TOWN OF BUXTON PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7 p.m.
Recorded by Hilda Lynch
Board Members Present: David Savage, Sr.; Jeremiah Ross, III; Keith Emery; Harry Kavouksorian; Emily Walsh; and David Anderson
Board Members Absent: James Logan
Others Present: Rita A. Adams, Marjorie Childs, Nicole Adams, Tyler Adams, Deborah Cote, Jerice Goulet, Michael D. Goulet, Hoa M. Lauzon, Tim Lauzon, Jeanette Dodge, Dana Dodge, Barbara Pretorias, Al Edwards, Lana Ryan, Kathy Peasley, Ken Peasley, Nancy Frazee, Scott Doula (sp?), Gloria Steiger, Kimberly DuEset, Mrs. R. Merry, Shawn Dow, David Lauzon, Brian Peasley, Jean Harmon, David Harmon, Paul Nadeau, Ann Ewing, Scott Winchester, Theo Fellows, Bill Fellows, Katherine Cady, Bub Merchent, Bob Costigan, Kim Cawood, Jim Cawood
Chairman Harry Kavouksorian called the October 14, 2008, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m.
Public Hearing continued for Gloria Steiger at 33 Lord Road for a Conditional Use Permit for a kennel in order to house no more than nine (9) dogs, in conformance with Article 11:11; Tax Map 11, Lot 18-3.
Harry stated that they were going to go into executive session to consult with the town’s attorney.
- Motioned by Jere, seconded by Keith, to go into executive session to discuss this application with the Town Attorney Bill Plouffe. All voted in favor.
The Board went into executive session at 7:04 p.m. and returned at 7:36 p.m.
- Motioned by Jere, seconded by Keith, to come out of executive session and continue the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Harry spoke about the site walk for Gloria Steiger on September 29, 2008. The entire Board attended the site walk. Harry asked for questions or comments from Board members. David S mentioned that all feces were supposed to be composted. He thought there might have been a misunderstanding about this. Gloria decided to either throw them in the garbage or find someone to take it. Gloria has bags that they are putting out for the garbage now. David asked about the proposal of a sign, and Gloria said that she will not be selling so does not plan to have a sign. He asked about any dogs that she might have in a litter. She stated that she wouldn’t have a litter until she has fewer dogs. She would come before the
Board for approval if this were to happen. He thought there was a mistake about her having an existing garage, and he didn’t think she did. Gloria stated that she used a template and forgot to fix that part of it which stated that she had a garage.
David A said that she should speak with the transfer station manager because, by law, animal waste is not allowed to be put in the trash. Harry said that if feces is collected, it must be emptied every four days.
Emily stated that she’d missed the meetings prior to this one. She said that there was some question about how well informed she is, but she felt that she is informed enough to vote on this application. She viewed the DVD’s of the prior meetings and attended the latest site walk.
Gloria wanted to clarify some things on the public record that were not true. One thing that was said was that they had a moving van come to their house to remove garbage and animals. She said this is not true; they did have a moving van come to their house that brought furniture. She did take dogs to the vet before one of the site walks. She did bring a horse to their home. She thought these things might have been perceived as moving animals.
Gloria wanted to talk about her breeding program. She thinks that some neighbors think that breeding dogs is always a terrible thing. Her dogs were bred for health, temperament and confirmation. She perceives herself as doing a good job. Her dogs have won National awards, and one of her dogs has been a champion for two years. She thinks it matters what kind of breeding she was doing. She hasn’t made money but it has cost her money. Her puppies were always carefully matched for the homes where they were going. She isn’t breeding now because it is a huge undertaking to do it well. She wouldn’t just churn out dogs because that is something she’s never done.
Gloria checked to see about the website that was stated that she had. She saw that her website has lapsed in February, 2006. She has a blog which doesn’t say anything about selling or breeding dogs. She’s thought a lot about this as an ordinance and as a neighborhood issue. She wants people to talk with her if they have concerns. She does want to address the concerns of her neighbors. She wants to fix the things that the neighbors are concerned about to make them happy. She doesn’t know if everyone can see that she’s trying. She said that some neighbors are worried about the word “kennel” as it could affect their neighborhood. They’re afraid that it will become a commercial enterprise once she’s given a
Harry stated that the Board addresses this as a Conditional Use Permit. There are limits that can be put on this permit. Then, it would be up to the Code Enforcement Office to handle any problems. Gloria clarified that this would be a law as far as she was concerned. She asked if the definition of “kennel” was going to be changed for the Town. Harry stated that they are thinking about a distinction between personal ownership of dogs vs. a commercial kennel. She restated that there haven’t been any complaints until an issue came up a month or so ago. She addressed her neighbors and stated that she really does want to address their concerns.
Harry asked if there were any questions for the Animal Control Officer (ACO). Jere’s only question for the ACO would be to ask if there is a barking dog ordinance. He and Harry stated that the point had been made before that there wasn’t.
