Skip Navigation
Welcome to the website for the town of Buxton, Maine
This table is used for column layout.

  • About Buxton
  • Town Departments
  • Boards and Committees
  • Buxton News
  • Downloadable Forms
  • Useful Links
  • Subscribe to News
  • Home

Site  This Folder
Advanced Search

Town Seal
Planning Board Minutes 04/28/2008
Town of Buxton Planning Board
        Monday, April 28, 2008

Recorded by Hilda Lynch

Board Members Present:  Harry Kavouksorian, Keith Emery, Jeremiah Ross, III, James Logan, Caroline Segalla, and David Anderson

Board Members Absent:  Barbara Elwell

Others Present:  Dana W. Ryder, Brian Keezer, Max C. Calderwood, Bette Robicheau, Jan & Al Laughlin, Dawna Thomas, Lawrence A. Miller, Jeff Larimer, Frank Crabtree, Gloria Leveillee, Robert Lovell, Robert Chynt (sp?), Don Gnecco, Harry Weymouth, Beth Sturtevant, Benjamin Collings, Navan Leng, Chorah Ita (sp?), Kim Bak, Peng Kem, Chantroa Mear (sp?), Joan & Robert Weeman, Steve Pinette, Bill Hoffman, Carol Weeks, Eanf Beunr (sp?), Brenton Hill, Raymond & Sally Pulsifer, Aleita Burman, Karen Connary, Cindy Hazelton, Suzanne Lukas

The April 28, 2008, Chairman Jeremiah Ross, III, called meeting of the Buxton Planning Board to order at 7 p.m.

Public Hearing:  Raymond Backman of 133 Warren Road has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for an accessory building in the shore land zone and animal husbandry;
Tax Map 1, Lot 194-2-1.

  • Motioned by Harry, seconded by Keith, to open the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
Mr. Backman is planning to build a small barn with two stalls, hay and grain room, and a tack room for which he needs a conditional use permit in the shore land zone to house up to three horses.  The Board members had no issues with Mr. Backman’s proposal.  There were no abutters present with comments.  No members of the public were present to speak about Mr. Backman’s proposal.  Fred had no issues.  
  • Motioned by Caroline, seconded by David, to close the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
Caroline stated that she’d like to see a condition stated as no more than three horses, and she referred to a name change that needed to be made on the Findings of Fact.  Jere read the conditions of approval from the Findings of Fact.  
  • All elements and features of the plan and all representations made by the applicant concerning the development and use of the property which appear in the record of the planning Board proceedings, are condition of approval.  No changes from the condition of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B and 10.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Section 11.
  • All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued
  • No more than three (3) horses allowed.
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to waive the reading of 8.2.B.  All voted in favor.
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, that based on previous discussions the applicant is in compliance with all        provisions of 8.2.B. and Article 10 and Section 11,     if applicable.  All voted in favor.
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to approve the application with conditions        stated and from previous meetings.  All voted in favor.

Public Hearing:  Navan Leng is continuing the application for the conditional use permit for the Wat Samaki Cambodian Buddhist Temple to be located at 128 Back Nippen Road; Tax Map 4,
Lot 4.
        The public hearing continues.  Jere asked how many parking spaces there would be, and Beth stated that there would be 52, which would include the handicapped spaces.  David commented generally that the presentation at the last part of the public hearing was excellent, and he has no specific issues at this time.  The subsequent presentation is well laid out.  Caroline concurred.  She thanked them for providing a great plan, which answered all of their questions.  She asked about the plantings in front to screen the parking; she didn’t see it on the plan.  She suggested a shaded tree and some shrubs at least three feet in height.  She thought there was plenty of buffer on Mr. Miller’s side and on the left side.  She suggested a rain barrel to perhaps catch some of the water coming off the roof.  Jim echoed his colleagues and mentioned the storm water plan, and he found the plans to be acceptable.  Keith has been by again to look at the site and is satisfied.  Harry asked about the reduction of the parking spaces and wondered what the capacity of the meeting area was.  Beth believes that the capacity of the meeting area is about 110 people.  The number of parking spaces is a little bit higher than the minimum required.  He asked if the residence is now being treated separately from the worship area.  Beth stated that the residence wasn’t considered public space now.  
        Jere asked if there were any questions or comments from the abutters.  Janice Laughlin asked if the changes would need to be made before any events could happen there.  Jere stated that all of the improvements would have to be made before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.  Fred said that all of the safety things would have to be in place.  Jere stated that the parking lot and external improvements would need to be made before meetings could be held.  
        Jere asked if the Board had sufficient information to make a decision.
  • Caroline motioned, seconded by Keith, to close the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
Jere read through each section of 8.2.B.:
8.2.B.1.  Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jim, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.2   Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Keith, to approve this item.  5 in favor, David                            opposed.
8.2.B.3  Motioned by David, seconded by Harry, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.4  Motioned by Keith, seconded by David, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.5  Motioned by Harry, seconded by Caroline, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.6  Motioned by Jim, seconded by Harry, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.7  Motioned by Harry, seconded by Jim, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.8  Motioned by Harry, seconded by Keith, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.
8.2.B.9  Motioned by David, seconded by Harry, to approve this item.  All voted in favor.

