Town of Buxton Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 12, 2008 at 7 pm
Recorded by Hilda Lynch
Board Members Present: Harry Kavouksorian, Keith Emery, Jeremiah Ross, III, James Logan, Caroline Segalla, and David Anderson
Board Member Absent: Barbara Elwell
Others Present: Robert Libby (BH2M), Don Gnecco, Diane Caswell, Jeff Larimer, Gloria Leveillee, Raymond Pulsifer, Lawrence Miller, Stephanie Lord, Andy Lord, Andy Packard, Dwight Anderson, Dan Carr, Jonathon Mapes, Joanne Gagnon, Bill Hoffman, Peter Pinkham, Carol Weeks, Suzanne Lukas, Cindy Hazelton, Dan Riley (Sebago Technics), Sue S???, Paul Jordan, David and Betsey Roy, Steve Pinette, Brian Keezer, Jeff Larimer.
The May 12, 2008, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board was called to order by Chairman Jeremiah Ross, III, at 7 p.m.
Public Hearing for the Proposed Ordinance changes
- Motioned by David, seconded by Keith, to open the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Jere read the changes in the ordinances and mentioned that the changes could be found at the Code Enforcement office.
Article 2: The definition of church was added.
Section 10.A. This is a housekeeping change. The reference to family subdivisions at the end of 10.A. is being made into a new section. 10.1.A.1.B. and 10.1.A.1.C. – the numbers are being changed. 10.1.B.1 through 10.1.B.6 are the numbers of the new family subdivision section. Lawrence Miller asked about any changes being made or was it just housekeeping. Jere responded that these were only housekeeping changes.
Section 10.7.3.E. These are additions relating to lighting of parking areas.
Section 10.7.F. relates to changes in landscaping—the diameters of trees are being changed from 3 inch to 2.5 inch. It was brought to the Board’s attention that 2.5 inch trees were more acceptable. Lawrence asked if the trees couldn’t be any bigger than 2.5 inches. Several Board members commented on the reason for the ordinance change. Lawrence wanted to know if they would be preventing people from putting something larger in for trees. Jere said that this wasn’t their intent. The Board wishes to reduce the requirement but not prohibit larger trees from being put in.
Section 11.14.F. –all additions regard the removal of a manufactured home within 60 days of occupancy of a new home on a lot. Keith thought it was a good idea but thought that people might remove the kitchen and bathroom and keep it as a storage building. Jere thought that they might be able to do this if they were in compliance with the zoning ordinance, and Jim agreed. Jim thought it might be an interpretation for Fred. Fred responded that his intention is that the manufactured housing would be removed as it had probably been replaced because it had met its life expectancy and was not in any condition to be used for most anything. Fred puts this on the actual permits but wants to get it into the ordinance.
Section 12.13.D. – all additions regard the acceptance of roads. The Selectmen want any roads accepted by the Town to go through at least one winter season before acceptance. Keith mentioned the inspection of the roads. Jere stated that the Public Works Director makes a recommendation at Town meeting regarding a road’s readiness to be accepted by the Town.
Jere asked for comments on each of the changes and reviewed where copies of the ordinances could be found if people wanted to look at them more closely.
- Motioned by David, seconded by Harry, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Raymond & Sally Pulsifer 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.
- Motioned by David, seconded by Caroline, to open the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Ray spoke about their wish to move their school from the Aubuchon Hardware location to the old Saco River Telephone building. David thought that after the site walk he was very satisfied. They have proper parking; good access to a road without a significant impact, and the light over the entrance has been changed already. Caroline thanked him for providing the lease agreement and concurred with David. All other Board members were okay with the application.
Martha Robertson sent in an e-mail in approval of the Can-Do application. Andy Packard, another abutter, asked if Can-Do would be the only tenant. Ray thought there might be some others. Fred stated that there was no one else in the building, and he stated that they needed a conditional use permit in response to a question about this from Andy. Andy asked which part of the building would be used, and Ray said that they’d be using the side entrance (first floor) across from the post office. The majority of traffic would be parents dropping off students and picking them up. Mrs. Pulsifer mentioned that one night a month parents would stay for an orientation. Jere asked for any other comments from the public, and there were none.
- Motioned by Jim, seconded by Keith, to close the public hearing for Can-Do Driving School. All voted in favor.
- Jere read the normal conditions of approval for conditional use permits. 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.
