Good evening.

Welcome to the October 27th Brunswick Planning Board meeting.

I'll introduce everybody who's here currently, Rob Burgess, Vice Chair of the Planning Department, Steve Walker next to Rob, Alison Harris on my near left, Director of Planning and Development, Julie Erdman, and our land use planner Matthew James, and I think Jimmy Dealman may be zooming in, our assistant director of planning, and I expect Laura Hatmaker to be here in the near future.

We have four cases before us tonight.

Elaine and Ken Crow peer replacement and shore stabilization.

We tabled this project on October 13th, and they're coming back to us with some more details.

Case number 25 001 Jones Farms, Jones Farm Estates, the major development review final plan.

Case number 2632, 53 to 69 Main Street Mixed Use Development named the J.

This is a major development review final plan.

And case number 2523, Avalon Woods, uh Woodside Road Residential Subdivision.

We're having a workshop based on the latest information that the developer has given to the staff review committee and to us.

Matt, would you introduce our first project?

We have case number 2624, the Elaine and Ken Crow Pier Replacement and Shoreline Stabilization Project.

The planning board will remove from the table and act upon a major development review, sketch and final plan application submitted by Springtide Marine on behalf of the property owners Elaine and Ken Crow for the replacement of a residential pier and dock and shoreline stabilization project.

The subject property is located at 73 Minute Shore Road, Map MP5 Law 12, and within the Rural Protection One Zone, as well as the Shoreline Protection Overlay, Shoreland Protection Overlay, Stream Protection, Shoreline Protection Overlay, Resource Protection, Flood Protection Overlay, and Rural Protection Stormwater Management Overlay subdistricts.

Thank you, Matt.

I'll make a motion to uh remove the project from table.

Do I have a second?

Second by Steve.

All those in favor?

That's unanimous of the board members present.

All right.

We've already deemed that the project is complete, so we will go with that previous motion.

Brad, do you uh go ahead, Alexis?

Come on up

and

thank you very much for the work that you've done in the last two weeks.

I appreciate it.

And I I think it's been it's a lot more clearer than it was before.

Thanks.

Great.

Thank

you.

Um we we're we're gonna talk about our uh our parts of the project individually.

So in terms of the peer stabilization project, we did do um a supplemental analysis clarifying why we had designed the system as we did.

So um uh and in the analysis, I don't want to review it in detail, but um we I think that we neglected to mention initially that there was like a large rock obstructing um or like uh preventing a shorter pier.

Um as well as some of the reasons behind um wanting to have the dock be easier to service seasonally and um also uh prepared for storms and then also um the the increased access of the gangway slope.

So and I'm prepared to answer any questions that you might have.

All right.

Rob you would like to start.

Uh

uh.

Rob you would like to start uh No, I thought uh the added material was was helpful to understand, particularly you know, the location of that offshore rock, the alternative might have been to try to remove that, which would have done more to disturb the uh coastal immediate environment than uh just extending beyond it.

You know, the uh the slope of the ramp um was understandable in terms of being able

to

not only safely access the float, but also to remove the dock or the the gangway in the event of storms.

So um the um just one question the length of the uh structure that's being replaced compared to this.

Can you comment on how much further extended this is

um so the I believe it's 38 feet is a total extension.

Um so it would be replacing a uh four-foot permanent pier and a 32-foot gangway with a um 38-foot pier and a 40-foot gangway.

Um I'm terrible at doing math in my head, but I believe that that is what the number um came out to.

All right.

Um, I really didn't have any other um questions about it at this point, Bill.

That it seemed um that the issues we were concerned about are largely addressed.

Okay.

Steve

Thank you, Bill.

Um I too would like to thank you for the additional work last time I asked for the clarification that this was actually in significant wildlife habitat.

You did that, and you provided an alternative analysis, which I also requested, which you know I think given the significance of title Wade and Bird waterfowl habitat, we should expect the same from future applicants.

So I thank you for setting the bar.