Beckett and we got uh Mike Costello down in the end so welcome everybody next item on our agenda's acceptance of the agenda I have a motion I make a motion a second very good many discussions opponents good to go all those in favor the agenda as presented moving on approval of the minutes of August 17 2016 2016. very good second any additions Corrections is this Paula's last act or was this okay good work thanks Sophie I reviewed quickly I did not see anything any other edits very good so we have a motion and a second all those in favor of the minutes as presented good moving on uh we have one public hearing this is a continuation of a project we heard the sketch plan application last time it's a preliminary subdivision plan application of the M M Truck Sales for an eight lot subdivision on Union Street and a portion of the 9.1 acre lot identified as tax map 31-2 Lot 1 to be known as Riverside Estates can I have the applicant step up to the mic uh tell us who you are and please give us a summary since the last time we met [Applause] [Music] good evening members of the board my name is Jim Kaiser I'm here representing the applicant M M Truck Sales uh with me tonight is also the owners of m m is uh Mary and Mori Thayer we have before you an eight lot subdivision on a portion of Union Street the lower end of Union Street so that it's uh the last parcel of land that extends from essentially the Orno sewer districts Pump Station all the way to the end of Union Street the applicant owns approximately uh nine a little over nine acres in one parcel which is what we're subdividing uh eight Lots off of for about 6.3 Acres so that we'll have several Acres left over that the applicant is going to retain as part of the application because we have adjacent land we did submit in a conceptual uh sketch plan for that property and the remaining property that is part of this Nine Acre lot that's before you just as a really a conceptual of what may be done with it there are some obstacles associated with the larger 26 acre lot which include an Eagles Nest down on the shoreline and a request by the main historic preservation commission for some further studies of a Possible Trading Post on on that property so that if anything does happen down here we will have additional studies but again that's not part of what we're here for we're only here for eight acre or eight lot subdivision along Union Street itself I can go into more detail or if you prefer or at this point in time or wait until you get further comments whatever the board prefers I think that's sufficient for now are there any initial comments for the applicant all right uh Evan usually provides us a summary of each project they do want to talk to the board briefly and let folks in attendance know again the applicant just mentioned that the project before us this evening is an eight lot subdivision those of you that attended the last meeting we we do have the option as a planning board we like to know what might be coming next so we asked for us you know a conceptual plan that was provided to the board it was in our application but yet we are not reviewing that part of it we're going to allow some questions some comments from the the audience this evening as we proceed just so the applicant can hear what those concerns may be but I want to be quite clear we don't have that plan in front of us it's just the concept there's an idea we've seen a couple roads there's a bunch of lots on there but what we're looking at this evening is is an eight lot subdivision but yet the board can consider given that we see a concept before us that may or may not happen we can prepare you know ahead for what what may be needed for infrastructure right away those kinds of things so that that's something that the board is going to need to consider but I wanted to be clear with you the audience we'll invite comments later but we are really looking at that eight lot subdivision this evening so with that Evan you prepared a quite a lengthy summary if you could review that with a board please yes um this is as Mr Kaiser indicated the eight lot subdivision um it's important to note that as stated in the application and as presented in the plan um this will these these eight Lots will be served by a public water supply line which exists um on Union Street and for which the water district and fire department indicates there are there is adequate capacity and pressure um it will be served by the lot number one which is the lot that's opposite uh the boat ramp and nearest The Pump Station at the Curve will be Seward because it is within 200 feet of the existing public system the other lots are not within 200 feet of the existing of the system and it won't be um without an extension and and they are proposed to be served by septic systems um any subdivision that's going to be served by this is the uh this is the guidance that's given by uh superintendent Joe Madigan um the any lot served by septic system under our ordinance um but with public water has to be at least 30 000 square foot minimum with 125 feet of Frontage the the Lots meet that standard the one lot lot lot number one they'll have public sewer has to have 20 000 square feet and 100 feet of Frontage and that exceeds that uh that minimum um and uh any lot served by septic system has to have two test pits by a uh licensed soils investigator um with uh found to be suitable um so that one has a choice of which location depending on where the building is going to be but also if one system fails or one leech field fails a second leach field would be readily available um and that's been provided uh by the uh by the applicant and it's in your packets um they're um the applicant has ownership of the property so they have right Tyler and just uh technical detail uh which you may ask you know Mr Kaiser or uh Mr they are about there was on the subdivision plan because consistent with the deed that um M M Truck Sales acquired from the previous owner there's a 50-foot right-of-way shown that runs on the west side of the subdivision extending between the former railroad right-of-way spur right-of-way and the main line right-of-way um that right away was established according to the chain of Deeds uh some 70 years ago in the mid-1940s in our review of that chain of Deeds we could not see how this property was how that right-of-way was associated with the property acquired so we made inquiries about that and just so you'll see in my comments that if that remains part of the subdivision it should be documented at the final plan stage that impact that's part of the property um that I'm not seen at this point that doesn't mean it's not there it's technically it doesn't have any effect on this on these eight lots and nothing's proposed to do with that with respect to these eight thoughts but would not want to further memorialize that if that's not accurate in you know by it through a signed recording Platinum registered Deeds so I've called that out as a need for a clarification um you have you had I think adequately described the concept plan and its legal status I'll just underscore that that concept plan will would have no legal standing one way or another following whatever action this board might take on this eight lot subdivision the property is um slopes um uh generally from Union Street toward the railroad Spur Line there's a wetland back there which occupies um a portion of the rear the rear portions of four of the Lots um and which eventually drains the Johnny MacBook which curls back around and drains the Penobscot River so it's not a direct drainage to the Penobscot River but eventually it gets there through wetlands and Johnny MacBook um uh there is a culvert underneath Union Street that takes some drainage from the Union Street Properties across the street and um uh it it that that drainage needs to be accommodated continue to be accommodated and the applicant would do so by providing a 20 foot wide um right-of-way drainage right-of-way or drainage easement to the town um and uh the developer would create a Swale a grass Swale there between Lots seven and eight um when those lots are are actually developed um the road along which these eight Lots will be um arrayed and from which they'll have their driveways uh Union Street is only a 40-foot right-of-way um it's paid width is in the 18 to 20 foot range um at that lower end of Union Street uh that is below the standards of a new road if they were building a new road today as part of this development uh it would have to be a 50-foot right-of-way 50 feet so they could accommodate sidewalks utilities a 24 foot paved with you know those sorts of things that's the standard in Orono and in many places um under our ordinance if a subdivision is going to be arrayed along an existing Road public road that is substandard in in some in in its width and its Dimensions um uh land much some land must be acknowledged as potentially available for expansion in order to get that street uh at least closer if not entirely up to standard um it's sketch plan and in this pre-op preliminary application they are indicating uh uh deeding to the town an additional five foot width along the entire length of the subdivision and wider along the around the curve so that where the public road now appears to intrude upon private property that would be uh remedied um you'll see comments from Mandy Oliver or town engineer um that in view of the concept plan remember the concept plan is there explicitly in our ordinance so that the planning board can evaluate the eight lot subdivision in this case in the context of that possible bigger picture that's why it's there and one of the implications of the scale of the scale of the idea and the concept development is that there may be some infrastructure requirements along Union Street if and when there was something like that proposed and approved and the 45 foot widths the 40 plus the five feet being offered um in Manny's opinion may not be sufficient um they're almost the painting board the the ordinance would require in the new subdivision sidewalks for example it would only make sense that that sidewalk would extend uh to these eight Lots as well in along the existing Union Street right away uh that five foot sidewalk with whatever drainage improvements may be required to go along with that plus possible utility Replacements and things you know water and and uh potentially sewer although I don't think that's what they would be intending um May simply require uh more than the five foot uh up to a 10 foot Edition to bring it up to the full 50 feet it would that would put the center line of Union Street skewed toward their property but there would be no other way practically to get the 50 feet that would be required to accommodate the kind of infrastructure that likely would be necessary to accommodate the scale of the concept that was proposed so you'll see those comments from Mandy Oliver and her in her letter um and you'll see that in trans stated in my comments to you um in terms of Natural Resources uh the key natural resource in this uh associated with these eight Lots would be that a portionable wetland that's along those rear rear part of those four lots that I mentioned that's part of a much larger Wetland that is in between the two railroad uh the spur former Spur Line and the main line which in turn is associated with