4. All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to waive the reading of 8.2.B. All voted in favor.
Keith asked about receiving a copy of the State license. Ray said he’d be receiving one this week. Keith asked about the State limiting the number of students. Ray and Sally said they did. They’d be posting a copy of the license.
- Based on previous discussions, we find the applicant to be in compliance with all applicable provisions of 8.2.B., 10 and 11 if applicable. Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to approve as above. All voted in favor.
- Motioned by Jim to approve the application with all of the conditions previously stated, seconded by Keith. All voted in favor.
Continued Public Hearing: School Administrative District #6, for the new Buxton Elementary School located off Long Plains Road on Tax Map 3, Lot 88-2.
Bill Hoffman talked about the peer review status. He had Dan Carr from Sanborn Head present in case there were questions for him. The sense Deluca-Hoffman has is that there are some issues not fully resolved but believes that once the permits have been obtained, they’ll be satisfied. He has conditions written to address things not fully resolved. He doesn’t see any reason why they couldn’t receive approval based on the conditions he’s prepared. Jere asked if these conditions were in his submittal of April 18th, and Bill said they were but he revised some and gave the Board new copies this evening. Bill talked about changing No. 10 dealing with wastewater performance. There’s a plan to disinfect the wastewater after
going through the under drains. He thought originally to monitor the flows, but realized it was the quality of the discharge that was of concern. No. 11 dealt with monitoring the system breakout, and it is not much different from groundwater observation wells. Sanborn Head recommended two monitoring wells. 19 and 20 mention that the disinfection design is not ready so the District can expedite it and Deluca-Hoffman is satisfied, and the District uses Jim Fitch who can issue a letter of satisfaction to Fred Farnham and the District, this would take care of their concerns.
The last item of concern is the wetland delineation. He understood that the meeting between Cole and Normandeau would take place after this meeting, so recommends that a final wetland delineation plan be filed; and if mitigation were required, they come back to the Planning Board to review the mitigation plan. He mentioned that 13,000 ft. would be impacted now, but once 15,000 ft. were impacted, they would come back. If changes are minor, it wouldn’t be a problem; but if they get into mitigation, they would need to come back. The rest of the conditions are similar to those that had been proposed before. If the Corps and DEP are satisfied, then Deluca-Hoffman would be. Jere asked for questions or comments from the Board.
Jim asked who would do the monitoring of the leach bed. Suzanne Lukas spoke about a certified person on staff that does the testing for the District now. Jim asked about a backwash, and Brian stated that they’re not proposing a backwash. Caroline asked if the tests were to be forwarded to the Town, and Brian stated that they could do that. Brian had some comments on the three-year testing because he said the sampling Deluca-Hoffman is requiring is not required by any State agency or the manufacturer of the system. The manufacturer said doing some sampling in the first couple of months to be sure you’re meeting the design criteria would be good; but beyond that, they didn’t feel it was necessary and the condition was written too
Caroline felt that it was in the school’s best interest to make sure the system is working. Brian thought that once it is up and running, the manufacturer did think that sampling once a year would be adequate. He mentioned the cost of the particular piece of equipment, its housing, etc. to do the testing. They’re recommending testing effluent from the under drains to be sure there’s no chlorine, nitrogen, etc. Jere asked what Brian was recommending. Bill thought this was the most complicated system the District would have. The system is temperature affected, so he thought there would be seasonal variation of flow, and he recommended monthly testing for 36 data points. Bill didn’t think they’d have to do as costly a thing for sampling
as Brian thought. Brian stated that this is a cost that wasn’t built into the project, and he didn’t think it was required. Jim said that the system was probably not what they conceived originally, either. Steve Pinette stated that they were looking at a performance standard—quality of the effluent as it leaves the under drains for concentration of nitrate, bacteria, and chlorine residuals. He thought it should be the District’s concern, not the Town’s. They propose to test the effluent as it leaves the under drains; and if they meet those parameters prior to the discharge to the manhole, they wouldn’t be affected by storms, dry weather—nothing but the ground water. He thought that once the system was working effectively, the need for the amount of testing wouldn’t be needed. Caroline referred to an e-mail from Greg Wood. Jere asked about the under drains in relation to the septic system. Brian stated that it was not an
