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 09/22/2008
Town of Buxton Planning Board
        Minutes
                                                       Monday, September 22, 2008

Recorded by Hilda Lynch

Board Members Present:  David Savage, Sr.; Jeremiah Ross, III; Keith Emery; Harry Kavouksorian; James Logan; and David Anderson

Board Members Absent:  Emily Walsh

Others Present:  Shaun Dow, Deborah Cote, Jeanette Dodge, Dana Dodge, Joshua Merry, Kathy & Ken Peasley, Nancy Frazee, Jerice Goulet, Chris Mitchell, Tom Mitchell, Paul Nadeau, David Lauzon, Tanya Therrien, Brian Peasley, Gloria Steiger, Kimberly DuEst, Lana Ryan, Terry White, Tim & Hoa Lauzon, Al Edwards, Walter Pelkey, Katherine Cady
Chairman Harry Kavouksorian called the September 22, 2008, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board to order at 7 p.m.

Public Hearing for Gloria Steiger at 33 Lord Road for a conditional use permit for a kennel in order to house more than nine (9) dogs, in conformance with Article 11:11; Tax Map 11, Lot 18-3.

Keith motioned, seconded by David A, to open the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
        Gloria made a correction on the number of dogs on her application – six should be changed to nine.  She thought it was originally written as “more than six.”  She wants to continue to house the dogs that she has.  Harry clarified that she was coming before the Board to come into compliance with the ordinances.  
        Harry asked if Fred had anything to add and for questions or comments from the Board.  David S asked if she was planning on breeding dogs.  Gloria stated that she hasn’t been doing that for a while.  Jere asked if she was willing to limit the number of dogs on the property, and Gloria stated that she was willing to limit them to the nine that she has.  Jere asked if she were planning to breed or offer dogs for sale.  Gloria stated that she was not.  He confirmed a limit of nine dogs on the property and that she isn’t planning on any commercial sale of dogs or breeding.  David A. asked about a comment from a gentleman regarding the breeding of dogs, which her website says that she does.  She said that she let the website go about two years ago.  She bred four litters, and the puppies from her last litter are about two years old.  
        Harry asked for comments from abutters.  Kathy and Ken Peasley are opposed to this application based on the letter that they’ve submitted, which is based on the previous Planning Board meetings and site walk.  They’ve also submitted a petition from neighbors against the kennel, representing 11 households on Lord Rd.  They don’t want a kennel in their neighborhood.  They believe that a kennel will create a noise nuisance that Kathy stated is currently happening.  She hopes the Planning Board will choose not to override the will of the neighborhood.  She asked about the question relating to breeding, which she stated that Gloria said she was going to breed at the 9/8/08 meeting.  She wants to know how she could keep nine without breeding them.  If the website is not active, it is still coming up on a web search which leads her to believe it is active.  
        Tim Lauzon's referred to Gloria having no garage.  The runs are supposed to have cement, asphalt or a similar material.  This is not conforming according to the ordinance.  Ken is concerned that if she gets approved that she might decide to breed next year.  Keith stated that she would be limited to nine dogs and no breeding.  Jere mentioned that the Planning Board has the right to put conditions on the application.  If she violates this, the Code Enforcement Officer can cite her.  Mr. Lauzon asked about the cement on the ground that was mentioned from the site walk.  Jere mentions that anyone who licenses more than six dogs must have a kennel license as part of the ordinance.  Jere believes she is not offering any services and that it is not a commercial venture.  Harry clarified that these are her personal pets.  Tim asked about the licensing as a kennel, and both Jere and Harry clarified that conditions will be placed on her kennel.  
        Jere mentioned that there is no barking dog ordinance; and if one were to call the police, they could go down and ask them to quiet their dogs only.  The police have no legal authority to do anything about this.  An ordinance has been proposed but has been resoundingly defeated.  Harry agreed.  Jere mentioned that she could have less than six dogs in any zone in the Town, and they could bark 24 hours a day because there is no ordinance to cover this.  Harry asked Fred to talk about the noise disturbance. He asked if it had to be at a certain level and continuous.  Fred said it does.  Jim said that maybe the Selectmen should be contacted.  David A. said it wasn’t overturned, but put off until a later date.  
        Tim says there also is an issue with odors.  He asked where the compost pile is because there is a bad odor.  He asked about the distance to his well.  David S. stated that it was a 300 ft. setback from a well and 250 ft. from a house.  
        David A. doesn’t think the Board has the latitude to say that this is just a “pet deal” rather than a commercial venture.  He would have to vote against it for this reason.  He doesn’t see how this property could be seen as within the ordinance under Article 11.  