Jere asked about conditions of approval other than the normal ones.  Jere mentioned including no more than 52 vehicles on the property at once.  That would be Article 10.7 of the Findings of Fact.   8.2.B.2. referred to signage and assistance with parking.  Harry wanted to add that there would be no parking on Back Nippin Rd. since he didn’t see it specifically stated.  
  • Harry motioned, seconded by Keith, to waive the reading of Article 10 (due to the length of it).  All voted in favor.
Jere read the normal conditions of approval.  
  • All elements and features of the plan and all representations made by the applicant concerning the development and use of the property which appear in the record of the planning Board proceedings, are condition of approval.  No changes from the condition of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B and 10.
  • All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.
  • Keith motioned, seconded by Harry, to approve Articles 8.2.B, Article 10 and Section 11, if applicable.  All voted in favor.  Jere commented on Section 11 not being applicable.  
     Additional conditions:
     4.  No parking on Back Nippin Rd.
  • Keith motioned to approve the application based on previous discussions and tonight’s submission.  Jim remade the motion, and seconded by David.  All voted in favor.
Beth asked to have a copy of the Findings of Fact.  Jere stated that it wouldn’t go into effect until it was signed.

Public Hearing:  School Administrative District #6, for the new Buxton Elementary School located off Long Plains Road on Tax Map 3, Lot 88-2.
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to open the public hearing for the MSAD 6 application.  All voted in favor.
Bill Hoffman spoke about his letter of April 18th.  He stated that the status of his review was that they were satisfied with the site plan.  Recently, there was an error in the hydro geologic study.  They’ve concluded that the site could not handle the water from the school system.  They’ve proposed a series of under drains and some other changes, which brings up some questions about easements, permits and timing.  To under drain a wastewater system is prohibited by State plumbing code.  Secondly, to have it drain to an area like a wetland that exists on the site is unusual.   He’d like to hear about these.  Cole’s updated water system shows that disinfection is needed, but that’s not shown on the plan.  He understands there is a revised pretreatment proposal that they’ve heard about but haven’t seen yet.   
        Jere asked Bill to explain in laymen’s terms what under drains are.  Bill explained that when you have a wastewater system and want to add wastewater to the ground, the wastewater can’t be allowed to break onto the banks or onto the playground, which is what they concluded, would happen with the original design. The water would come out of the ground onto the playground, which would be a health hazard.  They’ve decided to draw down the groundwater table.  The under drain would be 18 ft. below the top of the system, the idea being to draw down groundwater and treated sewage, collect that and discharge it towards the property line on the easterly side.  They found they couldn’t get that amount of wastewater into the ground.  The reason disinfection was mentioned was a means of killing bacteria and viruses that could go downstream.  The principal consultant on this was S.W. Cole working for Harriman or the District.  
        When the site was looked at on an aerial map, they wondered whether there was a vernal pool on the site and the question of additional wetlands was raised.  There is a vernal pool noted on the map.  There is a question of whether it is significant, based on number of egg masses of one of the three species, and they still have the Corps and Dept of Interior to deal with.  There was 30,000 ft. under the parking lot which was questioned whether it would be wetland.  They wanted to wait until the middle of the month to see the vegetation.  This ties back to the under drain under the disposal field, which is very close to the vernal pool and the question is whether this will impact the vernal pool drawing the water down to change the water table.  That could put the applicant into a different permit category.  If you fill over 15,000 ft. of wetland, you would need a different permit.  The strictest on this is The Corps, which manages comments from the Dept of Interior and EPA.  Most Federal permits limit activity within 500 ft. of a vernal pool.  These are the two principal issues.  Bill recommends that the public hearing not be closed until questions are answered on these two items.  Deluca-Hoffman has provided some draft conditions.  Bill said he would be surprised if the hearing would be closed today.
        Jere asked Board members if there are specific questions for peer review.  Caroline asked about snow impacting under drains.  Bill says there will be seasonal variations and discharge.  It’s a deep under drain system, actually a width of 8th ft.—a wide trench wrapped in fabric.  Bill showed on the map where the vernal pool and additional wetlands are located.  There is an area where pit and mound-type of wetlands exists.  
        Brian Keezer asked for Steve Pinette come up to talk about the design of their system.  Steve from S.W. Cole Engineering did the hydro geologic study.  He explained how they wanted to keep groundwater a foot or foot and a half below the play area.  He designed a system that would keep the water below 225 ft., the playground elevation being 227 ft.  The under drain on the north and south side are about 55 ft. away from the edge of the system—about 45 ft. on the east side.  There’s a buffer and 20 ft. right of way that they need to stay out of.  With under drains on three sides, they feel they can keep the groundwater mound below that.  It doesn’t really under drain the wastewater because at that point it has been treated.  They’ve recommended installing a disinfection system to knock out any bacteria that don’t die out.  It would take about 80 days for groundwater to migrate to the edge of the system, so some bacteria may survive; therefore, a sanitizing system would disinfect the bacteria and any viruses that would persist.  There’s some reluctance to use a UV system, based on some experience that the school has had, so a coronation system would work.  A de-coronation system would have to be installed in tandem with that prior to discharge.  That’s effectively what they’ve found would work.  DEP has indicated that this could be used without a permit (wastewater discharge).  The Plumbing program states that it is not prohibited by the Code—not addressed by the Code, and he feels it is permissible.  