unapproved use of the under drains. Jim mentioned a letter from the State Health Engineering, which suggests monitoring the quality of the water from the drains, but doesn’t specify how often. Jim asked Bill what he thought about quarterly testing and stated that he understood that this was an unorthodox system. Jere thought that in that case, it should be done as proposed. Jere mentioned the buildup of parcels in close area to the village center and a history of problems with the water, so thinks that these conditions for a three-year period are not excessive for an under drain system that hasn’t been done in the State. Jim asked Steve what his suggestions for monitoring were. Steve suggested Bill monitor in wet and dry weather because they’re monitoring the under drains. He mentioned a conversation with Dan Carr and thought they agreed that they monitor monthly for the first two months, bi-monthly for the next four, monthly for a
period and quarterly to finish out the three years. Jim asked Dan Carr about his proposal. He submitted comments on Cole’s Addendum No. 2. They asked what they were going to test for and more details on the monitoring. Jere asked about any comments on the monitoring of the septic. He thought some monitoring made sense but thought monitoring at the discharge point made more sense. Jere asked for comments from the Board. David asked what the effect of the under drain system would have on the water table in the area. He wanted to know what effect it would have on dug wells in the area. Steve spoke about it in his Addendum 2 – it would be much localized. For six or more months of the year, the water level would be below the under drains anyway. Dan asked about the mapping of dug wells, and he agreed that it shouldn’t affect any wells that are not on the same property. Keith asked about the treated wastewater
going into the manhole. Brian said that from there it goes out to the wetland. Keith wanted to know if it was contaminated, could that go on someone else’s property. He wanted to know if it would increase the wetland on someone else’s property. Brian stated that it could eventually get into the stream on the back of the property but thought it would be such a negligible amount of water that it wouldn’t be of concern. Keith still has a problem with the design of the septic system. He doesn’t think putting under drains under a septic system should be done, and Brian said there would be a separation between them. Jim asked about the amount of water being negligible. Jim said that 3 gals. A minute didn’t seem like a lot at first but would be over time. Lee Burman asked about the amount—3 gal. a minute for 12 months of the year. She commented that the wetland could absorb more in the dry period, and that in wetter times,
wetlands would be wet. Jim questioned whether the amount would be negligible.
Cindy Hazelton asked if there is a Buxton ordinance that stated that they needed to monitor monthly. Jere said that it didn’t say that specifically, but Caroline mentioned that they could make that a condition. 8.2. B.B.4., stated Jere, would apply. Cindy asked if adequate would be monthly. Jere stated that the applicant would have to convince them that they should vote favorably about their compliance with the ordinances. 10.14 – Jim mentioned would apply. David mentioned that this was an approach that hasn’t been proven for this purpose and to some degree is experimental. It also could be innovative and a design that would work very well. They have two sets of well documented experts who are giving different opinions so he has
to weigh this. He’s caught in the middle on this particular issue.
Bill stated that the vernal pool has been looked at for significance; and if there are over 40 egg masses, it would be considered significant. The highest count of egg masses has been counted as 38 so not significant. What is known is that ponding did occur within the past 40 years when he went to junior high in that location. He thought it was modified when the original Jewett ball field was constructed. It does tie into the wetland, as one looks for travel from the vernal pool, which he explained. He doesn’t believe the Corps of Engineers would hold up the process at this time. It seems to be under the threshold of a significant vernal pool. It shouldn’t be an impediment to permitting. Brian said they got agreement from the
Army Corps today, which stated the vernal pool is outside the project area. They aren’t planning to take any further action. Jere asked if they were planning to impact it, and Brian stated they weren’t. Bill and Brian had some disagreement about the vernal pool being impacted. Lee mentioned that the high water line is where you measure a vernal pool, which clarified.
Jere asked for Board comment. David stated that Lee had been very helpful to them. Caroline asked if egg masses had to be in the same area, and Lee said that very often there are communal clusters. She also said that they see them individually as well. Caroline asked if they needed to go back again. Lee said that she didn’t think they needed to look again. David thought they’d hit it at a peak time, and Lee agreed. Jim believes that this issue has been put to rest. He agreed that it doesn’t seem to be a significant vernal pool. Keith thought the pipe should come out of the vernal pool. Harry had no issues with it.
Jere asked for comments from abutters or the general public. Suzanne Lukas asked about condition No. 3. She asked about the transporting of over 840 students to the school and stated that they might want to put all of the students in the gymnasium at one time. They anticipate the student count could be over 800 and the staff would be added to that. She thought if they had to post at all, she wanted to state 840 persons except during regular school hours. Putting students in there during the school day wouldn’t impact parking. Bill thought that they’d been told that the capacity had been redesigned not to exceed 840. Jeff talked about the calculated load of the gymnasium—7 sq. ft. per person would get them well up over 1200 people.