        Mrs. Lauzon feels that Gloria has violated the ordinances from the beginning so her application shouldn’t be considered.  Tim says she’s not abiding by the ordinance as it’s written right now.  Jim mentioned that this is an existing situation, and the Board has had other existing situations, which they’ve dealt with.  Kathy says that if they waive the rules in the current ordinances, then they’re setting precedence for others who may want a kennel.  She doesn’t think that things should be waived because she’s going to have these dogs only as pets.  She believes that Gloria has been inconsistent in several instances already.  Jere mentioned that she could pave the area where the run is.  Kathy stated that there are 11 different houses on Lord Road who are against this kennel.  Jere asked about the basis for her not wanting a kennel.  She believes it will lower her property value—the odor, the noise and the rural nature of the neighborhood.  
        Harry stated that people do have a right to use their property.  Jere mentioned that the Board is bound by the ordinances if the applicant meets the conditions.  Jere says it doesn’t matter how he feels personally.  It’s how he sees the applicant meeting the conditions of the ordinance.  Kathy said that she came in to get a copy of the findings of the site walk.  Jere said that there are no findings of the site walk.  She got a three-page copy of something from the Code Enforcement Office.  The Board decided that it must have been the Findings of Fact she’d received.  When the Board felt that a condition had been met, she noted in her letter that it hadn’t been met.  
        Ken Peasley asked about the number of Board members who went on the site walk.  He thinks that the majority are going by what a couple of people saw.  Jim mentioned that the ordinance speaks to new kennels.  When it refers to creating outdoor runs, he believes that Gloria’s runs have existed for years.  He’s inclined to accept it because he sees it as a grandfathered situation.  Jim says that it’s good that the neighbors are here for the process.  He mentions that they assume a building will be made from masonry, but he understands that the dogs are housed in the house.  The Peasley's say that they’re referring to what the ordinance looks like.  
        Keith talked about two of the six members attending the site walk.  He had a conflict so could not make it.  He knows the Lord Rd. and knows what the neighborhood looks like.  Ken asked why they didn’t postpone the site walk.  Jim mentioned that they could postpone this hearing until the next meeting, so they could all attend a site walk.    
        Jere read from the ordinance regarding the definition of “kennel.”  He doesn’t see where the “fee” comes in since no fees are being charged.  Jim mentions that this is where the “or” comes in.  Jim mentions that the house can be made of anything, and he differentiated it from an outdoor kennel built to house the animals.  
        Gloria spoke to say that any neighbors who had a concern could have spoken with her at any time over the past two years.  A neighbor mentioned that they didn’t know she had nine dogs, so Gloria responded that it must not have been a problem then.  Her dogs (Basenji’s) do not bark, she stated, and she has two other dogs that do bark.  She asked Mrs. Peasley at the first Planning Board meeting she attended if they had any concerns.  Mrs. Peasley said she was concerned about the noise.  Gloria said she would buy her a bark collar and that they could call her if there were any more problems.  When the Planning Board came, Gloria says that two dogs were barking that were not her dogs.  She had a call from the Lauzon’s in the past about a dog barking, which was not hers.  Houses all around hers have barking dogs, so she doesn’t see this as a legitimate concern.  She stated that she was not thinking about breeding right now.  She would come back if she decided to breed in the future.  She doesn’t believe there are any odors.  She asked Mr. Lauzon where his well was when she first placed her manure pile, and she measured to make sure it was the correct distance away.  No one has ever spoken to her or to the Animal Control Officer.  She thinks these complaints are somewhat manufactured because they don’t have a perfect relationship with the neighbors.
        Nancy Frazee, a neighbor, spoke about Gloria not making false statements.  At the first meeting, she said she spread the manure all over the back, so if there is a pile, where did she measure from it.  She talked about where she is spreading the manure and the distances.  Gloria stated that she didn’t see her at the last meeting, but Nancy assured her she was there.  Gloria has a manure pile, and there is someone who could come and take it away or they spread it on their backfield, which is nowhere near the well in question.  She’s talking about horse manure.  Jere mentioned that she has 6+ acres in a rural zone, so she could have as many horses as she wishes.  Gloria stated that the dog pile is further from the well than the horse manure.  She’s not blending them together because she’s not sure she could spread dog manure. David S. asked if she’d stated earlier that she was going to mix the two.  Gloria explained where she had the two piles; they’re touching but not blended.  