        Jere asked about the number of discharge areas, and Steve said there would be one.  He pointed out on the map where it would be.  Keith asked about the under drain running and dumping excess water on the neighbor’s property.  Caroline mentioned needing an easement for that.  It’ll discharge 2 – 4 gal. a minute initially and will be on the lower end eventually.  It will freeze in winter; evaporate in the summer.  Some will migrate with the wetland.  Steve doesn’t think it will be substantial.  Jim is aware that the Maine Plumbing Code does have provisions for lowering the water table to build a leach bed.  Jim talked to Russ Martin, the head of the program there, who had never heard of anything like this before.  He felt that some kind of monitoring should be done to see how effective the lowering of the water table occurs in order to approve the proposal.  Jim thought a program where monitoring should be done through a whole wet season.  Russ Martin indicated to Jim that they might withhold permits until such system has been proved.  This is a point of clarification that Jim would like to have.  Steve doesn’t think this is necessary, and he has been dealing with Jim Jacobson.  Steve mentioned the monitoring of the water quality of the discharge for a period.  Jim’s gut feeling is that 80 days of migration to this system to the downhill under drain seems short to him.  Steve stated there’s a pretty steep grade.  Steve suggested that Bill could provide the numbers; and If Jim was to use the numbers in the addendum to calculate the number of days of travel time, he would see.  Steve thinks it is irrelevant with a disinfection system, although Jim has some concern about the disinfection system working at 100 percent all of the time.  Caroline asked Fred about the excess water coming onto the abutter’s property, would they need an easement.  Fred said they would need something if the water were to stay there.  Caroline asked Steve if there is any other project of this size that has this type of system, and Steve said he wasn’t aware of any for a project like this.  He wasn’t aware of any in Maine.  She asked if vegetative swales would help or sitting the structure in another way, and Steve said that there weren’t many options.  David is confused about what he’s hearing from two respected experts.  He’s reluctant to approve a system that might be a first-time experiment, and he would consider this an experiment based on Steve’s comments of a couple of minutes ago.  He’d like to see some evidence of this having worked in the past.  Steve stated that this method of lowering a groundwater table has been approved for decades.  The overall process is proven.  Having the involvement of the leach field makes this project different.  The only concern they have is making sure the nitrate is treated and that there are no bacteria or viruses in the discharge water.  This is the only difference from a conventional ground water lowering system.  Steve added that have been informed by Jim Jacobson and Greg Wood of the Wastewater Discharge Program, that this is acceptable under the Plumbing Code and with DEP without a permit.  He’s been told by the regulatory folks that this won’t be a problem and the first he’s heard tonight that there might be an exception.  David asked about his experience with this type of system – what is the life span of this type of system.  Steve’s opinion is that it would outlast by several years the leach field.  The water is being cleansed.  It shouldn’t clog.  The whole treatment of the system would aid in the longevity of the system compared to a non-treated system.  Bill suggested that the onus be put back on the applicant for a legal land use opinion – first, permissible; and second, any other codes or easements needed.  Bill concurs with Jim – that you can’t set those under drains lower than a point where you could get some wastewater from the disposal field into them.  This is clearly the exact purpose of this.  He suggests a land use agreement and present it to the Board.  Jere asked about a monitoring or a testing program, and Steve said there would be a monitoring program for the system.  At this point, one could test for bacteria.  Jere asked about the outflow pipes, he wondered whether there would be monitoring to be sure the discharge is not being contaminated with effluent.  It will be treated before going to the leach field.  Jim says that a number of septic units “out there” are not performing as the company planned.  The discharge will just outlet to daylight in the wetland, Jim asked?  Jim asked about details for that outfall?  What is the potential for freeze up?  Frank Crabtree said they’re basically putting it into the storm system they’ve already designed, so that storm system is out letting into a rip wrapped area of the wetland.  Jim asked if the storm water plan has been altered to handle the additional flow, and Mr. Crabtree said that it would be negligible and would happen so slowly that it’s a pre- and post-development issue, as well.  
        Jim asked if they were expecting some kind of official response.  Brian has some copies from Jim Jacobsen and Greg Wood, but he didn’t want to submit them too late.  He will be submitting them.  
