Town of Dayton, ME - July 17, 2006 Regular Planning Board Meeting

ED LEBLANC, SIGNS: Ed LeBlanc asked to appear before the Board, but was not in attendance. He would like to place directional signs at the entrance of Buda Road to advertise corn. He does not own the land on which the signs would be located. Members consulted the Zoning Ordinance for guidance and noted there is a discrepancy as to who has authority to approve signs. Section 5.2.F.2.f., Signs and Billboards, (page 31) states “Signs shall be placed only on the same lot as the use or activity which they are advertising, except that strictly “directional” signs may be permitted to be located ‘off-premises’ by the Appeals Board.” Article 6 Section 6.4.A., Sign Permit Requirements, (page 37) states that “Written application to the Code Enforcement Officer shall be made for the installation of all signs, unless otherwise specified in this Ordinance.” Article 4, Section 4.2. Table of Land Use, (page 17) indicates that signs are “permitted with a conditional use permit when the proposed use conforms with the land-use standards specified in Article 5 of this Ordinance.” Ron Wormwood motioned to table, Dick Hall seconded. All voted in favor. The Board moved to old business.

LINWOOD ACRES: Nancy brought up an issue raised at the Linwood Acres public hearing as to whether she should chair the Board during this discussion, given her relationship to the applicants. Dick stated his opinion that she should continue to chair for the following reasons: she is related to many people in town, she has no economic interest in the subdivision, she lives more than a mile from it, she does not plan to vote, and is the most experienced Board member. Rick Shaw motioned that Nancy continue to chair, Derrick Vezina seconded, all voted in favor.

He noted, regarding the cisterns, there is a pond within 900 feet of subdivision and it seems that it should be an adequate source of water. He referenced a requirement of the Fire Department detailing the number of cisterns based on the number of housing units and noted that he has not found or been provided with any material to substantiate that reference. He felt that this would have to be the town that enacts this, not the Fire Department, but it does not appear in the town standards.

At this point Nancy introduced David Ordway, new attorney for the Town of Dayton. Mr. Hodsdon continued with the next issues; the width of road way and sidewalks. He noted the proposed road meets the definition of a minor street in the subdivision standards, which has a required paved width of 20 feet with three-foot shoulders on each side. He stated, “It appears no subdivision in Dayton …has been required to be paved.” Mr. Hodsdon also noted the applicants were not present when the Board voted to require all standards as printed in the Subdivision Standards from that point on. He felt that there was a problem with starting to apply standards part way through the application procedure. He noted also there had been a vote in an earlier meeting to waive sidewalks, then the Board decided to impose full standards to all subdivisions, starting with this one. He felt there is an issue with requiring this subdivision to be paved, when recent developments have not been required to pave. Mr. Hodsdon noted the applicant is willing to pave the road; the issue is the width. If the applicants are required to have a paved width of 25 feet, they will have more than one tarred acre and will have to undergo a more extensive review process with DEP. As the Board has not required sidewalks in other subdivisions and voted to waive them in this one, there is the suggestion that it is a trade-off for widening the road.

Dick noted that Mr. Hodsdon was misrepresenting the town standards: the standards call for 20-foot roads with sidewalks. He pointed out that whether or not the applicants need a higher level of review from DEP because of increased paved area is not the Board’s concern. The Board’s concern is that the applicants meet the standards. Mr. Hodsdon commented that the Board had “never met them before.” Dick noted that at some point the Board has to start doing things right. Mr. Hodsdon made the comment that generally towns and governments are held to a higher standard of due process regarding changes in standards. Dick noted that the Board wants to uphold the town standards. Nancy noted there would be discussion on the road width at this meeting. Jim Roberts pointed out that the other subdivisions and roads mentioned were in different parts of town and in the future the town will be looking at sidewalks as described in the Comprehensive Plan.

Nancy explained that the village district is in the process of being surveyed. Jim said that the results are not back yet, but it will hopefully be completed this week. He stated in his opinion this subdivision is not all in the village district and the survey should show this. He pointed out the applicants’ plan is still not complete regarding the roadway and cisterns. Dick felt the Board definitely wants cisterns, although it has not fully decided on the road. Nancy reminded members that the previous attorney advised making a decision on zoning so as to not hold up the application process. Jim felt that the Board was not holding them up as there are items still not shown on the plan, and the plan has changed.