840 refers to the parking as determined by Buxton’s ordinance. By code, Jeff stated that it would be calculated load but not the parking requirements that would determine the number allowable in the gymnasium. David stated that the safety maximum capacity is what should be posted. The Fire Chief or Code Enforcement office might require posting based on the calculated load. Jeff said they originally had a seating capacity of 900 but had reduced the seating down to 840 based on the parking. Jim asked Bill if he had any problems with changing the condition and “adding during non-school hours.” David disagreed that if the capacity of the room is 840, then that’s what it should be. There was some more discussion, and Suzanne suggested having the safety capacity number as well as the number allowed by parking concerns. Caroline asked about having something stated on the Plan. Lawrence referred to Article 10.7.D. and asked
about the parking per classroom. Jeff stated that the numbers are based on an assembly occupancy. Jere referred to the top of p. 10-9. Jeff stated they’d done some re-calculations. Lawrence stated that his copy of the ordinances was out of date. Cindy Hazelton wanted to talk about condition No. 14 as it pertains to the Hanson School. She commented on the unknown of the future use of the building and thought it would require some Planning Board review in the future. She mentioned using the Hanson gym on the same night as an activity at the new school could create parking issues. She thought some of the conditions were a little premature in this discussion. She agreed with the maintenance of the building. She questioned the use of the Hanson School that we don’t know or the elementary school that the Planning Board is reviewing. She asked if this is more an informational thing. Caroline clarified the need for
maintaining the building and thought it made sense to her as it’s on the same parcel. Bill stated that there is one parcel with three schools. He thought that the conditions were put in so the Hanson School could be gotten beyond for this application. Cindy thinks that some of the discussion is predetermining the fate of the Hanson School. Jim thinks it is a win-win situation. Jere believes that the Town has first dibs on what happens to the building, which was decided when the district consolidated. Jere talked about letting schools run down so the State would give the District the money to build a new school. Jere talked about how much greater the new facility would be for the future education of the students in Buxton. Keith is glad to see that this condition is in there because he said that for several years it was allowed to run down. He thinks the school wouldn’t be maintained once the new school is going to be
Brian asked about the fees that might be determined in the future to be a part of the project. Bill thought it would any future conditions that are related to these specific conditions—wastewater disposal and water. Cindy asked about the cost of peer review to date, and the Board thought they’d paid about $4,000. Suzanne stated that they had paid about $4,700. Brian thought it was a conflict of interest to pay fees to Deluca-Hoffman in the future. Bill stated that it would be up to the Planning Board who they might get to review these items. Caroline mentioned putting some earnest money aside until testing is completed over the three-year time frame. Jim mentioned putting a limitation on the time, so it wouldn’t be an open checkbook. Jere mentioned that the application wouldn’t be approved until the Findings of Fact are signed. He thought these could be tweaked a little more if they decided to in the next couple of weeks.
Suzanne spoke about time frame. She wanted the Board to be aware that they have a bid that they feel fortunate to have, and they have only a certain amount of time to accept the bid. They’d like to receive the permitting in time to accept the bid. Jim asked what the period of time was. Jeff said it was 30 days from bid opening, which was April 27th. The Board meets on May 27th. Brian felt they should have DEP approval by May 29th. Keith stated that he didn’t think that the Board took a long time on this project and thought that it had been somewhat rushed.
Jere went over the conditions—the changes relating to the capacity of 840 when parking is of concern. Fred stated that it would be the Fire Marshall’s office that would determine capacity. The monitoring system was mentioned. David thought it was a positive thing. Jere wanted to know if the Board was in favor of Deluca-Hoffman’s condition as written, and there was general agreement. Jere asked if the Board was in favor of No. 14 regarding the Hanson School. The Board was in agreement. David doesn’t see why it has to come in to play during this juncture. Other Board members felt it was important now. Item 16, regarding paying fees would be amended to limiting it to three years regarding the wastewater treatment system. Jere asked if this was agreeable to the District, and it was. Jere asked for additional comments from abutters or the public about the application.
Caroline asked about the receiving of permits being conditions, and Jere stated that this could be Condition No. 21 after Bill’s conditions. Jere thought they would vote to incorporate the Deluca-Hoffman conditions into the usual four that the Planning Board would have. After they got a clean copy, they’d go over them on the 27th and sign them that evening.