with the lower end of Johnny MacBook um otherwise according to the natural resource inventory provided there are no vernal pools there are no um threatened or endangered Botanical or Wildlife species it's outside of the 100 Year floodplain as provided by uh FEMA Federal Emergency Management agency and only a tiny corner of Lot number one is in the Shoreland zone for the most part this is outside of the Shoreland Zone um the Eagle's Nest was mentioned uh they're I think there are two Eagles nests as documented in the application and the letter from Department of Inland Fisher and Wildlife one that um uh the U.S Special Wildlife service uses a 660 foot radius for managing doesn't it doesn't mean no development but it managed to manage uh the area around eagle's nests um and as mapped that touches a corner of uh of this eight lot subdivision but you know just at the very tail end it would be mostly most of the impact would be on the area on the other 26 Acres owned by this owner and the second Nest may have some impact on that as well um there are as they indicated historical potential historical resources as well as natural resources including Shoreland area and um within that additional 26 Acres but those would be matters to considered very important to make sure everybody's aware of those but those will be matters to be considered if and when a future application comes in they do not appear to impact these eight Lots um they're um there is no turnaround at the end of Union Street at this point um so emergency vehicles and Public Safety vehicles in public works vehicles uh now and you can see it out there you can see the Treads and the Warren area um they come up and they they just go on to what is the applicant's property and to turn around and it's kind of a semi-circle that they leave unitary come back and turn around the applicant proposes to give a temporary easement access easement to the town um 30 feet by 100 foot in dimension to accommodate that turnaround officially um they would anticipate that if they extend Union Street as part of another application that would be with cul-de-sac and a full turnaround that is satisfactory to our Public Works director and to the fire department this temporary easement of that dimension there is at this point you know Union Street is not interconnected well interconnected you know the closest uh it obviously intersects Brook Street but Brook streets is itself a dead end so it does not interconnect um it interconnects with Island Ave with um well connects to Island Ave and then you know Hamlin comes off of Island and then you get up to Main Street um so there's not good interconnection here um it's an existing Street pre-exist at our ordinances um the planning board at sketch plan talked about the possibility you know the possible merits or not of having an interconnection now or just a 50-foot right-of-way that would serve as a possible connection between Union Street and the spur right this spur railroad spur which is no longer used for that purpose um it would provide only a very limited way if anybody ever would ever build that connection and and come back over to you it would just bypass basically the eight lots and the homes on the existing homes on the lower end of Union Street and it would go right through the middle of a wetland so the fire department's not doesn't see that when my discussions with Henry Vaughn does not see that as as very useful they would see something as critically necessary interconnection should there be an extension of Union Street and um you'll see in the conceptual plan that they've shown a place where there might be some uh a connection to that railroad spur near the its intersection with the main line of the railroad but um at this point there is not one proposed um this is an eight lot subdivision for single-family homes by the way the applicant includes a declaration of proposed Declaration of covenants and restrictions that would limit these eight lots of single-family homes only um with some minimum square footage you know a thousand square feet to 1200 square foot a minimum floor area with one car garages at least um and those single family homes this is way way under the threshold for requiring traffic impact analysis uh obviously when you have as we do throughout Orno dead end streets all of which exit out on the Main Street and we know that Main Street is a busy Street and the closer you get to downtown and the university the more difficult it is to exit and make especially left-hand turns um no impact analysis required of this but I did do a a standard um analysis of traffic flow based on Institute of traffic Transportation Engineers uh manuals and compared it with the existing flows on Main Street and uh you know the the there's minimal it's just eight single-family house Lots will generate Peak traffic of um eight or nine vehicle trip ends during the peak hour and 75 to 80 total trip ends during a 24-hour period um and that trip end is one vehicle leaving or one vehicle entering um and that includes you know postal and delivery and it's not just the people coming in and out of the homes it's all all traffic so that could be associated with the activities of those single family homes um my opinion is the impact on traffic would be minimal if they do something bigger that might be a different story um pedestrian access there is there are no sidewalks it's a very low volume street so people who are walking use the street uh the closest sidewalk is at at the bottom of Island Avenue it's a brand new sidewalk it's a very nice sidewalk but it stops before the railroad tracks um the um if this again if they were building a new road for the subdivision they the ordinance requires a sidewalk and and they could waive that requirement of justification were shown uh conversely uh you could require a sidewalk here if you believe that those eight Lots would generate a level of pedestrian activity um that warranted it or that a level of Auto traffic or other traffic that would you know make it dangerous for pedestrians and considering the deal the degree to which it is already could be interconnected and in this case there's no opportunity to interconnect from the uh lot one up to Island Avenue is it's not according to Public Works director it's not at this point feasible um again if you're talking about something more than this as presented in the conceptual plan then I think a sidewalk likely would be uh required all the way down to and including lots one through eight um as part of that construction but that would be a matter for future based on what they ultimately propose if anything um summary of the community facilities there are there's no public land proposed other than the easements and the right-of-way that we've talked about and the drainage easement we will need draft you know the the language of the deeds and and the and the easements at the time a final plan reviewed by our town attorney they're not proposing any improvements to the to the um Street and clean street lights or Landscaping at this point uh there are three street lights from around just around the curve you know up stream of the of Lot number one around that curve down to the end of um Union Street there are also three fire hydrants in that in that same general length um there is a trail system now that goes through the uh these eight lots and continues on towards the uh the 26 Acres but there's never been any public easements or public rights there although it's been certainly used by the public by at least non-objection from the property owners um so that's uh I guess that's it um you know when it comes to it we can review my recommendations basically but I think it would be premature to do that now because I think you need to hear from more from the applicant if you have questions or certainly from the public great thank you very much uh questions from the board before we open up the public hearing I I do have one initially uh you've received communication from the town engineer uh you've heard the summary I think you've spoken with Town staff could you address the proposed right-of-way width and just provide the board any insight of whether you think existing utilities could be squeezed into 45 feet or um yeah uh from the standpoint of uh the right-of-way width what we looked at was the aspect of uh the intent to have Center Line of right-of-way and center line of roadway be one in the same so in doing that and we then said okay with a 50 foot right away that would mean 25 feet on our side of the road which would make that's where we came up with the 45 feet now if you look at this standard scenario of a 24 foot Road and five foot sidewalk that always goes into 25 feet on your standard 50 foot right away so we will have 25 feet on our side of the road so no matter what would be required if anything is required there would be room on that side of the road to put those services in place the water line is on the other side of the road it's right now running down just under the edge of pavement um and to continue that it's only a very short section from the end onto our property and if then the road is extended then that would be a 50 foot right away with the extra five feet on that side so then the future water line could go in uh quite readily um following that same side of the road going down through I believe the last time you had mentioned that you would anticipate that the additional five feet would come from neighboring properties on the Riverside the town had ever wanted to make it a full 50 feet that's that would leave their center lines of the right-of-way and the roadway in the same spot so that they are one in the same otherwise you run the risk of basically having a center line of the road different than the center line of the right-of-way and then if and when they are ever had a reconstruction it would it just tends to be a little bit more uh issues that can evolve out of it from the standpoint of where the property lines really are coming down through there I took a drive down there there is not much room on that other side of the road no but we aren't proposing to do anything on that side of the road we may have to add if the roadway went out to a full 24 feet that would mean that from a 20-foot width it'd be four feet added so there'd be two feet on one side of the road and two feet on the other side and in the 45 feet that would still leave about eight feet to the property lines which is what would be left in a normal with a sidewalk on it there's eight feet left to the property or right away line on its standard 50 foot so we feel that there is plenty of room to do what could be required if future development does occur going down through there with very minimal um disturbance to to any of the properties it would all be within the right of way and easily addressed from that standpoint so we do feel that that that still works from the standpoint on it of keeping that right away Center Line in the roadway Center Line as the same location questions additional questions on the board any clarification on that point I didn't want to hear what the applicant I'd say about that but I don't have a question for the applicant but I have a question for Evan so if just to make sure I understand what you said clearly about the sidewalk earlier yep uh the conceptual expansion occurs we could