Dick noted that the use of cisterns is becoming common in other towns. T.J. Roma, a lieutenant with the Goodwins Mills Fire Department, explained the Mill Pond should not be used as a water source for a couple reasons: because the department consists of volunteers and the first truck out may not have a full crew, time might be wasted by not having enough people to lay hose down for that distance. Also use of the Mill Pond would require shutting down Route 35. Dick pointed out that it would require nearly 1/3 of a mile of hose to reach the pond and that could lead to frozen hoses in the winter. He expressed the Board’s concern that consistent standards be adopted for cisterns in subdivisions. Mr. Hodsdon noted that although the Board is thinking of adopting standards, none have been passed yet so they cannot be applied. Jim said the town has a contract with fire department and if they feel they can’t provide the service, something else will need to be done. Mr. Hodsdon stated he does not agree the Board can apply a law that is not in effect yet.

Mr. Ordway noted there is a range of options in this issue. He read from the Subdivision Regulations, Section 10.4.B.1.c. (page 20) “The subdivider shall construct ponds and dry hydrants to provide for adequate water storage for fire-fighting purposes. An easement shall be granted to the municipality granting access to the dry hydrants where necessary. The Board may waive the requirement for fire ponds only upon submittal of evidence that the soil types in the subdivision will not permit their construction.” He explained the current subdivision regulations require a fire pond, which can be waived only if soils are unsatisfactory. The Regulations do not address cisterns, but do talk about adequate water storage. The Board may have the option of offering a different alternative than constructing a fire pond. Mr. Hodsdon stated he does not disagree with that. Dick noted the Board will insist on fire protection. Mr. Hodsdon replied that the applicants don’t want a standard applied that does not exist, but are open to discussing one water cistern with a central location.

T.J. Roma explained that for a pond to be considered an adequate water supply, it needs either a 25- or 50-year history of no drought. The Fire Department has adopted standards for cisterns. Nancy noted the last subdivision completed with Lyman did not get involved with this. Rod Tetu of the Lyman Board asked if it was the job of the Planning Board is to give reasonable conditions to be placed. Nancy remarked that any rules or conditions have to be able to hold up in court. Rod Tetu gave his opinion that cisterns don't seem unreasonable as ponds have mud and may contain debris that can be sucked up by fire hoses. T.J. noted that ponds have inherent liability also. Dick said that the Board wanted to make sure the requirements would do the job, and he personally felt cisterns might be less expensive than a fire pond. Roger Irving of the Lyman Board pointed out that either choice should dovetail with the Comprehensive Plan. Jim explained the Comprehensive Plan says to continue working with the Fire Department. John Quint, Lyman Board, noted that the Board could waive the pond and require cisterns. Mr. Ordway confirmed that the Board could offer the applicant an alternative that requires adequate water supply.

Derrick pointed out that the Board had stated it wants two cisterns. Mr. Hodsdon replied that it was based on a standard that has not been adopted. The Fire Department standard requires two cisterns for 12 lots, but that means if there were one less lot only one cistern would be requested. T.J. noted that in the standards there is a way to lower the water requirement needed if the developer is willing to put sprinklers in all houses. Roger Irving stated this is a life safety issue, which is non-negotiable in his opinion. Bob Atkins of the Lyman Board remarked that it was brought up at the last Lyman meeting that there are new standards on the horizon having similar requirements. As this is a strong safety issue, it seems it would be advantageous to the developer, making homes more sale-able and possibly lowering insurance premiums. Rick noted both cisterns and sidewalks are safety issues.

Nancy asked Mr. Ordway for guidance in the decision process; he explained that decisions are made as the Board goes through the application process and at the final application review the Board goes through and votes on each criterion separately. Dick noted that the Board has the chance to offer cisterns as an alternative to a fire pond and Mr. Ordway clarified that the ordinance leads to ponds, but if there is emerging technology, the Board can offer that as an alternative. Mr. Hodsdon understood this to mean that by offering alternatives the board cannot come up with a different option. Dick explained that the Board needs to know what the applicants prefer; if unwilling to put in cisterns, they need to have a pond. Mr. Hodsdon said that the applicants are willing to place one 10,000-gallon cistern. Dick noted that the Board wants two 10,000-gallon cisterns. Mr. Hodsdon claimed the Planning Board is delegating permission to make decisions to the Fire Department, which should not take the Board’s place in decision-making. Ron explained the Board feels the need to have more information that the Fire Department can provide.