        David A. said he was not able to make the site walk due to illness, so he asked if they could re-schedule the site walk.  Harry thought it would be a good idea.  Harry asked the Board members.  David said he’s read through the documentation and is hearing different things, which concerns him.  Jim suggested that it could be informal and that they would all go, and Harry thought they should all go together.  
        Gloria asked about what they were talking about regarding the “cement.”  Jim referred to the creation of outdoor runs in the ordinance.  Jim sees her situation as a bit different because of other pre-existing kennels that have come before the Board.  Other Board members agreed.  Jere asked Fred if he had an opinion on this.  Fred feels there is a distinction between animals kept for personal use as opposed to those being bred or cared for by others.  A kennel building is generally separated into separate stalls and has outside runs, which are usually fenced in.  Fred doesn’t see this being done with pets.  Jere asked about the Planning Board being forced to review anyone who has more than six dogs since the situation at J’Aimee Kennels.  Fred says that this is correct.  He says that if there is more than six registered, and then they must come before the Board.  He thinks there should be a differentiation in the ordinance between a business and those kept as pets.  Jere asked Fred if he’s had any complaints about barking dogs, and Fred sees the Animal Control Officer as the person dealing with this.  Jere asked about the limited ability she has because of the lack of a barking dog ordinance.  Harry clarified that there is nothing for her to go and enforce at this time.  Jere asked about the legalities.  Jim mentioned the Animal Control Officer and the letter she wrote that says that the barking dogs were not the Stieger’s.  Jere asked if there was someone who trains nearby, and Gloria says that there is someone who lives two houses down.  Jere and David S. said that there were dogs barking further down the road to the left from this property when they visited.  Jere mentioned that Kathy should definitely call dispatch if dogs are barking incessantly.  
        Joshua Merry is a neighbor on the Simpson Road; he has two Siberian huskies that bark.  He has heard the Peasley’s dog and other neighbors’ dogs barking also.  He doesn’t understand why people are complaining since their dogs are also barking. Jere believes that without an ordinance, the subject is a waste of time.  Jim asked if this was true.  Ken says they’re not against dogs, but he is concerned about the kennel being put in their back yard.  Jim says that the kennel is only her nine dogs, which she has now.  Ken mentions the cleanliness, maintenance, etc.  Ken says that this is a “kennel.”  Jere says that these are dogs for their personal use.  There was a conflict between Ken and Board members about the interpretation of a kennel.  Harry mentions that Ken could work to change the ordinance, but Ken says he doesn’t want to change it.  Harry commented on them coming to complain but not wanting to do anything to make a change.  Ken believes that Board members are twisting it all around.  The Peasley’s don’t appreciate the way things are going.  Ken says that this is what the Board is calling this – a Kennel.  Kathy’s point about the barking is one of 11 points.  She states that she deals with her dog immediately if there’s a problem.  Jim mentioned that their points included the date the house was built.  The Peasley’s only commented on this because of what was stated in the paperwork they received.  They wanted to know if the Board showed up at the right property.  Jere was there on the published date of the site walk, and he didn’t see the Peasley’s come out and talk with them.  Ken said that they would have gone, but Mr. Emery told them that the landowner could have prevented them from attending.  Nancy said that Keith told them that they had to be invited.  Keith didn’t think he’d said that.  Jim thinks that whoever wants to be there can be there if they go back to visit the site.  Ken pointed out several of the discrepancies that were given in the paperwork he received and requested that the Board be more accurate when they go back.  Jere thought they had been, but Ken cited several things, such as, the date the building was built, the concrete kennel, etc.  
        David A. says that he thinks they want a full Board site walk or at least the people who weren’t able to be there.  Harry agreed.  He says that the comments made are appreciated.  He thinks there are two issues needing to be worked out.  This ordinance was developed for commercial operations.  Unfortunately, the Town considers any homeowner with more than six cats or dogs to have a kennel.  He believes there are two issues, which is the struggle.  The bottom line is that they’re here to deal with the ordinances as they’re written.  He believes there are some issues that need to be dealt with as a Town, Board and Selectmen.  They’re bound to adhere to Section 11.  The data that has been provided may not be 100 percent accurate.  He can only draw his own conclusions once he views the property.  
        Harry polled the Board regarding another site walk.  Everyone agreed that the Board should go.
 