go back and require sidewalk with tonight's proposal yes you could yes you could you could you can always require if the facts justify it external improvements okay so certainly inside the subdivision the assumptive de facto Assumption of the ordinance is that when you're building a new road you're going to build a new sidewalk with it um the fact that um you've got basically a a neighborhood that has that would become several times larger than what it now is including the first uh eight Lots I think you could certainly require a sidewalk the entire length to serve the eight and uh as law along the existing Union Street as well as its extension the question on stormwater management too would your proposal is to use the existing Wetland to mitigate any increases in flow from the development of the Lots is that correct correct it it does naturally right is what we're saying we're not putting any real uh structures or altering that in any way we just demonstrated that by going into that Wetland it has very little with the surface area that Wetland it has very very little impact on on that area itself and then once it leaves that you know as it slowly flows out of that area across the old right away it it will even have less impact overall considering that the entire area across the railroad spur is predominantly wetland as Evan heads pointed out and then that flows to Johnny Mack so other questions all right I'm going to open it up to public hearing again just just to clarify welcome your comments on what might happen down the road but again just keep in mind that you know we're not making any decisions on that we're going to make decisions I think you heard the the summary that Evan provided that we do have some flexibility within the eight lot subdivision and to plan ahead but uh we really we can't go too far into you know any specifics with the you know the future plan so with that in mind but we and we still welcome comments uh we appreciate you coming out tonight so please step up to the mic uh state your name and your concerned the heck um Sydney Sinclair live at 15 Brook Street liking to think ahead a little bit further than just this it might be recommended to put in a sewer line versus using septic systems because if that additional property does get developed they're not going to be able to put septic systems up in there necessarily they might but maybe not so that is just a comment just so you know as far as impact on traffic leaving and going up Island Avenue and crossing the street the impact already exists with a number of people who currently live there without this additional subdivision that will just make it worse the current sub the additional subdivision I think that we need to consider putting a traffic light even if it is an intermittent one Whatever at the intersection of Island Avenue and Main Street it's it is virtually impossible at some times to get across that street unless you're in tank and the Army doesn't allow me to keep my tank they told me to give it back so I don't got it um okay these are all going to be single family dwellings and I I like that uh but that right away though off lot seven runs through Wetlands so I'm not sure what you could do with that if you had tried and although there are no vernal pools on this particular parcel there are vernal pools in that additional area so that's all I have thank you thank you very much others Roxanne Sinclair 15 Brook Street um I don't know if the people that bought that land and ex want to put those Eight houses in that is all ledge and you have to blast and when you blast other people's houses get totaled in the in with the impacts foundations get cracked who is going to be responsible for that it's all edged down there so I'm I don't know how they're going to put septic systems in if that's all Edge that's not feasible I wouldn't think but I don't I myself and other people that live down there that have foundations do not want this because of the blasting right now I what was submitted in the application just to address the septic systems they had a license site evaluator go out there and ordinance requires two you know two systems be identified for for potential and according to the license site evaluator that was part of the packet that they do have sufficient soils for each of the eight Lots again you made a comment about what's going on in the future but we have no idea what those soils are but for the eight laws well actually seven yeah seven of them because one is going to be on sewer the one off the corner but they have sufficient soils according to a licensed site evaluator that was in the application packet I understand your you know Maine is pretty shallow to bedrock no but it is a lot of ledge yep down in there okay thank you okay a tall one okay uh Robert close 18 Union Street um uh just a quick question it's not a hostile question how many of you have been to our neighborhood I know you said you took a ride down there which is anyone else has been to our neighborhood I take that as a no you okay so several you okay so you like my students you're hesitant to answer me because my position of power okay um you know what we have so what I want to talk to you about I will be brief but I'll be cogent is what we have what you want what we will lose and what will be the benefit okay what we have is a enviable pocket neighborhood we have a neighborhood in which people who don't live there come down of an evening strolling with their children and remarking to us we didn't know this existed what a pleasant Place how what a nice resource an Orono to have in the planning industry as opposed to putting plans forward there's an adage about recognizing your beautiful land then building on poor land so you can continue to observe the beautiful land in this case what I see is the beautiful land is recognized and the design is excavated okay rather than build on poorer lands we can continue to enjoy this so you have a plan but this is not planning this is not planning um so what we have is a pleasant pocket neighborhood we have a peaceful neighborhood we have a quiet neighborhood all the neighbors know each other um what you want and I'm judging from the title of this project Riverside estates this is why I left New Jersey um as States this is a neighborhood of modest homes for the most part modest incomes modest needs modest people and you want to put Riverside Estates that specs of exclusivity that is one step removed from gated community okay so now we're walking down our quiet pocket neighborhood street what we're seeing is Estates the only thing missing is a subtitle that says don't go here no trespassing please please think of changing the name of this if you go through with this plan and I'm not sure how you found us anyway how did you find us we've tried so hard okay we tried so hard to lie low so what I so I see you want to put Eight houses in what kind of houses they're one family houses are there one family mcmansions um whenever you look at a plan you want it you want to look at three things balance impact scale how will this balance our neighborhood what impact will it have what about the scale will this throw Shadows on the homes across the street in this Riverside Estates that you want to build what we will lose that's my third point I think we will lose um the character of our neighborhood I think you this is because of the the titular name of this this estate's name I think it already separates the neighborhood into the Estates and the non-estates and I see some of you putting your head in your hands already but that will not stop me okay I I teach I see this all the time okay um so my question is I've told you what we will lose okay we will lose um I believe we lose the character of our neighborhood I think there'll be a certain division in the neighborhood between Estates and non-estates and I think it won't be as attractive for people who don't live there but who are attracted to that just to a walk of an evening because it is a unique pocket neighborhood with a blessing of Green Space along that side of Union Street and at The Bitter End of Union Street so my last question I have is what will be the benefit okay Sid already mentioned the idea of a street light he's correct in the morning you do take your life in your hands um you are dependent on the kindness of strangers to stop and let you through this is what's known as the tragedy of the commons is that you have a resource in just the right number of people using the resource but when you put a few more people in now you have to start rationing the resource remember when parking spaces at the Bangor International Airport were free for 20 minutes that a lot more people started to use the airport now you have to pay that's the tragedy of the commons okay um the last point I want to make is I want a quote by one of my favorite authors who isn't getting a bum wrap these days John Steinbeck before he died he wrote a book called Travels With Charlie and he traveled around the country in 1961 in a camper and 60 the 60s as you know from bangla's history was a horrendous time of urban removal and there are people in Bangor who still weep at the memory of what Bangor did to its waterfront neighborhoods but Steinbeck saw this going on and he said I am not against progress and neither am I but I ask myself why so often it looks like destruction and until I know better okay I'm just going to keep a weary eye on on this I'm just looking at balance impact and scale here okay and I think those are three very very important points so thank you for your attention thank you we don't often get Steinbeck quotes yeah others oh I'm Glenn Kahler 360 Main Street I'm here in two capacities first as representing representing representing Bucky Owen of the Orono Land Trust who couldn't be here tonight so on behalf of the land trust Bucky just asked me to pass along basically two comments one is with reference to the eight lots that are being discussed tonight or no land trust you know our basic mission is to have hiking walking trails within walking distance of everybody in Orono and as Evan mentioned there was the trail system um connects down back through here already you know currently and we would just like to you know be kept in the loop and have a working relationship with the developer and the current owners and the planning board to keep that um trail system identity you know kept in mind I don't know how that would work out if you know maybe someday with the if the houses go in through the railroad easement which I realize they don't control the railroad easement that's the railroad but just to keep us and keep the land get the Betrayal system in mind as this thing develops then Bucky's other comment was about the uh possible expansion you know further down at the other end of Union Street there um there's a tremendous opportunity for trail connection from Orono really even Old Town all the way down to VZ into Bangor along the river especially with the dams taken out the rivers pulled in so land that was currently under Waters now even more walkable and there's some really great River Frontage right along that first part where they're you know they may be putting houses in in a second stage and we'd really like to keep that within the planning board's mind and the developer's mind about keeping that accessible as Trail