- Motioned by Jim, seconded by Caroline, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Jere asked the Board if they had adequate info to go on to conditions of approval. Keith wasn’t happy with some of their answers but thought he was the only one. Jere read the usual conditions of approval. Jere asked if the Board wanted to read 8.2.B. or waive it. They agreed that they would read each item. Jere read each item of 8.2.B.:
8.2.B.1. Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Harry, to approve this item. 6 in favor, David opposed.
8.2.B.2. Motioned by Jim, seconded by David, to approve this item. 6 voted in favor, Keith opposed.
8.2.B.3. Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Harry, to approve this item. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.4. Motioned by Jim in light of previous info, seconded by Harry, to approve this item. 6 voted in favor, Keith opposed.
8.2.B.5. Motioned by Harry, seconded by Caroline, to approve this item. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.6. Motioned by Keith, seconded by David, to approve this item. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.7. Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Jim, to approve this item. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.8. Motioned by David, seconded by Harry, to approve this item. 6 voted in favor, Keith opposed.
8.2.B.9. Motioned by Jim, seconded by Harry, to approve this item. All voted in favor.
Jere asked it the Board wanted to go through Article 10 and 11.
- Motioned by Jim that based on previous discussions and deliberations the above Articles be waived, seconded by Harry. David voted on it overall even though he had specifics that he didn’t agree with. All voted in favor.
Keith asked about 8.2.A.1., but it was agreed that this concerned the shore land zone. He was concerned about the health and safety because of the access road. He couldn’t support the project if the access road wasn’t moved; and since it wasn’t moved, he thought that this was a health and safety issue for children. Jere thought he could address this in final approval.
Jere continued with the reading of the normal conditions. Jere added Bill Hoffman’s letter dated May 12, 2008, in which he stated conditions of approval—1 through 20 conditions with modifications of Condition 3 and Condition 16. Jere asked if there were any additional conditions. Seeing none, he stated that they found the application to be in compliance with 8.2.B. and all applicable provisions of Articles 10 and 11.
- Motioned by Jim, seconded by Harry, to approve the above. All voted in favor.
- Motion to approve this application with conditions stated and from previous meetings, which would encompass what, was talked about tonight. Motioned by Harry, seconded by David, to approve. 6 voted in favor, Keith opposed.
Jere stated that the next meeting would be on May 27, 2008, at 7 p.m. (moved to Tuesday because of Memorial Day) in the big conference room. Brian asked if the Findings of Fact would be completed then. Jere thought they could have a special meeting to sign the Findings of Fact if it were needed. David thought they shouldn’t put one applicant above anyone else. Suzanne asked if they anticipated having them finished on May 27th. Jere assured them that he was 96 percent sure they would be completed.
- Motioned by Jim, seconded by Caroline, to adjourn for five minutes. All voted in favor.
Jere called the meeting back to order.
Daniel & Roberta Aceto have submitted an application for a warehouse & outside storage facility located at the intersection of Narragansett Trail and Atkinson Road; Tax Map 8, 20A-35.
Robert Libby from H2BM Engineers spoke for the Aceto’s for their conditional use permit—warehouse and outdoor storage. The lot is a little over five acres in the business/commercial zone. They’re proposing a 60 x 40 ft. building with a 60 x 90 ft. gravel area and a 24 ft. paved entrance into the site off Rt. 202. They have pending a DOT permit, which was submitted three weeks ago. They plan to remove 3 to 9 ft. from the hill on the site and stockpile it on the site. Drainage from the site will flow from the parking lot to a ditch with a 15” culvert eventually to the wetlands down back. The entrance is at the high point of the road. The purpose of their business is a small construction outfit. Jere asked if they’d applied
for a DOT permit, and the Planning Board members had received it. The site will be served by overhead electric on the northern side of the road to a proposed pole and then underground to the building. They have two passing test pits for a septic, which will be located to the rear of the building. There will be a drilled well probably on the easterly side of the parking lot to service the building. Jere asked if the proposed use was to store Mr. Aceto’s vehicles and to work on them and store some material. Jere asked for questions and comments from the Board. Harry received a call from a resident asking if they’d gotten a DOT permit, and Harry told them that they had. The caller said that a previous owner had been denied a permit to put a driveway there, but Harry had no knowledge of it. Keith thought that the caller thought this was part of the subdivision out back, and this is why the entrance permit had been
denied. Jim called attention to 10.7.B.5., which refers to parking areas needing to be at the side or rear of the building. Jim pointed out that this ordinance wouldn’t strictly be met if there were some parking in front. Keith stated that Dearborn’s was the same way. Jim asked if they’d have a problem taking a small amount of parking away from the front of the building, and Bob Libby thought that this was where their dumpster would be located. Jim thought the Board was committed since the ordinance stated,” shall.” Caroline said she thought a dumpster couldn’t be placed in the front, but could it be screened if it is located there. She referred to people driving fast on this street. She asked about a “Trucks Entering” sign. It was mentioned that a sign might be in DOT property so they aren’t sure if it will be allowed. She asked where snow would be stored, and Bob thought it would just be plowed off to the sides.