Nancy asked how large a fire pond would be needed, how many gallons it would hold and if the Board could then figure how many cisterns that would equal. T.J. Roma said he would need to get that information. Lyla Kyriazi asked why one centrally located cistern would not work for the whole subdivision. T.J. explained that the Fire Department feels it needs to have 20,000 gallons available for the subdivision. He reminded people also that this is a volunteer department and that, depending on how many are available to respond to a fire, the first truck responding may not have many people to set up. Mr. Hodsdon pointed out that this was not required at the Polakewich subdivision; Nancy replied that the issue of fire protection was not brought up at all. In response to Roger Irving’s question, T.J. replied that a hose truck carries 1100 feet of house. Roger noted that if a pond were located at the front of the development, more trucks would be needed to lay hose and not necessarily fight the fire. Dick noted that the Board would like either a fire pond or two cisterns, Mr. Hodsdon replied that the applicants would like the town to apply its standards. Derrick asked the length of the road to the hammerhead; Andy Morrell replied that it is just over 1600 feet. Mrs. Kyriazi asked if one centrally located cistern could be placed to service all the houses. T.J. explained that the cisterns would not be used for just this development, so the Fire Department is interested in having it in the best location for the town, as it could be used for other properties as well. Mr. Hodsdon noted the Fire Department standards say two cisterns are adequate for this subdivision and it should not have to meet the needs of other properties. He asked if quantity is more important than location, and if one centrally located 20,000-gallon cistern would be considered. T.J. explained that it was not suitable, because if there is a problem, it is good to have another supply. There is also the difficulty of hoses freezing in the winter. He noted there are other houses in the community and the Fire Department looks to serve community as best they can. Janis Johnson asked why their subdivision had to serve the community. T.J. replied that the subdivision is part of the community.

Dick noted it appears the Board has decided on two cisterns or fire pond, and the criteria of the fire pond has not yet been determined so the Board is unable to vote on it. Nancy expressed concern that the question of the village district has not been answered yet. Mr. Ordway pointed out that Section 2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, Uncertainty of Boundary Location, specifies a procedure of four steps for determining where zones are. Nancy read Section 2.3 aloud and noted that “the Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine the district boundary.” Mr. Ordway clarified that the Planning Board can make a determination. Dick noted that the Board had done so, determining that the proposed subdivision is in the village district. Ron asked for confirmation that the Board had so voted, and Nancy read from the May 1, 2006 minutes indicating the Board’s decision in conjunction with the applicants and residents present at the meeting.

Dick proposed that a 20-foot wide road seemed reasonable to him. He explained that he had been bicycling over many roads in town, some of which were less than 20 feet, and he felt that a subdivision should be OK with a narrower road. He proposed a total of 20 feet of pavement for all subdivision roads, pointing out that there are no sidewalks in Dayton. He felt that it would not jeopardize peoples’ safety, and stated he was not sure it was reasonable to require a wider road. Rick agreed. Ron felt it made sense to have something designed for families and bike riding. He noted this is not a through street, it is only there for those houses. Dick noted that by virtue of its paving activities, the town is implying that roads are safe at a total of 20 feet. Roger Irving noted the school bus wouldn’t be on this road, children would have to walk to Route 35. He explained that Lyman paves 20 feet plus four feet of pedestrian way. Dick remarked he been on many Lyman roads that are less than 20 feet; Roger explained that all the new ones are 24 feet.

Dick noted that, using these criteria, the Board would be asking for a 25-foot road on Bickford Road, which is only 14 feet wide. Jim said he didn’t know if it made sense to set one standard for all developments, as this development is much closer to amenities such as the library than is Bickford Road. He noted that once Route 35 is done there may be sidewalks; there is also traffic from gravel pits to consider. Roger Irving reminded members that they had already decided this issue at the May 15, 2006 meeting. Rod Tetu noted that it is hard to compare roads from the 1940s and 50s to present day. Ron said he would be okay with 20 feet of paving and crushed stone. Dick pointed out that crushed stone is hard to ride on and if the Board was going to require an additional four or five feet for a walkway, it might as well be paved. Derrick noted that stone is more difficult to deal with in terms of road agreements also. Jim Roberts reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan leads toward paved paths. Lyla Kyriazi stated that the applicants would like a 20-foot paved road with no sidewalks.

Mr. Ordway pointed out that the town standards are distinct. Minor streets are 20 feet and paved, sidewalks are five feet. He felt there is no basis to require a 24-foot arterial in a 13-lot subdivision. He explained the Board can offer a 20-foot-wide road and a walking lane, or it can stay with the standards and require 20 feet, paved, with a five-foot sidewalk. He reminded everyone that a waiver is required if the Board wishes to not have a sidewalk, as it would be the exception rather than rule, and the Board would have to cite reasons for the waiver. John Quint cautioned the Board to be careful if waiving as it could set a precedent. Roger Irving noted that it could be hard to enforce. Nancy noted that it is hard to do if there is no zoning to back it up.