  • Keith motioned, seconded by Jim, to hold a second site walk at 33 Lord Rd for the Steiger property on Monday, September 29th, at 6 p.m.  All voted in favor.  
Jere mentioned that anyone was invited to attend the site walk, if not on the property, at least on the road by the property.    
  • Keith motioned, Jim seconded, to continue the public hearing for Gloria Steiger on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.  All voted in favor.  
Public Hearing for Normand Berube Builders, Inc. submitted a plan to amend Whispering Pines Subdivision by splitting lot 13-13 located at 31 Whispering Pines Drive; Tax Map 9, Lot 13-13.
  • Keith motioned, David A. seconded, to open the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
Walter Pelkey spoke for BH2M representing the builder.  They plan to split Lot 13-13 to create Lot 13-14.  There are two additional test pits and septic locations since they were here last.   Harry asked Fred to speak about what he observed.  Fred referred to the line between 13-13 and 13-14.  Lot 13 has a house on it presently for sale; there is a well.  He agrees with Jim Logan that there is a wet area right on the property line.  It could have been there for some time, but the fill brought in might have created it.  He didn’t think it would alter the upland vs. wetland and was significant enough to require review or revision.  He looked at where the septic systems were on 13-14.  He thought that No. 1 was in a clump of trees as well as on No. 2.  It was fairly close to the road.  There is no ditch, but a shoulder – any water would come over that shoulder which would bring water closer to the test pits, which he wasn’t comfortable with.  He called BH2M regarding people from the State coming down.  These people weren’t available until October.  He asked if there were any alternate sites; and there were, so he thought they would be more than adequate to place a septic on that lot.  David A. asked about providing any ditches.  Keith said that he would say “no,” and Fred doesn’t think it was the way the drainage was figured.  Lot 13-14 is more or less the high point, Fred stated.  If you go to the end of the road, the drainage comes from there and drains down between the lots.  The water coming down 13-13, that’s going down by the fire tank easement.  He believes that among the four test pits, one of them would be a workable site.  Harry asked if he was satisfied, and Fred said he was.  Harry asked for any further comments.  Jim asked about a signature on the soil log, which Walter clarified.  Jim and Jere had a discussion about the limiting factor for a passing bed, and Jim stated that 12 is a minimum.  
        Harry asked if there were any abutters.  Chris Mitchell, who is on Lot 13-3, spoke.  Her concern is that 13-14 is the high point.  She is concerned about water going on to her property.  She has enough wetland on her property.  They’ve wanted to build a barn but must place it very close to their house because of the wetland.  Tom Mitchell stated that the guy across the road has dug ditches all around his property so all of the water goes onto their property, which he isn’t sure is legal or not.  They say their lot is like a pond behind theirs and another property.  Keith said that was their biggest concern.  Jere stated that it is an approved subdivision.  They stated that this property has had the ditches put in a year ago.  The water goes right through a 12 in. culvert and doesn’t dry for weeks.  She’s concerned about them building there because she’s concerned the water would be forced back towards her property.  Keith thought the water flows toward the back of 13-14.  Jim doesn’t think the wetland would be worse for them, but would make it worse on the line between the properties.  She asked how changes would affect her lot.  He mentioned 5 ft contours being all that is required.  Jim talked about this. Keith thought the front of the lot was the high point.  He thinks water would wind up on 13-13.  On the property where Berube wants to build now, there is a lot of fill there, Tom stated.  What will he do with this fill and what would Berube have to do?  David S. asked if they had water in their basement, and they said they don’t because they’ve put French drains in and have added drains so they wouldn’t have that problem.  They have about two feet of water in their back yard most of the time.  Harry asked Fred what he thought of how the water would come off this lot.  For lot 13-14, Fred thinks the upper part of it is going to go between 13-12 and 13-14.  On the south side, that’s probably going to go behind the existing house on 13-13 and work its way on the wetland that eventually goes across the Portland Rd.  Jim says it would be going further downstream but doesn’t think it would affect the Mitchell’s lot all that much.  