Caroline asked if salt would be used, and Mr. Aceto said that he probably would use sand. Jere asked if they would be hauling any snow off site, to which he responded that he wouldn’t. Caroline asked about the diesel coating on trucks and would any of this come off on site. Mr. Aceto said the State wouldn’t allow them to use diesel, but they’re using another process now. An employee talked with them about using another solution, which they’ve found, has been working pretty well. Caroline asked about the future expansion of the building, and Jim clarified that there was 0 setback unless there was a wetland. Jim thought they could infer from the wetland specialist since it was stated that there were no wetlands of special significance. Jere asked if they could get clarification on what was observed there. The specific question was whether there were wetlands of significance. Caroline asked how many bays there would be, and
Mr. Aceto said he would like to have three. She quoted from additional requirements, which talked about a building of more than 5000 sq ft., and Jim clarified that this pertained to larger buildings, which would be required to have at least one bay. Caroline thought she would wait until going out to the site to determine whether there would be a need for buffer. Jim asked Fred about the cutting down of the knoll, and he wanted to know if there was any conflict in the ordinance about that kind of movement on a job site. Fred said there wasn’t. Jim also asked about the headwaters of the Little River directly across from the site. He realized that this was further away than he thought. Jere wondered if they were ready for a site walk. Bob thought that he could have the area staked out and ready for them.
- Motioned by Jim, seconded by David, to hold a site walk for Roberta and Dan Aceto, Tax Map 8, 20A-35, on Monday, May 19, 2008, at 6 p.m. All voted in favor.
H. A. Mapes have submitted an application to redevelop the existing JD Variety at 222 Narragansett Trail to a gas station/convenience store that includes a drive-through donut franchise and a take-out fast food franchise; Tax Map 10, Lot 81B & 81A.
Dan Riley, an Engineer with Sebago Technics, spoke on behalf of H.A. Mapes regarding the convenience store/gas station and drive-through donut shop they’re planning where J.D. Variety currently is. Jonathan Mapes and Joanne Gagnon are present with him for the conditional use permit. They’re looking at 450 sq ft. first floor for the convenience store with a drive-thru donut and walkup fast food franchise. There will be four pump islands on the site and diesel fueling islands on the rear of the site. The applicants started the process last summer with a traffic analysis and looked at the conditions along Rt. 202 if any improvements would be required. They received the traffic permit last fall and decide to start the design process this
spring. The ground floor would be about 4700 square feet; about 990 would be the donut franchise. The building will have a partial basement for storage and mechanical systems. The site has been laid out primarily with the traffic movement in mind. The new building will be about 40 ft. behind the current building. The design has a single one-way entrance and two lanes exiting. DOT has recommended striping in front of the store and a similar striping on the other side of Rt. 202/112 intersection—providing left turn lanes. Provisions are being made to allow tractor-trailers to make the turn from Rt. 112 into the site. They’ve tried to provide a traffic flow to allow people to come in for the different uses of the site. They’re providing some parking for tractor-trailers whose drivers may want to come into the store. Dan explained the traffic flow. There’s a 7-vehicle queue for the drive-up window. They have 33
vehicle spaces striped on the side of the site and 3 for tractor-trailers. The site is served by an existing well, and there will be a new septic system included in the application. The overhead power comes in from a pole at the corner to a utility pole with a new pad-mounted transformer to serve the site underground. They’ve provided a propane location at the rear of the building for heat and a dumpster for trash disposal. The project will require a DEP storm water permit, and they will create 1-¼ acres of new impervious area on land that is currently vegetative. The treatment program they have a design for is an under drain soil filter detention basin which will treat about 9/10 of an acre which will drain through some catch basins. The remainder of the site will continue to drain as it currently does down to Rt. 202. They’re proposing to eliminate about ½ acre of existing impervious area on the site, driven by two requirements. One
is the DEP requirement where the paved area around the current Buxton Computers building would be revegetated and turned into grass. They’d be removing some curbing to define the entrances and turning lanes and a stamped pavement as a visual protection for people waiting to turn into the site. They’ll be closing an existing curb-cut entrance onto 112 and closing a good portion of the extended curb cut along 202. The service islands will be served by existing underground tanks, which continue to be used to provide the gasoline for the fueling islands, and there will be a new storage for the diesel fuel. They’re designing for an underground tank and have an additional location for an aboveground tank if required.