Nancy asked if members had other issues. Dick returned to the sidewalk, noting the Board had decided to waive it for the good of town and the intent was to have it with the road. Members reviewed the May 1, 2006 minutes to determine the action taken at that time. Resident Ron Boone corroborated that he was present at the meeting in which the sidewalk requirement was waived and had suggested waiving them, but he felt the minutes were incomplete. Roger pointed out that the Board could rescind the sidewalk vote and require the applicants to put one in. Dick noted it would allow the Board to go forward with the issue. Mr. Hodsdon noted that Jim had stated preferences about the issue. Rick felt the sidewalk should not be crushed stone, as it may encourage people to ride in street. Jim suggested if not a sidewalk, then an extended roadway.

Nancy mentioned the Board had not waived sidewalks before and it had not been brought to their attention. Mr. Hodsdon felt that it was an issue for the applicants that previous subdivisions had not been required to have paved roads or sidewalks. Ron said that the Board had to start doing it properly. Rod Tetu noted the requirement is in the town standards. Valerie Cole noted a recent Zoning Board of Appeals workshop stated that failure to follow proper procedure in the past is no reason to not start doing it correctly.

Ron stated he liked the idea of a gravel sidewalk and he didn’t think plowing would be an issue. Other members felt that it would encourage bike riding in the street. Mr. Hodsdon questioned the presence of bikes on sidewalks, noting the town standards have taken into account things that are done in the road, including bikes. Ron motioned to have five-foot-wide gravel shoulder. Mr. Ordway questioned the maintenance and asked if this would be a private road. Mr. Hodsdon stated that currently it is not planned as a private road. He then stated the applicants were not acquiescing to a gravel shoulder instead of a raised sidewalk; if the town requires a raised sidewalk then they should have it, and the town will have to deal with it if becomes town road.

Jim reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan intends to get away from sidewalks and go to shoulders. Mr. Ordway pointed out that the Board still needs to have a specific waiver. Mr. Hodsdon noted that waiving is not substituting. Roger Irving mentioned that this was giving an alternative; Bob Atkins pointed out the Board had a motion and was waiting for a second and a vote, and in lieu of a sidewalk, could consider a 24-foot paved road. Rod Tetu reminded the Board that it could impose the condition that this always be a private road. Nancy explained the Selectmen have decided that if the road is built to town specs, then they have to allow it to come before the town for a vote as a public road.

Dick Hall, reading from the town standards (page 25b), noted that the sand base on concrete sidewalks is required to be six inches, with four inches of concrete. Jim noted that a granite or bituminous concrete curbing is required too. Nancy pointed out that the Road Commissioner does not want sidewalks. She noted the motion had not been seconded. Rick clarified that if the Board goes by the standards, the sidewalk should be raised concrete with granite curbing. Ron expressed his thought that the Board’s proposal would be beneficial for the developer and the town. Derrick asked if the raised sidewalk standard would be more expensive; Jim agreed that it would.

Derrick felt that the Board should discourage traditional sidewalks. Dick reminded everyone that the developers stated they want to go by codes. Mr. Hodsdon stated that the Board was not doing any favors to the applicants in terms of their DEP concerns. Rick asked if a gravel walkway would make a difference to them, Mr. Hodsdon stated it would not. Jim pointed out that the Planning Board is trying to get this subdivision to meet standards, but the applicants don’t seem to want to go through a complete DEP review.

Derrick asked for confirmation that the Board was proposing a shoulder, with nothing raised. Dick clarified that the Board was seeking a total of 25 feet for the road and sidewalk. Lyla Kyriazi made the point that there are no subdivisions or major roads in Dayton that currently have this. Roger Irving said that the Board has to start somewhere, as it is in the standards. Mr. Hodsdon expressed his opinion that it should start with the town widening its roads, and Jim explained that the town doesn’t have the resources.

Nancy stated that without a second, the motion had failed. Mr. Ordway reminded the Board that the issue was whether to waive the sidewalk. Jim cautioned that while it was okay for Nancy to chair the meeting, she should be careful not to give opinions. Dick said he saw it as moving the meeting along. Roger Irving asked what would happen in the event of a tie, as Nancy was not voting. She explained that, with the alternate, there were five voting members present.