        Aleita Burman from S. W. Cole, is a Senior Wetland Scientist and a certified soil scientist, spoke next.  She personally did the wetland delineation on the site.  They used the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers (The Corps) manual, which is the standard in the field.  She mentioned the three criteria to consider the area a wetland; if one criterion is not there, the area is not considered a wetland.  They were there in August last year.  They looked at the area and did a soil survey on the site.  In both of those, they noted the pit and mound topography, they saw hydrophilic vegetation in them, but they did not see over 50 percent hydric soils.  They didn’t call them wetlands.  When the reviewer went to the site, it was out of the growing season.  There was still a foot and a half of snow in areas of the woods.  There was a lot of water there.  The soil had not reached biological zero at that time.  They’ve asked to go back with the reviewer in May when there is herbaceous vegetation and some of the false hydrology is gone.  They’re going to look at it again with the reviewers.  
        As far as the vernal pool goes, it’s right off the parking lot.  They looked long and hard at that as it is clearly a man-made or man-altered feature.  It looks like it was a swale and was dammed up by the fields.  They looked at whether hydrology was there long enough to support vernal pool species.  They didn’t see that evidence so decided it was not a vernal pool.  The egg masses were found but were not at a number significant to be regulated.   The Corps can take jurisdiction over vernal pools but U.S. Fish and Wildlife say they are using the DEP’s egg mass numbers to assert jurisdiction.  Lee has a call into the Corps, and they are talking with them about that.   They’ll probably have a site visit with the Corps to determine whether there will need to be further permitting.  It does lose water very fast, which confirms what they saw in August.   The hydro period looks relatively short and the pool may not necessarily support the species lying in there on a long-term basis.
        David agrees that another walkthrough on the wetland would be appropriate.  It was considered a vernal pool when the Jewett School and parking area were developed.  He thought that someone piped that when the area was under construction.  One of the issues was brought up by SAD 6 that there was a vernal pool on the site.  Whether there was a legitimate alteration or not, it has historically been a vernal pool.  Ms. Burman has to look at what is regulated to determine permitting.  Technically, it is a vernal pool because it has some of the egg masses, but is it jurisdictional and does it have the number of species over a longer period to be considered a significant vernal pool?  David clarified that it is a vernal pool that has been altered by the building of SAD 6 facilities already.   Ms. Burman clarified that activities that have taken place could have made it less significant.  Caroline asked about the worst-case scenario, would the setback be 500 ft.  Ms. Burman stated that there would be a 250 ft. permitting zone where you’d have to keep 75 percent unfragmented forest around it or go through permitting.  Where there is a site law application going on at the same time as a Natural Resource Protection application, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will often request a 500 ft. zone.  You need to avoid and minimize first, then you go to mitigation for the loss of the habitat.  If the Army Corps of Engineers takes jurisdiction over the pool, they are using a 750 ft. setback.   Caroline asked about variances for hardships.  That’s where you avoid and minimize, and if you can’t, then you mitigate.  Jim clarified that they might have to create a vernal pool somewhere else.  Ms. Burman mentioned restoring one, preserving a piece of land that has vernal pools on it, or enhancing one.  Caroline asked if it’s considered insignificant, would the eggs be moved.  The area is not being proposed for any new alterations so the vernal pool would not be disturbed.  The question is about the number of ft. of setback that would be needed.  It would just be left alone.  It’s already a compromised pool, she thought, from her survey there.  It’s probably not a good candidate for enhancement or restoration.  They’re looking at preservation right now.  She stated that the creation of a new vernal pool is really difficult.  Caroline asked about the window of possible permitting from DEP.  As it stands right now, Ms. Burman says for a Tier one category, it would probably be in hand with the site law permit.  It would take several months if mitigation were necessary.  
        Jim referenced the pit and mound topography in the area in question.  Are they confident that the mounds are not hydric?  Ms. Burman felt that had two layers.  Jim asked if they were going to look right through the end of May.  She feels that the peer reviewers’ counts are going to be what counts.  Jim asked that in the event that the pool doesn’t meet the standard or does, it officially go to I.F. and W.  They have a 30-day window to go and look to sign off on the pool.  Does this mean another 30-day wait period?  Ms. Burman has not run into this, but her expectation is that with the peer review and Cole’s getting similar egg mass counts, they would probably trust their work.            
        Jere feels that the question is the significance of the vernal pool with DEP.  The Corps could decide whether they’re going to assert jurisdiction.  She talked about the species and the vernal pools.  They’re going to monitor when the pool dries out.  
        Keith mentioned the pipe was put in to alter the vernal pool.  He thinks it was put in to drain this area so it wouldn’t be considered a vernal pool.  He wants 100 percent one way or the other in order for him to approve.  Harry would like to see more research done on it.  Jere mentioned that they’d done a site walk the end of November, and it was pretty dry then.