possibility so those are the comments Bucky wanted me to uh forward to you then in my second capacity is just as myself and it's really not much different but my house at 360 Main Street has 29 Acres that abuts the Townsend property which is across the railroad tracks behind us and that abuts this property so I'm sort of a a fellow of butter and again those lands All Connect up and then be Beyond us is the the golf course so all that Woods in there all connects up it's great trails in there and um it just it would be great to keep that continuity um and again this whole idea about a Trail going down along the Penobscot again from Old Town you know all the way down to Bangor would be really something to for the benefit of Orono to keep that in mind as a potential and because if we can get that working that would be humongous if that's a word I can use in a planning board meeting um Trump does it all the time so um but that that trail not only is a wonderful thing in itself but if you look at the really big picture and this is my kind of personal soapbox and I won't go too far on it but if you look at what's going on with the corridor project on the other side of the highway if you have this piece and you connect that up to the corridor which is going to happen someday I think because they're making good progress on that then you get this huge 30 mile Loop and a a planning director to shower remain nameless who works for Arno once told me if you get that going you've got a destination you know a Central Main destination people would come to use that and so I just like to keep those possibilities in mind and hope you know we can be kept in the loop and the land trust I don't think has approached the owners yet about you know any kind of easement or anything I think they're just trying to get their Ducks lined up or you know see what's going on but we do want to be part of the process if we can thanks thank you I do want to follow up on that with our comprehensive plan that this planning board was an integral part of that process uh Trail establishment is a big piece of of what we typically consider with projects so thank you for bringing that up and you know Orono one of the great things about Orono is we have these green areas and correct I grew up in Southern Ohio and my hometown used to be a little wooded suburbs surrounding Cincinnati and then Cincinnati and Dayton all grew together and just congealed and it's it's really lost its soul and I'd hate to see that happen here because we can still have it here thank you others good evening Allen Neto 104 Union Street I have a petition for the board signed by the residents in our area is the we the undecided residents of Union Brook Street Emily Lane margin Island Avenue and Harrison Avenue in the town of Orono wish to communicate our deep concerns associated with the early stage proposals of the anticipated development of Riverside Estates we requested the town of Orono planning board be take careful consideration into the potential negative impacts on the established residents including but not limited to increase traffic congestion as the neighborhood is only accessible by one Road in one road out the loss of pedestrian character potential environmental impacts on nearby wetlands and Wildlife including known eagle's nest on the penobscure river as such the undecided request a partial and impartial traffic and environmental study and assessment in order to have a clear picture of what lies ahead should the proposed Riverside Estates move forward and very good can you provide that to staff yes that'd be great so who would I that man right there thank you others foreign my name is Jamie Comstock I live at One Brook Street which is at the corner of Union Street and Brook Street um I don't know how many of you know much about our neighborhood it was founded settled by several families who have who lived there for Generations I know this because I married into one of those families and my husband's grandmother Christine Dyer passed away last year at the age of 93 after spending her entire life in this neighborhood so many of the folks you see here are descendants of those original settlers and we still live in this neighborhood so as Bob described it's it's a really enviable neighborhood it is one of those neighborhoods I'm a trained city planner I don't practice but it's one of those neighborhoods that we dream of finding and when I found this neighborhood I was it was awesome it's been such a great place to live and to raise my kids I um I too am struggling to see the benefit of this this development to the neighborhood I look around Orono and I see lots of undeveloped subdivisions and so I um I wonder why do we add another one um I also am concerned about the traffic impacts if you have visited our neighborhood you have noticed how tight passages between do excuse me two vehicles who are crossing once you add snow to that we have much tighter confines and so even the addition of the eight to nine trip ends during peak hour or 70-ish in a 24-hour period we'll have a great impact in our neighborhood I also wanted to note that if you have come into our neighborhood you have crossed over the railroad tracks and have noticed how you need to mind your suspension when you do so so I I worry about construction traffic I would love to know what the plan is for improving that crossing over the rail railroad tracks at that point and this is where you turn off of Margin Street onto Union Street and the only entryway into the neighborhood so um anyway I want to thank you for your time and thank you for your careful review of this concept thank you very much others thank you I'll get to these in a minute I'll introduce myself first uh good evening my name is Paul Schrader I brought some documentation with me I live it um I've lived with my family at 13 Hamlin Street since 1989. um and I'm one of those near Neighbors who although we recognize we probably have no rights of Public Access have have appreciated being able to wander in this area and I've been wandering in that area for uh you know all of the 27 years that I've lived in Orono back there if anyone wants to see them I've also been taking panoramic photographs of the riverscape for about 20 years you may or may not remember I had a display of them at the store for a while and uh the purpose of these photographs is isn't show what a beautiful set of parcels there are so they can be developed the purpose is to show what incredible beauty we have here in Orono available to all of us and how much we have to appreciate what we have before it's gone now um over the last couple days I went down there and and I'm very concerned about the river shed the river escape and the rivershad what is visible from our neighbors across the river that's Bradley in Eddington what's the what's visible from here do we have any responsibility to those people who live on the other side do they have any responsibility to us so over the last couple days I went down there and I took some photographs from immediately in the center of the proposed expanded you know phase two development and some photographs from immediately across the river from those from that development and I'd just like to um hand these over to the planning board so that you can see what the river looks like today or yesterday or day before the last two days and and these are yours thank you now I really appreciate that there is some rule or some standard practice in the planning with the planning board with Orono that required some notion of what full build out here is going to look like you know some of you may or may not know I've been very involved in the expansion issues around the Juniper Ridge Landfill for quite a long time and honestly there's never been an expansion there and there was never a clear statement to the public what can this become and so we've been fighting a rear guard action there to try to preserve our community from being a Dumping Ground for trash from everywhere because it was never made clear to anyone when it began how this sludge dump could become a multi-purpose uh Universal special Waste landfill so I appreciate at least having a vision of where this might be going there was mentioned earlier of no trespassing signs and I've actually brought up with Town staff lack of public access to the river I I brought something else here I'd like to show you um I didn't know that it was going to relate to this but it does these are the dozens of no trespassing signs that are now up at the Webster Point development and when that was going in I came and I said what's going to happen to the public access to that beautiful parcel and that place on the river and I was assured at that time that there would be a public walk that would there is and I've brought you photos of it I live a stone's throw and that was a big part of that application I do need to pull this back to this project though I understand Webster Point excuse me this is about I'm going to claim that this is about this project because this has to do with what kinds of controls does the town put on developments like that that picture that's up there is the end of that walk the beginning of the Town Eastman there is no provision for the public whatsoever it comes to an absolute dead end there's Shrubbery there there's no access to a view that we were promised a Viewpoint we were promised Public Access it does not exist um so my purpose here tonight is to say I'm with the people who say I hope that something like Public Access through Trail systems can be worked out with these developers I hope that the public the public stake in the riverscape that we have that we share with our neighboring communities and that they share with us can be protected with buffering with visual um uh setbacks so that what we've gained with the river restoration project doesn't get lost with rampant development thank you very good thank you very much foreign other comments good evening Eric Reardon 102 Union Street I rent the property from Lloyd and Margaret Wicket they ask that I come here and share some comments and questions that they have one thing that Lloyd wanted me to communicate is he was confused as to why only that first lot would have a requirement that they hook up to the sewer and not subsequent Lots it's a distance question I think Evan touched on that if you're within 200 feet of an existing sewer you are required by ordinance to connect to that of course of existing public sort of existing public sewer you're required to connect and that's the only law dimensionally that is close enough to town sewer to connect and the others would require extension of town soar so in virtue of that first connection to that first house lot is the second house lot not at that point within that 200 feet now within 200 feet of a public line that connection is a private line it's just a it's just a service line from the public sewer to the house another question he had um he thought that in looking at the first uh phase plan and then the new plans that came out he thought it looked like there was a difference in the road with um he doesn't know if there's been any changes in terms of uh I believe the road with and we saw this at sketch plan that there was a five foot that the applicant proposed to add or deed to the town five feet I don't I'm not aware of any changes