is what, the 22nd? [1:03:35] Speaker D (unidentified): Today is the 23rd. The first day of autumn. [1:03:46] Planning Board member: Time to eat the house. [1:03:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Yep, it was 8 o'clock last night. There we are. A candle. Oh, please. Is that what's wrong? [1:04:36] Planning Board Chair: There, everything is signed as it should be. [1:04:39] Speaker E (unidentified): Nice, you'll deliver it. [1:04:40] Planning Board Chair: Are there any minutes for us to vote on tonight? Yes. [1:04:44] Speaker D (unidentified): It's on the agenda. It is, yes. I'll move we accept the eight minutes as written. [1:04:48] Planning Board Chair: All right, I'll take a second. All those in favor? All right, thank you very much. That concludes our business, doesn't it? [1:04:55] Planning Board member: Yes, sir. I make a motion to adjourn. There you go. I'll second that. Woo! All right, then. Turn off the camera. Turn off the camera. Turn off the camera.