        Jere asked for any comments or questions from abutters.  Harry Weymouth, of 909 Long Plains Road across from the school entrance, spoke about his concerns.  Back in the beginning, he said the initial efforts of the District to promote this site were a bit propagandists, he felt.  He mentioned having students write letters about why they needed this school.  He has very mixed feelings about this large a project.  He wants to support it, but he’s not in support for a number of reasons.  Having grown up and gone to the schools in this district across the street and knowing some of the teachers he had are still working at the schools makes it difficult.  There was a half-page invite sent home with the children more than a year ago.  He found out by accident and went to the meeting and made his concerns known.  He had only a couple of day’s notice.  He spoke about the historic buildings in the center of Buxton, the rural area, sewage treatment for approx. 1000 people, and bus traffic.  He feels that a couple of those topics have not been resolved.  At that meeting and subsequent meetings, he was told that those things would come out during the planning phase.  It is now a public hearing, and the wastewater is still an unresolved issue.  He mentioned that there is a Comprehensive Plan on file; there was no provision for a zoning change at Buxton Center for anything but rural.  The zoning has been changed, and he doesn’t agree with spot zoning, and that appears to be what occurred, he thinks.  He has not been convinced that there has been good communication between the Town fathers, the Planning Board, Code Enforcement and the District before this project was approved.  Until two weeks ago, he hadn’t heard any plan for the disposition of the Hanson School, which will be a significant item for the Town in the future.  It will be a monumental amount of money to contend with, he believes.  Another problem he has with the scope of this project is that there will be 28 million dollars spent and no less buildings will be used by the District—all the buildings currently being used will still be used with all problems given as reasons for needing a new school, which he doesn’t like.  He sees a lot of additional cost in the future for a lot of buildings.  The public relations with adjoining landowners haven’t been good while surveyors and engineers are crossing properties with little or no notice.  A little consideration would have been good.  The neighbors look out for each other, and things have been stolen off front lawns in broad daylight.  He has had no contact with anyone in the District except for certified letters from the Planning Board.  He’s been in attendance at a number of meetings, although he’s had no calls or knocks on the door.  He was told to participate at the first School Board meeting at the Middle School, and he found out about a couple of key meetings—the DOT meeting in Scarborough—he and his neighbors also attended.  He was asked how it went for him at the end of the meeting.  A particular individual at the meeting felt that things were done for them.  
        Jere asked that Harry limit his comments to the specific application before the Board.  Jere reminded him that they’ve talked about wastewater, the Hanson School, and the DOT left-turn lane.          Harry stated that on March 17th there was a question asked about safety evacuation of the school, and this Board brought it up two weeks later.  The answer was given by Suzanne Lukas that safety evacuations would be entertained prior to occupancy of the building.  He thinks it needs to be considered now.  He thinks that 1,000 students and teachers being moved out of a building are significant.  He realizes it is going to be a sprinkled building; one of the things considered in sprinkled buildings is “protect in place.”  He mentions domestic terrorism, which would require evacuation of an entire school.    He doesn’t see any place to put 1,000 people in a short period of time without considering responding apparatus or personnel.  That problem is compounded by snow.  He doesn’t think it is a valid argument that it only happens once in 20 years.  He’d like to know how snow is going to be removed from the site.  He envisions a request for more funds in the future because of the short time span for which this project has been put together.
        Suzanne Lukas, the Superintendent, spoke in response.  Jere stated that he would also limit her to items regarding this application.  Jere asked her how they were going to evacuate the students and staff.  She said they do this with fire and emergency personnel.  When they have a building in place, they would then go through with emergency personnel to determine which direction they would evacuate people.  Each classroom would have at least two plans for evacuation, sometimes a third.  Other concerns and procedures, they have detailed plans in all schools.  It would be premature to do this planning now, as personnel in the building would be involved as well as emergency personnel from the Town of Buxton.  Jere asked about the snow removal.  Suzanne stated that snow removal is done with front loaders if needed, and they will have access to this site at all times and areas will be kept open at all times.  They will clear areas needed, and any of this will be done in conjunction with the Fire Dept.  Suzanne felt there was some misinformation given tonight that she wanted to clarify.  A building committee met every other Thursday afternoon for three years, and there was ample opportunity for Mr. Weymouth and others to attend.
        Caroline asked if she could address the Hanson School.  Suzanne stated that they know that they can’t use Hanson, as the State won’t let them use that as a school.  They could maintain that building if they had some use for it—not likely as they don’t have a need for it. They will put together a committee to look at the feasibility of turning it over to the Town, a purpose they might have for it, and the cost involved in upgrading it.  They haven’t been focused on the next step with Hanson because it is not the focus right now.  The building will still be in use for the next two and a half years.  They’ll be retiring the Hollis building where the Alt. Ed. System is now being housed.  Jere mentioned that Mr. Hoffman has provided four paragraphs regarding the Hanson School in his review and what specifically the District will be responsible for.  