Chris would like them to see what is already there when it rains.  When the Berube’s sold them the land for their house, he told them they weren’t able to divide their property.  Jim says that he didn’t sell them a lot big enough to do it, but he kept the lot large enough to do it.  Fred observed over some time with this lot in particular that it would illustrate the need for buildable land.  One is that there is a before and after.  Before, this basically was wooded, forested wetland.  The Board was ahead because they were already concerned about 12 and 13 so they put restrictions on the cutting of trees.  Trees can suck up to 300 gal. of water a day, Fred stated.  The trees have been taken off of it and the lawns that have been built don’t really soak up a lot of water. This is a partial explanation for the rise in the wetlands—the loss of the trees and weather changes.  Harry asked how they would determine how much water would actually flow there.  
        Mr. Mitchell asked how he could deal with the fellow who dug all of the ditches around his property.  Jim thought they should consult with an attorney, and David A. mentioned that, by State law, water cannot be diverted from one property to another.  Jim mentions that the Town has a culvert to deal with this.  Harry thinks that Jim is correct that this is a civil matter at this point.  
        Jim asked if they could ask Mr. Berube about a final grading on the lawn to make sure the water wouldn’t pitch back.  Jim wanted to know if they wanted to condition the plan by grading.  Jim asked if Fred would be amenable to having a ditch along the lot line to take the water away from these folks’ house.  Keith stated that in five years that the trench would be filled.  Jere thought the people who lived on Portland Rd would be impacted.  David A. believes the wetlands have been clearly delineated.  The contours are so minimal that the water spreads out evenly, Jere thought.  The Mitchell’s said that it does flow to their property.  Jim asked what Mr. Berube plans to do with the fill on the site.  Walter mentions that water he shows on the plan would be down gradient from their property.  There is some agreement by Board members.  Walter doesn’t think the fill will be taken out of Lot 13-14.  
        Keith doesn’t think there is much they can do regarding sending the water in a different direction.  They could encourage the builder to grade it towards the north.  Board members don’t think they could make it a condition.  David A. says that he feels for the Mitchell’s, but they’d be getting into diverting the water somewhere else.  Jere agrees that the applicant is responsible for control of the runoff from their property onto an abutting property.  Whoever buys this lot will be responsible for the runoff.  David A. believes that these become legal issues that the Board should not enter into, in his opinion.  Keith mentions a recent law that has just been passed.  
        Chris mentions putting the burden on a new homeowner – moving in with legal issues.  If the Board doesn’t let them build, then it won’t be an issue.  Chris says she’ll tell everyone who looks at this property about runoff issues.  She questioned the Board putting the burden on a new homeowner rather than Mr. Berube whom she perceives has greater resources.  Jere mentions, “buyer bewares.”  David A. says that their property is clearly delineated as wetland.  The culvert had not been there, Chris stated.  Keith thought that the culvert was replaced with the same size.  Chris thought that it was bigger.  
        Jim mentions having an engineer look at this one lot.  He mentions that the Board was looking at minor or major earlier.  He refers to 13.4.Q.1 regarding storm drains.  He believes this puts it in the realm of an engineer.  Walter thinks it was approved with the original subdivision.  The original plan would have looked at a different set of assumptions, Jim stated.  He thought that if the Board thought this was worthwhile, they could have an engineer look at this.  He thought it could be a mini storm water analysis.  It probably would not change the outcome.  David S. says “no.”  Jere thinks that if water is coming from within the subdivision, then he’s inclined to say “no.”  Keith would say “yes” because of the neighbors and already knowing that this is wet.  Jim thought they might want to look at where a finish grade might be on the property at the same time.  David A. believes that it would just postpone the inevitable, but he does feel for the neighbors.  He would say “no.”  Harry is inclined to agree that it would just postpone the inevitable.  Harry asked if there was anyone else wanting to speak; there were no others.  
  • Keith motioned, Harry seconded, to close the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
Harry read the standard conditions of approval for subdivisions:

1.  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 conditions of the approval. No changes from the conditions of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
2. That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 13.
3. Notify Fire Chief with in 72 hours before the fire tank is installed. (Not applicable)
4. All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.

Additional conditions:
None because conditions from the original subdivision approval will govern this lot.

  • Keith motioned, Harry seconded, to find the applicant in compliance with Article 13.  All voted in favor.
  • Keith motioned, Harry seconded, to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings.  All voted in favor.
Discussion of site walk for Katherine Cady who has submitted an application for a Conditional Use permit to operate an auto repair garage at 145 Parker Farm Road; Tax Map 1, Lot 170.
Katherine reviewed the application for a part-time business to repair vehicles.  Harry mentioned that all Board members except Keith attended the site walk on September 15th.  David S’s only concern was the parking.  They decided they were only going to use one bay, so would only need five parking spaces, which he believes was acceptable.  Jere stated that the applicant agreed to only five vehicles on the site.  Jere mentioned the Clean Harbors letter, which needs to have the Parker Farm Rd address on it.  Jere asked Katherine to have it changed to their address for the pick up.  David A agrees that the operations will be interior and that there weren’t going to be set hours – no weekends or nights.  The direct neighbor seems to have a good relationship with them. They asked if they would limit the hours of operation from 8 to 6.  Jim was fine with the application.
  • Jere motioned, Keith seconded, that they set a public hearing for Katherine Cady for October 14, 2008.  All voted in favor.  
Jeanette Dodge of 534 Parker Farm Road has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow her to open an in home daycare; Tax Map 2, Lot 54D.
        Jeanette plans to open an in-home daycare.  She has plenty of room for additional kids.  Operation hours will not be after 5.  Harry asked what the maximum number of children would be. Jeanette stated that the maximum number of children would be 12, following the State guidelines for licensing.  
        David S. noticed on the map that there is a pond on the site.  Is it fenced off?  Jeanette says that they’ll put one up if the licensing requires it.  They have a stonewall before the pond and the driveway goes up quite a few feet.  The house is up in the back.  He asked about the parking – one space for every two children.  Jeanette stated that they have a long driveway with two separate areas and a two-car garage.  David A. commented on the application being well done.  
  • Jere motioned, Keith seconded, that the Board hold a site walk on Saturday, September 27, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.  All voted in favor.
Jerice Goulet of 40 Whispering Pines has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow her to open an in home daycare; Tax Map 9, Lot 13-11.
        Jerice lives on Whispering Pines Dr.  She lives in the third house on the left.  She plans to convert her basement for a daycare.  Once approved, she would then get in touch with Fred.  The hours would be 7 to 5:30.  She would be licensed for up to 12 children.  She has a curriculum that she would use, as well as breakfast, lunch, and snacks.  Keith commented on it being beneficial that she’s in a subdivision.  Harry asked if there were any comments from the Board, and there were none.
  • Jere motioned, Keith seconded, that the Board hold a site walk for Jerice Goulet on September 27, 2008, at 9:45 a.m.  All voted in favor.  
Deborah Cote has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow two (2) horses at 237 Cemetery Road to bring her in conformance with Article 11.3;  Tax Map 2, Lot 45 (2).
        Deborah wants to keep two horses on her land.  She had horses 14 years ago and wants to get two now.  Jim asked if this was conditional because she is in the village zone.  She has 17 acres, and Deborah thought it had always been rural before.  Keith asked if they’re in a residential zone with more than three acres, why she wouldn’t be able to have the horses.  Jim mentioned that it is in the land use table that she must come before the Board for the village zone.  Deborah asked when it had changed.  Fred stated that if it were greater than three acres in the rural zone, then she wouldn’t have to come before the Board.  Fred made the determination that she is in the village zone.  Deborah asked what the village zone meant, and Jere explained the six zones in Town.  Jim thinks that part of her property is in the rural and part is in the village zone.  Fred clarified by showing a map to the Board.  Keith asked if 8.3.B.2 was forgotten.  She thought it was something about soil testing, and she doesn’t know anything about it.   Fred says that it refers to the soils.
  • Keith motioned, Jim seconded, to hold a site walk on September 27, 2008, for Deborah Cote at 9 a.m.  All voted in favor.
CEO Report:
        No report.  Keith asked what was going on with the pond at Hannaford’s.  Fred says it’s only supposed to hold the water so long.  Jim thinks it is supposed to drain.  Keith thinks there is a dry hydrant in there.  Fred re-looked at the plans.  There’s a 3 ft. difference in elevation.  It’s almost up to the culvert, which will take water off as storm water.  There has to be a base level for the fire hydrant.  There’s a 3 ft. difference between where the water is at that level and where it exits the pond.  Is it equilibrium leveled, David S asked?  Keith and Jere questioned about whether it was a fire pond or not.  David agreed that it was not required as a fire suppression pond, as he looked it up.  Jere said that because they built a storage tank out back, the Board approved this as a condition.  Jim believes that it is supposed to fluctuate and filter.  He doesn’t think it was intended to hold water all of the time.  Keith thinks that the reason the hydrant is in there is for fire protection.  Fred says they could go back through the record to see what the status is.  Jere believes that there was never a hydrant designed for that pond.
 