to that maybe in the corner but um are you are you asking Mr chair are you may have are you asking the difference in Road width and what might be the extension of the road versus the plan for it to be uniform along the entire uh uh length the new roads must be built to a 50-foot right-of-way width and 24 foot pave width so this is supposed to be I mean if conceivably uh if the applicants proposals what's accepted by the planning board it would be maximum 45 foot with and um don't know what the pavement would be it could be required to be 24 foot wide widened if they came in with a plan similar that would be a matter of that future discussion would be possibly a slightly a different width was your question the existing road with I don't think there's any proposal before us to do anything with the existing road unless and again we're not going there this evening unless they push onto that backlog yeah his question was just related to the different sets of plans he thought there was a discrepancy I don't I don't believe so uh but no he's saying that in the in the conceptual plan the new road the extension of Union Street would indeed be 50 foot wide versus the existing Union Street which is now 40 feet would become 45 foot wide under right away and so there would be a difference you know as you past that boundary line under the existing proposal and that concept and then connected to this this question um and going off of what was discussed earlier so there is a chance that some of that widening happens on the other side of the street the side that is already has uh residence there that's what the applicant proposed is one option this board is going to be discussing that I think at length uh following some public comment I think it's fair to say some concerns associated with that I understood some of the houses being understood it close to the road there foreign any information about or if maybe this could be repeated square footage uh minimum square footage of the the proposed homes for these minimum 1 000 to 1200 that ring I think what I heard yeah so that's the minimum single family need to have at least a minimum of one car garage I think I I recall reading and minimum square footage 1000 to 1200. and then he just wanted to Echo this idea of there being you know one point of egress up to Island Ave um and difficulties with traffic as they already exist and the idea that uh you know eight lots and then perhaps 31 Lots would certainly compound those issues that that residents already face very good thank you Mr chair I'd like to just note that at your desk is a email from Mr Wicket that I received yesterday and made copies for you and for the record would you like me to read it into the record I think probably the summary is fine and now you have the written as well you know I don't think you need to read that in the record but it'll become part of the record okay because he had they had a representative here to summarize the comments thank you other questions step right up hello I'm Julia McGuire and I'm at 38 Union Street thank you so much for hearing our comments tonight I would like to Echo what most folks have said about concerns about traffic flow and put that on the record and specifically I'm a little skeptical that uh the no impact analysis in terms of eight to nine Vehicles is realistic I'm coming from a two-car household I think many of us in the neighborhood have more than one vehicle per family and so feasibly the impact could be higher than estimates say in addition I'd like to Echo sentiments about the wonderful pocket neighborhood being a pedestrian accessible and the current concerns about additional cars being significant to the safety and a number of us have young children and many families walk in the neighborhood and so that sidewalks or pedestrians safety even without the further proposed extension I'd very much like you to consider the needs of the neighborhood in that respect and again echoing Sentiments of this shared use public use of the historical public use of the land at the end of the road and while it hasn't been official it's been a valued resource for the community for a number of years thank you thank you very much others Alan Neto again 104 Union I have a question uh the sidewalk issue now if that was to be put in at a later date who would be responsible to do that would that be up to the town to do or the developer I believe because if that would be in the town right of way my understanding would would be that the town would be if this If This Were if the need for the sidewalk were stimulated by the fact of the additional development that they're being discussed is being discussed uh the developer would have to pay for all of that and would have to put up um Improvement guarantee agreement to uh to do that to be inspected by the town had built the town standards but it be at the developers cost okay I mean if nothing else ever happened then right everybody decided there ought to be a sidewalk there in the future then it'd be the town's responsibility to do that okay I just wanted to kind of clarify that good good question thank you all right so yep well uh I mean we've heard some common concerns so we we get the traffic issue uh understand the neighborhood concept anything new very good thanks for the second chance um I'll say this is my third hat I'm a member of the Orono Trails committee which basically consists of patting Dave on the back and thanks for the great work that Dave does um but just a point I'd like to make is if this development goes through it will be in the advantage of the town and the developer that those house slots would be worth a lot more if they're part of an integrated trail system and it's all been kind of done you know connected up in a nice way so it would benefit everybody to keep that in mind good point foreign open because there will be some ongoing discussion uh and we're going to have comments from the board again I do want to mention the board I I drove out in that street I'd in my opinion I don't see any way that five feet is coming from the other side of the road and right away you know Center Line of roadway send a line of right-of-way I don't really think that's much of an issue as far as what might need to be done uh the potential for the project and the development of 20-some lots in the future if that happens I don't see that as being a burden on the on the Neighbors in in my opinion I am not sure we've heard and we did receive comments from our town engineer questioning whether 45 feet would do it that that's a pretty tight space to fit a 24-foot roadway again you know if you have any fill extensions going down throwing a sidewalk good that's a that's a tough task it gets pretty tight but in my opinion again if you want to take a drive out there there's practically no room on that on that other side and I don't see five feet coming from the other side of the room so the project and you know again this is what I noticed out there but the project is you know new house lots of potential for for many more I don't see the neighbors you know taking taking the brunt of that so that that's my opinion Stillwater management I looked at that it's pretty common to should storm water into a wetland that I've used that one before minimal impact so that that doesn't seem to be an issue uh we looked at the the turnaround apparently that's acceptable to the town now so they're going to provide an easement there and have some drainage accommodations when Lots get developed to deal with an existing culvert uh traffic issue we heard that uh and to address that comment traffic issue there's there's a manual that's the ite manual Transportation Engineers use that at our town planner used that that manual to do his calculations and they it's pretty pretty standard how they go about those calculations so if you just punch the numbers eight house lots and it'll it spits out a number so I understand your concern with what that number might be but that that's transportation engineering right there so that's where those numbers came from I think everybody in Orno understands that I mean I live on North Main Avenue and we talked about this last time at sketch plane trying to turn left on the North Main on them you know Main Street coming out of North Main is is not going to happen so I feel your pain there there's a lot of cars going up and down that street so addition of eight house Lots from a traffic impact standpoint and gentleman asked about environmental impacts and traffic impacts eight Lots aren't really going to do much it's already a tough you know tough task getting out on Main Street so that that's that's an issue and we did receive quite quite a bit of information from State agencies talking about the the project in front of us the eight lots and the impacts again they didn't find any uh rare plant species we you know the the Eagles nests were outside so I would think certainly if any project moved forward if the next phase came through all those things will be addressed so traffic impacts Transportation study environmental impacts those are certainly warranted in my opinion for any any future development but right now that I mean the biggest thing again get off you know my opinions I want to hear from you but the biggest issue is the right-of-way in preparing for what might happen down the road so other other thoughts I mean I'd just like to share my thoughts I've listened to a lot of comments and I've heard the concern about walking in the area unfortunately I don't personally get much time to walk I wish that I had more time to do so uh given that the applicant has gone through the trouble of providing fairly detailed in my opinion conceptual layout it is conceptual there's no guarantees but it's definitely over the horizon as it appears and given the fact that it sounds like if that were to occur we would be required we would be requiring the applicant to install a walkway uh basically retrofit or walkway onto the project that we're proposing now seems like it would be prudent for the board to consider requiring the walkway go in now sooner than later that would do two things one it would allow at least some measure of walk safety as this you know walkway safety as this goes on too it might also alleviate some of the unknown because a lot about a year here here tonight is also an unknown so to me that would provide the public with a guarantee moving forward so I think we should continue that good point others yeah I think that you you said that you didn't think there was a room for five feet on the existing side where the houses are now the Riverside the Riverside so why wouldn't we take 10 feet at this point and make a 50 foot right away and then we don't we allevitate a lot of these traffic problems that I agree with what you just said that I think we need to look forward that probably will go in at some point because this type of development from the comprehensive plan is what our own needs small affordable housing so I think we should do it right and get the street right to start with I agree that you did I guess I wasn't clear enough I would expect if we go with a 50 foot right-of-way that that 10 feet is coming from the project right it in a quick glance just rough numbers the lots have suitable size minimum square footage is 30 000 square feet and if you take a look at the