Dick explained that it was not really what he had wanted, and he had no interest in whether or not the applicants had to go before DEP. He felt that based on the current standards, a 20-foot road should be adequately safe and would allow the Board to address issues in a more reasonable way. The Board has said what it wants but needs to address the ordinance. Roger Irving added that he thought the option to add five feet would be advantageous to the developer. Mr. Hodsdon called it extortion. Roger said he thought of it as a compromise. Dick explained the need of the plan to meet standards. Rod Tetu pointed out that the plan does not show sidewalks.

Dick asked if this is the widest road in a town subdivision: Jim Roberts noted that Cooks Brook has a 20-foot road. Dick felt that it is reasonable for this subdivision to have a 20-foot road until such time as changes can be made in the Ordinance. Derrick noted that the Board’s requests were now back to what the code stated: a 20-foot paved road with a five-foot sidewalk. Jim reminded everyone that the Comprehensive Plan discourages raised sidewalks.

John Quint pointed out that the Board had two options at the moment: to go with the subdivision standards, or go with the Comprehensive Plan. Dick noted that the Comprehensive Plan is a suggestion; the Board should go with the ordinance. In previous subdivisions the ordinance has been waived and the town generally prefers that the raised sidewalk be waived. Ron Tetu noted that this is a private road, not a town road. Nancy reminded everyone of the Selectmen’s decision regarding private roads; Rod noted that it still must be put before the town for a vote and there is no guarantee it would be voted in.

Dick pointed out the need for a vote by the Board. Bob Atkins noted that the Board had voted to rescind waiving the sidewalk, so now stood at the point of a 20-foot road with a raised sidewalk. He asked if the Board could vote to waive the raised sidewalk to go with the wider road. Dick noted that it put the Board back where they started. Derrick asked Lyla Kyriazi what the applicants would like: a raised sidewalk or a 25-foot marked road. Mr. Hodsdon said that the applicants had the third option of getting a court involved. Mrs. Kyriazi stated she felt a 20-foot road was in the nature of Dayton as it is now. Dick pointed out that it was not really the point, as the standards and therefore the nature of Dayton would be changing. Mrs. Kyriazi pointed out that it had not happened yet. It was pointed out by several people that other subdivisions had not been bound by this, but it was necessary to start somewhere. Roger Irving noted the Board could table this until it has a chance to hold workshops to adopt new ordinances. Nancy explained that it was difficult to find meeting time to do so. Roger pointed out that the Board could shut down subdivision decisions for a few meetings until it had a chance to take care of housekeeping details. He explained the process that Lyman had gone through in changing regulations. Mr. Hodsdon noted that Dayton has not done this yet, and the town was trying to force the applicants into what it wants. Roger explained that it was giving the applicants an alternative. Mr. Hodsdon felt it was not right to impose a cost on the applicants that the town does not want.

Nancy noted that Mr. Ordway said there are standards that the town has to start with. The Board can vote to waive the raised sidewalk. Dick clarified that the sidewalk would not be raised, but would be attached. Mr. Ordway explained that the ordinance calls for a road and a sidewalk. To modify that the Board would have to vote on a waiver. Dick asked if, as part of the waiver, the five feet could be included as part of the road. Mr. Ordway explained that the Board could offer it, but the choices are to either have a sidewalk or waive it. Dick asked if it was possible to table the matter to give the Board time to address changes; Mr. Ordway noted that the Board had started a substantive review and should move forward.

Nancy noted that in her opinion the Board did not want raised sidewalks and asked if that was correct. All agreed. She asked for a motion to either waive it or accept it. Rick made a motion to waive the requirement for a raised sidewalk if a five-foot extension to the road was acceptable to the applicants. Nancy noted that it was not a choice for the applicants; it was either waived or not. She wondered if the Board would have a leg to stand on if it had to go back to the applicants to add anything. John Quint noted that the Board could add conditions; Nancy noted that a Board can only add conditions that can be backed up by zoning ordinances. In response to questions she and Jim explained that the Comprehensive Plan is not an adopted ordinance, just a direction to go in at this point. Roger Irving noted that in Lyman it would be up to the developer to propose alternatives.

Derrick stated that it still comes back to a safety issue. Lyla Kyriazi asked if there is a safety issue with Cooks Brook. Ron stated that he feels the subdivision needs a sidewalk. Dick suggested that a motion could be made to have it built as proposed in the ordinance. John Quint noted that then the applicants could request a waiver, knowing what the Board would accept. Nancy asked Lyla if the applicants wanted a decision on the sidewalk that night, several people noted that it might as well be decided. Ron gave his opinion that he didn’t think it needs to be raised, but could be flat and five feet wide. Nancy noted that the Board seemed to be in agreement. Ron motioned for a five-foot level and paved sidewalk, connected to the road. Derrick seconded.