        Jim wants to comment on Ms. Lukas’ response to Harry.  The timing was addressed, but Mr. Weymouth wondered where outdoors the people would go.  Jim wanted to know if it could be identified on the site where people would go in an evacuation.  Suzanne mentioned two playing fields –one which has been developed and one which hasn’t.  The Jewett School is evacuated in 50 seconds now.  They will have an extra space on the left of the building for evacuations.  She said it was a little early to see where else on the site they might be able to use for evacuations.  Jim asked about it being arrowed in on the plan.  Suzanne has identified them—the two play areas.  He wanted to know if they could be identified on the plan.  She thought it was atypical, but it could be done.  Caroline mentioned that the Buxton Fire Rescue letter they wrote on April 17th could be amended to state that the necessary number of people could be evacuated on that site.  
        Lawrence Miller spoke as a member of the general public.  He lives two or three miles away.  Two things:  the raising of the Hanson School future makes him wonder why it is within the Planning Board’s review scope for this project.  He wants to know why this is in the scope of the Planning Board at this time.  He asked if it was a conditional use application.  Jere stated that it was.  He wanted to know if the use of the Hanson School is part of this review under that application.  Jere stated that the entire project falls under site plan review.  Jim stated that they were looking at adequate parking and parking around the Hanson School as part of it.   Mr. Miller doesn’t feel that the Town could be bound to accept whatever is determined at this time.  Jere’s understanding is that the Town would have a referendum question at some point for the acceptance of the Hanson School, and then the Town would do what they want.  If not, it would go back to MSAD 6.  Mr. Miller raised questions about a detailed proposal concerning what comes with Hanson School.  Jim stated, “Hence our concerns.”   The Board is considering this because of the parking and things that would go with the project.  Mr. Miller stated that it sounded like the superintendent planned to address those in a couple of years, but Mr. Miller thinks that the Planning Board wants to address them now.  Jere stated that the Board has been told that they won’t see anything on the Hanson School for about two and a half years.  Jim said they are considering conditions, but it’s impossible to see into the future about what would happen.  Mr. Miller asked if it would be appropriate to put comments in writing and send them to the Board – relative to the use of Hanson School in the future.  Jere mentioned the Committee that would study the issue.  Jim stated that it would be appropriate to submit comments regarding the Hanson School for the future.  Mr. Miller continues with the second item – the discussion of wastewater issues – the water table level conflicting with the previous plan for disposal.  The proposal was to consider lowering the water table by some device.  He thinks this is a scary thing – not only for an abutter but also, for people living nearby and how it might affect wells.  How could the Board determine whether the water supply would be adversely affected in this area or for the Town?  He thinks it is the Board’s responsibility to see that there are no adverse effects there.  David mentioned that this is what he was getting at.  Keith mentioned that the school might have to build more parking if parking should go with Hanson.  Jere mentioned that they have proposed future parking and that it is all one lot.  In Keith’s opinion, he feels that the Town should be given two acres of land, which is a conforming lot in the Village Zone.  Jere felt that this was something to be considered down the road.  
        Cindy Hazelton is a member of the district school committee.  She would like to comment on how this project fits into the Town.  She would like to encourage people to think about the competency of the architectural firm, and the State has approved this project as it was designed.  She wanted the Board to know that they indeed plan for the safety of the children.  When items of “people safety” are concerned, safety has been uppermost.  She doesn’t think that safety will be treated any differently than the staff and students are now and believes the District is moving into a far better facility than the two they’re currently in as regards to the public safety.  She is comfortable and confident that the wastewater plan is one that is used – has merit and is workable.  Just because we don’t have it right here, right now doesn’t mean we should throw it out.  This project has had many, many hours of review; and she feels it is a good thing for Buxton and the District.  Keith stated that he hasn’t been convinced yet of the child safety.  
        Jere asked how the Board would like to proceed.   Harry feels that the hearing needs to continue.  Caroline wanted to know if Rt. 22 (Long Plains Road) would be constructed according to MDOT standards.  Brian said he believes it is a State road so the State would sign off.  Brian said that he is aware of more information needed on the wastewater, wetland delineation, and where students being evacuated would end up.  Jere asked if they’d want to see something from the State that this is a permitted system.  Jim’s conversation with Jim Jacobsen’s boss was different so he would like some additional clarification.  Bill is set until they receive more info.
  • Keith motioned, Harry seconded, to continue the Public Hearing for SAD 6 on May 12th.  All voted in favor.  
Jere reminded people that we would be in the small conference room on that date.  Bill asked if they would be ready to continue on the 12th.  They may not have what is needed on the wetlands.  Jere thought they would wait to see what comes in.