Jere asked for comments from the Board. David asked about hours of operation. Would they be open 24 hours? Jonathan said that no way would the market demand this kind of hours. David also asked about overnight parking of trucks that would be sitting there idling. Jonathan stated they would have signs and that they’re not trying to be a truck stop but just trying to get some of the diesel fuel market that’s going by.
Caroline asked about sidewalks to the park across the street. She doesn’t see any pedestrian circulation—just for vehicular traffic. They haven’t considered any sidewalks off site but certainly along the entrance to their site. They have put some thought into the grading for pedestrians coming from the soccer field. They’ve allowed some parking for people to go down onto the soccer field and want to continue to have some of that. They didn’t propose any sidewalks along 202 because there weren’t any now to connect to. Caroline mentioned the historic character of the village and wanted the design to be in keeping with this. Dan showed the concept prepared by the architect, which he thought the design reflected more of the local
character. Caroline said she didn’t see any outside seating and thought that plans were designed more for cars than for people. Where the Buxton Computer was located, she wanted to know if the power would continue to be over that area or if there would be some consideration of putting it underground. Jonathan stated that it was a discussion they’d have to have with CMP. She thought a letter asking if it were possible would add to their application, and Dan stated that he thought they would have to have a pole some distance off Rt. 202. Caroline asked about vehicle storage for Dunkin’ Donuts, which she thought had to be 8 to 12 with 8 behind the order window. Dan said that having worked with several franchises, they usually want 7 to 9, and this building will be much larger than most. She asked if a door in the back would be for deliveries, and Dan stated that it was both a fire egress for the convenience store and a door for deliveries. He thought that typically deliveries
come in the front door, but they wanted to provide a pathway for fire purposes. He explained this area of the site more thoroughly. She asked about traffic flow from the driveway and whether they would have to go all the way around again or could they get into the island more easily. He thought that was a possibility and they having 26 ft., which is more than adequate for two-way access there. They have signs proposed to let people know this is a one-way entering. He thought that when fueling occurs, people have a tendency to walk in from the islands. David mentioned angle parking in the front to keep the counterclockwise circulation. One of the issues with angle parking is narrowing the drive isles so people can’t turn completely around and drive the other way. Caroline asked Fred about the parking only on the side or the rear as in the ordinance. She asked which would be considered the principal building. Fred stated
that people park where the access is, so they ought to be looking at possibly changing the ordinance since there are always issues.
Jim noticed that the designer in the wastewater calculations provided for the deli portion of the store but his calculations specified no seats, and he’s looking at 12 seats for Dunkin’ Donuts. The plumbing code does indicate service stations or wastewater disposal for the gas station. Jim asked about a food preparation business and no breeze trap. Jim said it is on the design. Jim noticed on the septic tank detail that they’ve got a 2000 gal tank on the bottom and a 1500 gal. in the picture. No. 3 may need to be spell checked. Is this going to be a public water supply? 25 uses or more per day would put it in this category. He noticed some testing results so may need a different standard as a public water supply. It appears
to meet setback requirements. He mentioned their testing data, which mentions 7 but is actually exhibit 6 is where it appears. He thought these conflicts were important.
Jere mentioned their accommodation of the soccer players and wondered if they were still going to consider this. Jonathan said he planned to do this. Jere wondered if this was going to have an affect on the storm water filter basin bed that’s supposed to go in that area. Dan said there would be parking above it. It’s a fairly shallow basin, which is built into the slope. It is 2.5 ft. deep. It’ll usually be dry and possibly provide a place for people to watch the games. They’re going to make some changes in the septic and want to get some additional test pits done once the layout is approved. One of the things they’ll need to determine is whether the septic will have concrete chambers if there’s going to be parking back there. There’s certainly room, Dan said. Jere mentioned the curbing, and Dan explained that there wouldn’t be curbing in that area. Jere thought the traffic flow was good.