Nancy asked for discussion on the issues of hammerheads versus cul-de-sacs. Dick asked for input from the Fire Department, noting that various opinions had been given. T.J. Roma stated that Mike Lord, deputy chief of the Fire Department, had written a recommendation for roads over 2000 feet to have a cul-de-sac without an island. It was pointed out that this road is less than 2000 feet. T.J. explained that roads under 2000 feet had a recommendation of a hammerhead of 70 x 24 feet. Nancy asked the developers if their hammerhead met those specs and was assured that it was. The applicants also assured her they were agreeable to that recommendation.

Nancy asked the applicants if they had any other concerns. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that they would like to move forward on the application and asked what modifications the Board would like to see on the plans. Dick stated that the Board would like to cisterns, but would accept a pond as specified by the town standards. In response to questions, T.J. Roma stated that he had no pond design at that time. Nancy noted the Board could accept the application with the condition that the cistern issue is worked out. Dick felt that the Board would want to go with state recommendations. Lyla Kyriazi asked if there is an existing fire pond in Tara Estates, T.J. confirmed that there is but that was already in existence, with a history of having adequate water. The applicants would be building a new pond and would need to follow state specs to insure that it will hold water.

Mr. Hodsdon brought up the issue of the second test pit, noting that he didn’t see a requirement stated as such in the standards. He pointed out that Mike Polakewich said two were required, although his subdivision had one on each lot, and said that Mike Polakewich’s subdivision was in competition with the applicants. Roger felt that there was no competition, as Mike’s was completed and the applicants’ was not yet started. Rod Tetu pointed out that people were not there to discuss the Polakewich subdivision. Nancy asked for the law on test pits. Jim explained that Lyman and Dayton have different requirements: Lyman requires Mike to be present as he is the Plumbing Inspector, Dayton does not. Roger called Mike on his cell phone to ask for the Dayton requirements but Nancy said she didn’t think it was right to hold the discussion without him being present. Jim clarified that Dayton requires at least one test pit and does not require the Plumbing Inspector to be there. Andy Morrell noted the plans showed acceptable test pits. John Quint read a note from Mike citing Maine State Plumbing Code Section 402-1, having to do with soil conditions. Nancy noted that there is language regarding soil conditions in the Dayton Zoning Ordinance, and expressed again that she would like Mike to be present at the meetings instead of taking hearsay. Dick read from Section 5.1.L (page 23) in the Zoning Ordinance, Soil Suitability for Construction. Nancy pointed out that the section says nothing about test pits. Dick interpreted the passage to mean that if an adequate soil scientist says the soil is okay, then it should be considered so. Andy noted that Al Frick had conducted the test pits and confirmed he is a registered soil scientist in the State of Maine. Nancy pointed out that Jim had said Dayton requires at least one test pit, Lyman requires two. Roger added that Lyman requires the Plumbing Inspector to be present when the test pits are dug, Dayton does not. Nancy asked if the test pits were okay to the town specs in the opinion of the Board members; it was agreed that they were. Nancy clarified that members agreed they were satisfied with one test pit.

Mr. Hodsdon asked if there was anything else identified that the applicants needed to work on. Dick confirmed that Andy Morrell would work on the specs for the fire pond, and that the Board had agreed on a 20-foot road with a five-foot, attached, non-raised sidewalk. Andy confirmed that the Board wanted a three-foot shoulder on the other side of the road. Nancy asked if the applicants knew that they would be responsible for determining Homeowners Rules and Regulations. Mr. Hodsdon explained that the applicants were working on that and understood that it would have to be presented before the final plans. He asked when the next meeting would be held regarding the application; Nancy assured him that the Board would let the applicants know.

Dick noted that there are several subdivisions on the agenda, and asked if applications had to be accepted or if the Board could ask applicants to wait. Mr. Ordway explained that it is “first come, first served,” but the Board could set a procedure to help it deal with many applications. He referenced his recent letter to the Board, outlining acceptance procedures. Dick noted that the Board keeps running into issues that don't get changed, and felt that the Board needs to adopt standards on cisterns, cul-de-sacs, and the possibility of requiring two test pits. Jim pointed out that it should be two pits that pass, in case one fails. That would also give the option of picking the better location. Mr. Ordway explained that the Selectmen should sign off on this.