Discussion of site walk for Raymond & Sally Pulcifer are applying for a conditional use permit to re-locate their Can-Do-Driving school business to the 63 Main Street location (lower level of building); Tax Map 12, Lot 22.
        Raymond Pulcifer spoke about the moving of their school, the Can Do Driving School, to this location from its current place.  Jere, Jim and David attended the site walk on April 24th.  Caroline went today, and Keith has plowed the area.  Jere felt there was ample parking on the site.  Site distances seem adequate.  Mr. Pulcifer showed them where he would place his sign, and Jere thought it was fine as long as it met the sign ordinances.  Jere didn’t see any issues with the site.  David mentioned them having a light put over the door entrance.   David asked Fred if there is a requirement, and Fred thought it was required for safety and egress.  Raymond asked the landlord, and he said he would put a light up.  Keith commented about the setback from the State before he places his sign.  Jim said they discussed it, and he thinks he has a handle on it.  Jim and Caroline mentioned a shielded type of light.  Caroline asked if there was a lot of traffic that would be going out back.  The Pulcifer's weren’t sure.  Fred thought it was just a storage building that Pine Tree uses.  The driving school will only be there from 6 to 9 p.m.  Jere mentioned that the majority of the traffic would be parents dropping off students, so there wouldn’t be a lot of parking there except for the two instructors.  Jere asked if they had sufficient info to set a public hearing.  Caroline wanted to know if the proof was provided that they have a lease agreement, and the Board doesn’t have this yet.  Jim and Jere asked for a copy of the lease without monetary specifics or a letter stating that Can Do will be using the building for the purpose of the driving school.  The Board would need it by next Monday.
  • Keith motioned, David seconded, to set a public hearing for May 12th.  All voted in favor.  
CEO Report:
        Fred will withdraw his ordinance change regarding the telecommunications tower until he gets the wording worked out.