Keith referred to the first page, on the bottom towards the soccer field. He wondered whether they were going to build a retaining wall to hold the bank in. He wanted to know how much runoff there would be onto the soccer field. Dan explained how it is currently designed. Keith is concerned about where it runs down onto the front side of the soccer field. Their intent is to pick up the existing drainage and providing a pipe outlet, directing it into the roadside ditch along 202. They’re going to reduce the runoff because of the grading and changes. The legislature enacted a law, which prevents putting undue water on someone else’s property, Keith stated. If the lane striping doesn’t fit in the current pavement, they may have to
widen the pavement. Keith asked about the monitoring of the fuel tanks. (Much of the conversation here was covered by some kind of feedback on the tape) Dan did mention the requirement of double walled tanks with some kind of alarm. There’s currently a 10 and 12,000 gal. Tank which exists, and there will be 20,000 gals. of new fuel storage for diesel and split for some other kind of fuel. Jere asked about hours of operation, and those haven’t been determined. Jere agrees that they can’t prevent people from parking in their parking lot unless they involve the police.
Fred mentions the two residences alongside the property; and if one looks at where people are going to be parking, he believes that headlights will be pointed towards the residences. He mentioned that some kind of buffering would need to be considered. Fred mentioned that the truckers have parked there in the past and have allowed their engines to idle, which creates noise and burns fuel in the area. Fred doesn’t think that trees make very good buffers in this situation. Fred mentioned, though, that when the applicant first approached him, they talked about the historic buildings. He asked if they would, on their own volition, consider this; and they have.
Caroline asked if a lighting plan could be provided. She also asked about the propane tank in the setback, which was discussed.
Jere asked if the Board wanted to hear from abutters. Keith and Jim mentioned having them submit things in writing. He then asked the applicant how they felt, and they were interested in hearing what people had to say.
David Roy mentioned the idling trucks and lights going into the neighbor’s homes. Jere asked if there was a fence now, and the Roy’s said there were trees. Jim asked if they would be amenable to posting the parking lot and then it becoming a police enforcement issue. The applicant stated that they have something like that now. Jere stated that truckers could be asked to leave, but there is nothing currently in the ordinance about this.
Betsy Roy, an abutter, spoke about the lighting. She asked if they could ask all of their questions this evening. Jere thought they could. Jim mentioned that they could still put things in writing. Betsy said that she’d talked with a sound proofer, and they felt it was significant to have something (a wall) higher than the exhaust could go. The hours of operation were of concern to her. She wondered if they might extend the hours if business warranted it. Mr. Mapes said they have stores in more populated areas where the business doesn’t warrant 24 hours. Jere stated that they would have to come back before the Board if they were to decide to extend hours of operation for further approval. Betsy plans to be at the next
meeting. Jere asked if she had a copy of the application and informed her that she could obtain a copy for a small fee. She felt that she was put on the spot because she wasn’t prepared for speaking this evening. She wondered if they’d be able to read what she had to say prior to the next meeting. Jere stated that she could go on the site walk if she wished if okay with Mr. Mapes, and he agreed she could. Jim mentioned that she should put things in writing so that they would have time to read and go over her comments before the next meeting when they would talk about them together. He mentioned that the Board would receive her written comments and that they could discuss them at the next meeting. Keith mentioned that Jonathan would also get a copy of any comments.
Caroline asked if the lights could be turned off an hour after closing, and Jonathan stated that this was kind of normal. She asked about trash pickup being in the morning as a courtesy to the abutters. Dan stated that they didn’t screen the Pinkham lot because it’s an empty lot at the moment. Caroline stated that the ordinance says there should be buffering on this side as well.
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jim, to hold a site walk on Monday, May 19, 2008, at approximately 6:45 p.m. All voted in favor. Jere asked for some markings and stakes to see where everything is going to go.
Dan explained the striping and changes that would be made to the intersection in front of the project on Route 202 using their display. Some discussion was held about it.
Jere asked if the Board was ready to approve the Findings of Fact for the Watsamaki Temple, and there was general agreement that they were ready.
- Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Jim, to approve the Findings of Fact for the Watsamaki Temple. All voted in favor.
CEO Report: none
Approval of Minutes:
April 28th, 2008
Approval of Bills
None at this time.
Jere mentioned that the meeting has been changed to Tuesday, May 27, 2008, because of Memorial Day on the 26th. David reminded people that the voting booths would be around at the meeting on the 9th of June and that they would need to meet in the smaller room again.
- Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Keith, to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. All voted in favor.
Approval Date: __________________
Jeremiah Ross, III, Chairman Signature Date