frontage and so the frontage times five foot width the the subtraction of that square footage you know some of them are 125 foot so if you take another 700 feet away from that they still meet their minimum lot size requirements oh they would you know that that that's what they might have to give up but it doesn't reduce the number of lots on the project but there's a little bit of wiggle room just again rough math from what I looked at other comments what are your thoughts on that yeah I just have a just have um because I'm I'm always thinking about People's Health and I want people to be out walking and I want people to be able to appreciate uh you know the riverscape um but I understand this is privately owned property so I don't can is there some thing we should be thinking about in terms of negotiating with the property owner about keeping Trail systems that's a great question I mean things like this come up fairly frequently when we were reviewing reviewing the Avenue there was quite a bit of negotiation between the land trust in that project I think the Grove for that matter to preserve existing Trails some of them would be rerouted I didn't see when I was looking at the maps that there's Trails across the current property maybe I missed it yeah Trails do um they're out label as such but those are those big Dash lines okay just a trail system okay they're gonna write a law right across from that what is a kind of a broken up parking area at that's the back part of lot one goes all the way through the subdivision and onto the back land so there's there's a trail system there it is private land um I would um strongly advise against the planning board negotiating uh uh for um for legal reasons um for uh Public Access I think it's perfectly appropriate for another entity of the town you know the trails committee if you wanted to or a private entity like the land trust to approach the property owner and see if there's anything that can be done but um you come very you come into collision with the Fifth Amendment rights uh in the takings of land issue in this regulatory realm it's private land there is no obligation no rights of the public to trespass on public land it's only by the beneficence of the landowner uh at the Avenue was different and those because those were cluster developments remember when you get a class of development you get a very large density bonus and in return you are expected to provide some public benefits that would not ordinarily be required you don't want to take a take advantage of that quid pro quo you just default to The Standard uh here there is no clustering involved they've defaulted to The Standard so that opportunity is not appropriately available to the to a regulatory board certainly would be available to others and the developers heard things if he wants to reach out or somebody some other entity wants to reach out to them and whether it's about these Lots or something future they can do so thank you for that clarification Evan other other questions for the applicant all right I would just say I mean we hear the board on it I mean if uh if there's a real push for the you know 50 foot right away on it I it's not really going to hurt our Lots as as was mentioned on it we have setbacks are actually controlled by the power easement that goes across the front of those lots also so it really doesn't isn't going to impact the position of the housing on the Lots either from that standpoint so I don't I guess I'm just saying that we don't necessarily have a concern that if the board prefers to go with the full 50 feet that we can provide the additional five feet on top of what we're already provided okay thank you uh questions on I I think one hanging out there we've had a couple uh comments supporting uh whether the sidewalk goes in now right now again I heard your concern but the nearest sidewalk Evan could you give me just or give the board just a quick estimate you said the nearest sidewalk and you showed it on one of the diagrams in the yeah it's uh it's at the bottom of Island Avenue yep and uh if you look at my report to you um yes page eight um it's about a quarter mile away from uh this subdivision okay so I'm just thinking to carry that thought out so 50 feet right away we require that with the sidewalk the road it varies in dimension remove the width of the road now didn't I read well the road is roughly 18 19 feet wide you know uh and pay with that's my informal estimate but the Public Works has a manual has a document that doesn't measure every 50 feet but as an average and um it's in that it's it's in that area yes so I guess my thought is Jeremy if you care that out so constructing a new sidewalk I think that the time to do Road improvements would be at the same time so you'd wrap all those improvements in at the same time and I'm just trying to figure out for an eight lot subdivision with a quarter mile distance you know you'd have a sidewalk hanging out there and I'm just just thinking if that would interfere with you know just doing the road right at a future date if the second phase went through that's why I'm just thinking ahead a little bit it would I guess it could be conceived as the sidewalk to Nowhere you know at this at this phase however I in my opinion that balances the concern of the public with what the Public's asking for so yeah at this phase okay I would just propose we consider requiring that okay I'd like to hear from others that I mean all of you so let's start down that end the only note I had was about a sidewalk especially during construction it would it would ease a lot of that pedestrian traffic with all the construction traffic coming in and out especially if the expansion happens down the road okay the sidewalk would be there for all the new construction too good point Sean I agree with that okay Dave you've already weighed in Jeremy thank you uh what do you think so I have a question so are we the thought is is that if face the next two phases were to happen they would likely have to bring this road up to standard correct I I think it's uh I think the word likely is correct you know there there's the New Roads would definitely build what happens potentially based on the evidence that you receive you would you could require that it would we'd want to probably have a second opinion on from public works or something to say okay does it make sense to put a sidewalk in here now if in two years they're gonna have to rip it up uh I guess I'd want an opinion on I did discuss this with um public works department we had a departmental meeting department heads um as we usually do on on developments like this and uh Rob Yorks the Public Works director though he did not give it to me in in writing and you may wish to have that in writing said that at this point he would not advocate for a sidewalk because the changes in the drainage system the curbing other things and you know cross-section might make make it hard to work in isolation from the rest but he also didn't wasn't here and didn't hear the public comments from the public hearing and I don't know if his mind would change or whatever but I we could certainly uh seek from him um a written statement um as his current opinion yeah I'd like that and then even if our town engineer could weigh in on that I just like to get an opinion because it I mean if you do a sidewalk curb then then again you're altering drainage systems and then you might be going with catch basins and what have you and I just from a planning standpoint I would think that time to do that is when you you're going to do the road all the way in so that just like to input all to also I mean when you do talk sidewalk with a curbing which is what the town requires with the sidewalk you do bring in enclosed drainage there's no other way to deal with it yeah and so when you start putting in closed drainage and and you start running into more uh potential for conflicts if things change by later standards on it from that standpoint so it does it's not just simply adding the five foot sidewalk there's a substantial um additional consequence by adding the sidewalk all right so I guess thoughts are you know other options I'm just wondering so whether you could actually prepare you know so give us the 10 feet and perhaps gravel way so you at least have a base so that there's an option so you can get off the street perhaps with additional traffic but yet not not go all in on a sidewalk so provide an area for pedestrians to walk I know the winter time might be a little tough but I'm just thinking of it of a temporary solution until all the improvements might be might be warranted I mean can we even tag this approval with the an indicator that says our thought is is that if these next phases were to move forward and get approved we would expect the road in the sidewalk would have to be put in in this area so essentially we're you know giving I don't know I don't want to use the word guarantee but we're we're kind of like you're saying align those fears and saying hey if this is going to happen then this is going to have to happen up here and so everyone goes in knowing full well what has to happen yes that could be made part of the public record and you could you could state it as something that you wanted to be as a by vote yep as something that you wanted in the public record uh to be available to developer the public and future board members should a future development proposal come forward and that was you know so we put in the extra 10 feet as you indicated and we have that that key in there to to make sure that everyone's on the same page about what would have to happen in the future so it's less likely that you know in three years someone forgets which I don't think is likely but it seems like that approach would remove the unknown and it would preserve pedestrians safe and it would balance you know future construction I think we fully understand the board too as far as future activities go what's going to be required when we come back if we come back from that standpoint so we are here and what the board's saying you know at this point in time so all right so I guess all right let's keep going down you've heard that sidewalks will now require quite a bit of drainage improvements catch basins and and all all of that so all right let's keep going down that way for I'd like to hear your thoughts but if we can be pretty sure that the sidewalk will go in we get the additional Lots until that happens all right thank you Krista Lisa um so do we all agree we want to expand the width of the road prior to phase two are we because that's I think that's really important right I think we I think we've cleared that and without actually stating it but thank you for bringing that up um and I'm ambivalent about the sidewalk issue because I just don't know when would be the best time to do it but I think I mean I certainly I think there should be a sidewalk there at the end of phase one and where when that picture and I don't know but at the end could you clarify that so like let's say we only have eight Lots there yeah I still think there should there should be a sidewalk okay for safety reasons um uh regarding the sidewalk I I would like to hear what Public Works thinks about the sidewalk you know connecting having a separate sidewalk that's not necessarily connected now doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but thinking ahead I can I can agree with you know at least laying the groundwork for setting the expectation so I think I'd like to rely on public works on the sidewalk decision all right so we've got a couple different things going on we've had some discussion is the board okay with getting more information from sound staff Town engineer Public Works before we make that call yes we should all right okay but we're all in on 10 foot right yeah we're expanding them right away to 50 feet that 10 feet is coming from the uh the applicant we'll wait to see for the next round um recommendations for our sidewalk and timing so we can you know get get them to weigh in uh again in writing or Rob could attend the meeting so that everybody could hear that uh that's that's a possibility too uh other questions so we heard about environmental impacts uh again I again voice my opinion that eight lots I'm not sure that we need to go there now given the the documentation that we've received so what are what are any thoughts on on that it was brought up by the the public so I wanted to address that right now as part of this project that we're reviewing do we see the need for an environmental study above and beyond what we've already received I don't I don't either based on this eight Lots in the contents they gave us I don't see a need no okay no I don't see any okay next up traffic issue I mean it's it's a standard calculation this is eight Lots it's not not a large project if this moves forward and we add 24 without a doubt there's going to have to be a traffic study but using the ite manual again transportation engineering basics doesn't appear that we need to need to recommend a a more in-depth traffic study thoughts on that I'd like to make a comment on that I live on Sylvan Road which dumps into Stillwater Avenue and I can tell you that when the traffic is heavy I have to turn right but now the light and come back around to go left like do you just you take your wife in your hand to get across there so I understand your concern with traffic I I do agree though that I don't think eight laws are going to make much difference if most of the traffic we get still water or be it Main Street is through traffic coming over and going back from the communities across the Penobscot River unfortunately we sit right in a direct line between Bangor in Point South in the other side of the river and there's only two Bridges so I'm gonna go over one or the other thank you other thoughts on that are we okay with all right so we had uh traffic we had environmental assessment uh we talked about the riverscape from this project and again I heard the concerns I agree with you know beautiful perspectives of Orono uh this one's on the opposite side of the river I think you know River or setbacks and you know Trail systems all of that stuff would be more appropriate would come into play more so and if and when the next phase would come through great agree all right uh okay let's just use septic systems we they provided data that the suitable systems can be located on site blasting issues any you know anytime blasting occurs if they again Evan you can follow up on this but they have to have a blasting plan to protect the neighbors so there's you know main Drilling and Blasting there's there's got to be a pre-blast surveys and there's requirements to protected neighboring property there's their state statutes about lasting I'm skeptical that I don't doubt that people who live in this neighborhood you know understand it better than I do from just a long time presence there but the soils analysis both the um I would still call it the SCS now the agencies changed that time ago nrcs medium intensity soil survey and the in-depth surveys done the on-site survey is done as part of this project show that in the majority of cases uh refusal that is ledge or some other form of refusal is more than 40 inches below and 40 inches is the magic maximum depth for septic systems in some cases they may be as it may be as close as of 15 to 18 inches in which case the leach field probably would be somewhat raised you know mounded there would be they wouldn't blast they would simply raise the ground somewhat to meet the septic leach field requirements right so I don't think they'll be blasting for septic I correct I would think for foundation all right last last issue that I had written down from from the public comments was uh there was a comment on sewer line and whether that would be extended I think that's again we have no idea what the soils are going to be like in any future development out there so that's up to the applicant to demonstrate that they will have that capacity at a later stage if and when we get there but for this project it's you know that the first lot will be on town sewer and then there's no proposed sewer extension at this point Mr chairman and they just point something out to the board into the public um it's it's this is kind of an aside but I think it's an important just consideration people talk about balance and and so forth everybody should remember I'm a big fan of Public Utilities including public sewer um you know septic systems often are fine and their their size and things according I don't know what happens when you put that many on Sandy Gravely soil in the near the panoptica river I don't know nitrate loadings or other things they'll have to document things if that if it goes that way and they want to do that but if you do public sewer I just want everybody to understand they could have many more dwelling units under state law the maximum dwelling units you can get with septic system is one blood unit per half acre or 20 000 square feet our ordinance requires even larger Lots we require minimum of 30 000 square feet and less density um but if you have sewer you could instead of eight Lots they could have 10 or 12 Lots here if they soar the whole thing and on the 26 slots they could have and if they clustered the development and you know preserved open space which is a great thing but part of the ordinance and then clustering is that incentive you get more density in return for open space and some people love that trade-off and some people hate it but they could get many more units so um to the extent that sewering becomes a necessity um the uh the ordinance allows more density because Public Safety public health of groundwater does not require the lower densities and in turn that higher density allows the developer to pay for the cost The Upfront cost of a sewer line so there's that trade-off so people who advocate for the public sewer great but it probably comes with more dwelling units thank you any last questions yeah I have a question um I I know that you said this was in a 100 year flood zone it is not 100 years not in 100 year flood zone um I know that in Louisiana they were in a 500 year flood zone and it flooded and we have climate change so I just I'm putting that out there I don't know where this sits but I just wonder about that yep it's a good question and it's something we all should be concerned with um there is a there is a fair drop off of topography um you know on on the other side of the river uh the flood plain the maps are in here to show you it looks like there's I don't know where the 500 year floodplain met I don't think the 500 year comes up here either as mapped by FEMA with client if there's been uh if climate change means wetter for this region and so forth um I don't know the degree which either the 100 year or the 500 would change but those are the maps now the official maps and those are what control as of now the 500 year floodplain just again just kind of comes up and touches lot one on the property from that standpoint and I don't know that those have been adjusted since uh the dams have been removed so if that's if they haven't been adjusted then they're probably going to be not even that high right I'm going to take final public comments again please keep it to and we've heard all your concerns and we appreciate the comments uh please keep it and any items that applicant should hear before we close the hearing yeah thanks Paul Schrader again um a comment was made uh by a member of the board that I would like to get some clarification on I was stated that uh this development is in line with the comprehensive plan including affordable housing and um I don't know what the definition of single-family affordable housing is however I don't remember the proposal containing anything about these being affordable so the first question I have since it came up from the board is are these quote unquote affordable intended to be affordable housing I'm not aware that they are if you could address that uh right now the the plan is just just out sell Lots uh they're not building the homes themselves at the current time typically uh Maury and Mary have sold to builders who depended on their market and their clients will build on the whole on the lots for what is required we've set out some minimum requirements which are pretty low uh size homes so they certainly could fit into an affordable housing they're not restrictive against you know affordable housing from that standpoint so we're not restricting against that but we're not I mean marrying and or Eminem is not planning on uh initially in the outset building any of the homes in there they sell Lots okay thank you yeah my follow-up is on the on the same point we've heard I've heard um a certain number of square foot minimum for these houses and lots what would the square footage maximum be I'm not aware I didn't see that in the application and I'm not sure that they're required to provide that unless um is is there anything in the ordinance or I mean what how big of a how big of houses coverage would would fall into play or come into play in the ordinance right I mean there's a maximum building coverage will come into play uh it would be very very very large I mean I think it's uh I think it is a 30 percent limit which would be much more applicable in the village District or on smaller Lots than 30 000 square feet um but uh there is that limit otherwise there is no uh maximum housing maximum I guess to follow up I am aware that they base certain stormwater management calculations based on typical sizing assumptions so would you figure half acre I didn't really go through the whole model but what just ballpark what did you have in mind for the Lots uh basically what we show could you uh sorry need you up there you know these rectangles that we show on the plane is what we were using for footprint I apologize we need it on the record and the mic yep the plan shows uh footprint size as far as the buildings we're concerned is required by the ordinance and that's what we use so we use probably about a 70 foot uh long house that would count garage and uh probably 30 or 30 to 30 feet wide I think would be the guess approximate size width of it from the storm water management criteria on it uh if you give me one second I can tell you what the total uh impervious area would have been what are we called something in the neighborhood of a half acre for a lot I think we considered a half acre on on it yeah we considered about uh yeah about a half an acre on all eight counting the driveways between the houses and the driveways a half an acre in size so that that's a ballpark number