Approval of Minutes:  September 8, 2008  -  Not available this evening.

Approval of Bills:  None

Communications:
~Tentative meeting with the Town of Gorham for the Blueberry Ridge subdivision application is set for October 20.  It would be in Gorham.  Board members need to know the time, and ask Krystal to send a reminder to the Board members.
~Note from Kelly Weymouth describing an ongoing problem they’re having with the construction folks for the new school.  She’s dealing with the Police Dept. on it.
        ~SMRPC has been awarded a $1 million grant for a revolving loan fund.
        ~Copy of the Maine Townsmen
~Reminder about the freedom of information law – October 15 at 6 p.m. at the York County Courthouse.  David S. has signed up for both sessions.  
~Invitation to attend an onsite audio web conference by the American Planning Assn. for planners, Planning Board members, etc. - October 8 from 4 to 5:30 at SMRPC Conference Room on Bradeen St in Springvale
        ~Information on Cape Elizabeth’s ordinance regarding windmills. 
Other Business:  
        Email from J.T. Lockman regarding scheduling a workshop.  He’s looking for guidance and specifics – should have said shore land mapping update – ask Krystal to contact J.T. – Monday, November 3rd.  Jere said that J.T. also represents other municipalities for their Planning Board’s.  An alternate date of November 17th @ 7 p.m. was decided.  Ask Caroline to come as well.  Caroline said she was interested, according to Jere and Jim.  Ask Krystal to send her a note for the tentative dates of Nov 3 or 17.  This would be a workshop.  Jim mentions inviting the public to attend by posting a notice since the public could attend, especially those owning shore land property.  David A. mentions that all meetings are public unless they’re executive sessions.
        Harry mentions the consideration of property values as far as an ordinance change.  It seems that this is not the intent in the ordinance.  Keith thinks it is impossible to prove.  Jere thinks it is a judgment decision for every Board member.  Jim believes the wording exists that suggests that they aren’t supposed to look at the specific property but the overall value of the neighborhood.  Jim thinks it might be sensible to look at the wording of that.  David S. asks if they’re talking about assessed value or perceived value.  David A talked about the difference between fair market valuation and assessed value, and it should be somewhat defined.  He mentions that there can be several submissions from area realtors that are in opposition.  This becomes a subjective decision by a Board member.  Jere thinks that each member should take this into account and decide how this should go.  Jere thinks there are some sections of 8.2.B. in which the Planning Board may waive certain requirements.  
        David A. thinks that they’ve found first-hand this evening the problems that can boil up when a particular neighborhood has an issue.  He feels strongly in their favor because there are specific guidelines for kennels.  He thinks there should be a differentiation.  The word is so broad, but very specific in ordinances.  He believes that the ordinance is intended to be used for a commercial operation.  David A. believes the Board is being forced to look at the ordinances word for word.  Harry thinks that he’s saying that when there is opposition from neighbors, then they should look at the ordinances more strictly.  David A. says that he’s not.  Jim and Jere think that it’s interpretation.  He thinks the Town uses this rule as having six dogs labeled as a kennel.  Jere says he’s been on the Board for 10 years, and this is the first year they’ve heard so many kennel applications.  Jere asked if Gloria has had the dogs for more than the years the ordinances have been in affect.  Would she be considered grandfathered?  David A. believes they’ve got to do something to address this issue within the Town—the Town’s definition of a kennel vs., the State’s definition for licensing.  Is it a commercial endeavor?  Jere believes this makes the difference.  If it’s not a commercial operation, they need to be able to waive or look at other things, David A. believes.  Jere thinks it should be what Fred says – get a permit from the Animal Control Officer for your own personal animals of six or more.  If there would be any commercial operations, people would need to come before the Planning Board.  David A. believes that the public outcry is very valid.  Keith suggests asking the Town attorney.  Harry mentions animals kept “for any purpose.”  Jim believes it refers to a new kennel in the definition.  David A. thinks it also refers to a commercial operation.  Jim thinks one must pay attention to the definition first.       
  • Keith motioned, seconded by Jim, to adjourn at 9:18 p.m.  All voted in favor.

Approval Date:  __________________

_________________________________                  _______________
    Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman               Signature Date



 
Town of Buxton
  185 Portland Road, Buxton, ME 04093 (207) 929-5191
Mon, Tues, Thur, Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm & Wed: 11:30am - 7:30pm