Approval of Minutes:  
April 14th, 2008.  
  • Motioned by David, seconded by Keith, to accept the minutes as written.  All voted in favor.
Approval of Bills:
        A second bill has been received from Deluca-Hoffman for the peer review for $3112. 69.  The fund is short by $763.59.  They’ve asked that the balance be paid by Harriman, and a bill has been sent.  If the Board authorizes David to do so and the fund is built to the balance due, it can be approved.  He will monitor it through the Town Treasurer.  Harry asked if this was the final bill, and David believes there will be another bill after tonight’s meeting.  Keith asked if this was more than the original estimate, and David believes that they’re close to the amount that has been estimated.  David feels that the applicant and the Board are getting their money’s worth, in his opinion.
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jim, that once the treasurer receives enough to pay the bill, the bill is approved to be paid.  All voted in favor.
        E-mail from Bill Plouffe regarding small changes he’d like to see in the ordinances.  The other Board members should receive it in the next packet.  Jere asked about the definition of church, and it was agreed that it was the third one.  Jere will meet with Krystal and have this cleaned up.
        Letter from Consulting re Vernal Pools and some discussion was held about it.
Other Business:
        Jere reminded people of the public hearing on ordinance changes and that copies could be obtained at the Code Enforcement office.   
        Jim mentioned that last Wednesday, the 23rd of April, three of the Board members attended a workshop on Boardsmanship at Saco City Hall.  It was put on by J.T. Lockman and the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission.  It focused on issues like conflicts of interest, the “right to know” law, proper procedures, and the members who attended found it to be very helpful in order to be better Board members.
        Jim mentioned that as a result of the Boardsmanship meeting, they felt the site walks should also be posted on the Town Hall wall as well as public hearings.  Jere thought a courtesy letter could be sent to abutters but not a certified letter.  They learned that if you have three Board members, you have a meeting.  Keith thought that four would be necessary.  Caroline thought that it was okay as long as everyone stays together.  Jere felt that they may need to have unanimous attendance at site walks, rather than individuals going at different times.  He felt that all of the Board seeking information would be receiving the same info.   
        David found that the effective date of the Findings of Fact meant that the application isn’t approved until the Findings of Fact are signed by the Board.  David mentioned that the current system is that Krystal leaves them to be done and that the next day they would be in effect.  Jere asked to have them in their packet for the coming week.  They would receive next week the Findings of Fact approved at this meeting.  David stated that the period of appeal starts at the point of signature rather than at the time of their approval.  Jim said that J.T. Lockman thought that the two-week time period was reasonable.  They could have a special meeting with a 24-hour notice if they needed to be signed more quickly.        
        Jere reminded the Board about the May 12th ordinance hearing and that changes could be obtained at the Code Enforcement Office.
Adjourn time by 10 p.m.  
  • Motioned by Jim, seconded by Keith, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.  All voted in favor.
Caroline was presented with a birthday cake (33 years old), and we all sang “Happy Birthday.”
Due to legal posting procedures the Public Hearing for the Proposed Ordinance Changes will be May 12th, 2008.  Copies of the proposed changes are available in the Code Enforcement office.

Approval Date:  __________________

_________________________________                  _______________
    Jeremiah Ross, III, Chairman                       Signature Date

Town of Buxton
  185 Portland Road, Buxton, ME 04093 (207) 929-5191
Town Office Hours: Mon, Tues, Thur, Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm & Wed: 11:30am - 7:30pm
For departmental office hours please visit that department's home page.