yeah very good all right last less comments and then I'm going to close the public hearing yeah player regarding the uh Lots themselves what is the uh proposed guesstimate for uh what they'll retail for that's that's not something that this board can even touch that's up to the applicant and what I think what the market will bear but all right good question uh well it it goes toward affordability you know if this slot is selling for 50 Grand all of a sudden it just became unaffordable right ah good question but that's not not an item that that we usually can be retailed uh minus the septic and yeah yeah I'm not sure okay all right I think I had a question there we got two more and then I've got a close the hearing yep is kind of just an errand thought years ago when um the Bangor the former Bangor Hydro was planning on the base of Mills Dam you might remember and people were split on that and it's a moved thing now but at the time Bangor Hydro in order to sweeten the deal basically they put in the boat launch down in our neighborhood as an amelioration I think they called it and then Bangla Hydro is no longer we got the boat launched beautiful we didn't get the dam everyone's happy um I'm wondering and this is a real honest question actually is someone in a position to suggest ever so gently to the developer maybe there could be some amelioration towards our neighborhood a gift to the neighborhood maybe as someone said the crossing of the railroad is is you know it's it's axle grinding and um the thing is that the town keeps patching it with Char asphalt when there's a way to do it properly with metal plates I'm asking who's in the position to to ask that maybe something could be done because everything that's been talked about has been very mechanical um rights of way sewage systems sidewalk but no one's spoken about the affective aspects of dumping a development in a settled neighborhood I'm going to defer to our town planner for that that question because this board has limited Authority and we're not going to negotiate we we listen to comments the applicant hears them and hopefully they'll accommodate some of those concerns but as far as yeah the the affect of elements of of this which is you know which are important are really invited and answered um legislatively in the fact that single-family dwellings yeah and 30 000 square foot Lots aren't allowed use and so through earlier public hearings and discussions and and Town Council decisions including uh guidance from comprehensive planning work and goals of the town in terms of having single in town single-family housing opportunities they made decision that in general this kind of scale of development of this type of use single-family homes is in character and of net benefit to the town and the neighborhoods I guess that's what I've said in terms of asking for um some remuneration it wouldn't be you know something that to help out the neighborhood uh such as uh something long repaving or something a regulatory board cannot ask that should not ask that um but lots of people here have heard you mention it I guess that's my question as I said it's an honest not a hostile question do I ask the developer you certainly can I can okay um because what I want is I want the railroad crossing permanized with metal plates I'd like the power lines buried so we have more sky I don't want a light rail system um but I I want I want the Ayers Island Bridge fixed and that's we'll have another meeting about that one um we'll need a bottle of Scotch though but um talking about the fact that you know we want we want people to work together on this and we don't want people to feel wounded and some people will grieve and we want the grieve to be the grief to be acknowledged but so I'm the person who needs to do that I'm happy to do it okay so I can approach of course I'm a citizen I can do what I want right so I'll approach the developer this is M M Trucking and I will ask for these gestures towards the neighborhood very good okay that's all I'm asking thank you last comment yep Glenn Kahler 360 Main Street it's a similar vein to Bob's question but responding to Dr Buck's question about dealing with the trail integration issues when the if there's a future phase just keep in mind that once eight lots are sold then you've got to deal with eight owners instead of one owner now so it would be it would be a great gesture if something could be discussed and this is what land trust needs to talk with the owner about is addressing that issue while it's all in one hand to make it simpler to deal with getting some kind of five foot easement or something along the railroad you know right away or something before it gets complicated with eight owners and then it becomes you know it only takes one to screw it up very good thanks I'm going to close the public hearing limit uh discussion board members we've tackled most of the issues and we've had some great public comment this evening any outstanding issues I wrote them down I don't know that I missed any all right well I think we're ready to make it emotion I mean again this is a preliminary hearing there's going to be a final hearing uh applicant is he's listened to all your comments so uh there'll be another opportunity to come and enjoy another planning board meeting so uh but at this point I think we're ready for a motion I mean preliminary I forget procedurally reflection you're doing fine uh you're you're right would you like me to summarize although I may miss something you're taking notes you can pick a crackhead not to make the motion but this list correct no the guard but I have taken notes on might be possible conditions that you would like to attach to a motion to approve the preliminary uh major subdivision plan um and I'm also drawing some from the end of my report which you have and that is that the condition would be that the five foot addition to the right-of-way width from this property would be expanded to a 10 foot wide Edition the length of the thing as well as still maintaining that curve uh that's on the plan um obtaining um written or direct advice about the timing of the construction of a sidewalk um and the uh in front of these eight Lots um the um the need to have all legal documents relating to transfers of land and easements for the drainage for the road right away for the temporary turnaround need to be in proper form reviewed and approved by the town attorney at the time as part of the final plan application um and Mr chairman if I I should have asked for clarification on this from the applicant previously and if I may now and that is that 50-foot right-of-way what's happening with that based on our discussion uh with the seller and the surveyors there the surveyors are going to go back in and reevaluate that to determine whether the change should be adjusted on that but my guess is probably that's probably going to go away but I'm waiting for direct input from the surveyors on their determination of their information thank you and my recommended uh condition would be either documentation of the uh the rights to that right of way or so for this this property uh or it's elimination from the subdivision plan great because your point was again if we don't need it recorded in the registry for we don't want to put further into stone something that may not be accurate but I don't know that very good so that'll be resolved by the next I think those were the things that I had on my list that includes your recommendations the the three you had is that correct yes okay all right now I think we're ready for a motion a move that we approve the preliminary subdivision plan um by Riverside Estates at Union Street tax map 31-2 lot one Zone medium residential medium density residential with four recommendations the first is to add five feet to the right of way so it'll be a total of 10 feet second yeah 50 foot total right of way foot coming from 10 feet total added to it correct to be clear 50 foot total written advice from public works on the sidewalk and uh how that would or would not affect future development um all right-of-way easements tied to this being proper form and delivered to the lawyer is that what you indicated yeah deliver Dodge and we will get lawyers um involved and then uh documentation on the rights to the right of way up to Snuff or eliminate them from the plan completely very good thank you Jen we have a motion do you have a second second further discussion hearing none all those in favor um the two Associates are are Jason and Michael and you've got a full seven very good yeah we have a full house this evening so very good yes just click on the trigger and that was a unanimous vote thank you moving on next item on our agenda old business we do have to sign the approved subdivision uh recording plan for the amendment to Eagle Crest subdivision Merit Drive is approved July 27 2016 only planning board members that were present during that meeting I think the uh everybody but Lisa and Jason were not present very good excuse me a meeting still going on if you could carry that on outside please uh so again we'll sign that afterwards let me just make remind everybody uh and you can adjourn the meeting we go back there and sign it you just have to sign it they're four there are two mylars yeah plus two paper copies you have to sign all four you have to sign it in the exact same order all right so if you sign on the third line on one you gotta sign on the third line on all of them or the uh Richard deeds will not accept them all right they'll assume that one is a forged copy of some certain and we want to do it again so that sounds like a good idea and there's a special pen uh special pin there the mylar will take take a special Sharpie pen very good all right uh so that that'll be after we adjourn next item new business there is none um discussion when is our next meeting next meeting uh there will be a meeting in October we have at least one we have one applicant uh there may be some other things but uh we have one um any applicant on for October the 19th um this is a it would be an application for a an additional use in the village commercial District down our property and Village commercial District that doesn't involve any new construction but the use requires this kind of review so any ordinance uh modifications coming our way I'm meeting with the um Town Council tomorrow on and finishing up some things some things are now moving along I don't know that there'll be anything that will come before the planning board in that regard we are now starting all of you who are involved with the conference of plan we are now uh pretty deep into the background work and we'll have our first public meeting at the end in a week with the Main Street Property Owners on the Main Street overlay District so that is moving along and in time if if the council wants to move ahead with that and you know with the public input um that would be a major Amendment uh to the ordinance that will be coming before you for recommendation but that will be a couple months there won't not be this coming month the Christmas present that'll be great so yeah thank you Evan uh last item adjournment well we adjourned a second very good oh well who got the second did you get that dueling yeah all right so you get it Krista uh comments all those in favor see you next month always foreign