Hoa Lauzon asked the Board to take their concerns and comments seriously and not to twist them and make fun of them as they comment. She feels they’ve been ambushed by negative comments from some members of the Board. Gloria said that she complied with all of the requirements, and Hoa would like to know what the requirements are that she has met. Jere stated that she has met Section 11.11 of the ordinance. Hoa asked if she had met all of them. Jere stated that they would make that determination. Hoa asked when. Jere stated sometime in the future—tonight or later.
Kathy Peasley, an abutter, is curious about the process for the future. Harry stated that they’ve attended the site walk, and he has taken comments from Board members. Harry said they felt they had enough information to move forward and said that now was a good time if they had any additional information or questions to raise them. Emily stated that they would not be able to speak once the public hearing is closed. Kathy asked what they found. She wants to know whether she should be concerned about some of their findings. Jere stated that there were no findings from the site walk. Kathy asked, if she looked at all of the bullets of 11.11 and it says all of these black and white rules, she wondered when they would vote on these. Jere stated that each Board member would vote individually to see if Gloria has met those. Kathy mentioned that they had already expressed in letters their concerns. She asked about the “runs.” Emily stated that they haven’t made that
determination. Harry feels that it is open to interpretation whether a “run” has been created and each Board member would have to decide whether a run has been created. Jere stated that now is a good time if she believes they have created a run. Kathy mentioned that it says that she has one in her application. A neighbor mentioned that she had a definition, and Jere stated that they have one.
Nancy Frazee lives on Lord Rd about a half mile down the road or less from the Steigers. She expressed concern about Gloria changing what she was going to do. The original statement says six dogs, Gloria clarified it to nine, and “more than nine” was read this evening. Harry stated that the ordinance says that anyone who has more than six must be licensed as a kennel, but it would be limited to the number she currently has, which is nine. Emily stated that this “more than nine” was a misprint on the agenda.
Nancy read a statement: On 9/22/08, she felt Board members didn’t look at items in the ordinance correctly and was concerned about how they perceived the neighbors’ concerns. She wanted them to address the ordinance. She mentioned Article 8.2.1. – the value of adjacent properties. She believes that a kennel will decrease values and be a deterrent for buyers in the future. She says that there is an odor at times. In reference to the statement that people having the right to use their property, she felt it was up to the Planning Board to insure that guidelines are followed and that the rights and health of others is not infringed upon. She cited 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52 and 8.2.B.4 as particular concerns. She says this is
not a popularity contest but a show of concerns of the residents. Lord Road is a residential area where several houses are in close proximity to the Steiger household. She questions the veracity of Gloria’s statements because she has changed what she’s said in the past. She believes that she has sold dogs, which is out of compliance with the Town’s ordinances. She believes that Ms. Steiger has had a commercial venture. She talked about the noises made by the dogs. She doesn’t think the conditional use or kennel ordinance has been met. As taxpayers, they wish to be heard in a professional and nonprejudicial manner.
Gloria stated that she has not met Nancy, so Nancy stated that there are no preconceived notions. Gloria stated that Nancy had said at each meeting that she’s said different things. She says that she does have a dog she would like to breed but is not planning to do that now. She says her plans are contingent on what is decided by the Board, how her life is, and then on applying for the correct permit. She is trying to comply. Nancy says that she understands that she is trying to comply. Gloria thinks that the presence of the dogs for the last several years, which the neighbors weren’t aware of, addresses property values. How can this be a problem now as far as property values? Gloria stated that it is a rural area.
Harry confirmed that it is zoned rural. She wants to follow the ordinance. Gloria stated that if she has her dogs in the house, then her yard would be where the dogs play—dog runs would be different. She will still have some dogs after this is over. There will still be some issues and that they just need to hash it out.
Nancy wants to clarify and read the definition of “run.” It has nothing to do with where dogs live; the area is supposed to be cement.
Tim Lauzon is concerned about the odor and mentioned a concrete run. In the past, Gloria says she called him about the distance from her well, he says. Her manure pile is 150 ft. from his well so he plans to have his water tested for nitrates. That is why a concrete area must be enforced for this reason. He says they smell an odor all the time. He feels that the concrete should be done for disinfection, parasites, etc. Harry clarified what he is most concerned about is the surface of the exercise area. He says that sometimes they can’t smell it, but other times, they can’t sit by their pool because of the odor. Jere asked if it was dog feces or horse manure. He thinks it is a combination of horse and dog manure. Harry stated that they were trying to treat everyone as fairly as they could and asked if he would be satisfied with something done about the exercise area. Tim wants things the way the ordinances are currently written. Jere stated that she could take
the fences down and there would be no run. Tim said that would be fine because then the odor would be spread out and not confined to a small area. There was a question about the fencing. Emily clarified that the Lauzon’s are on the left of Gloria as one looks at the Steiger house.
Gloria talked about a possible material—rubber stall mats, which create a good barrier. She thinks a cement run would look terrible and be a property value issue. The stall mats with shavings on top would work, she thought. Jere asked if she were willing to do this. Gloria thought she would do this regardless of the outcome of this application. David S. asked about how it would address the area, which goes down the hill. She thought the stall mats would go in those spots where the dogs go—on the bottom of the hill and by the cellar door. Jere asked if she would be willing to put stall mats on the entire run. She says she probably wouldn’t because she wants something growing in there. She said if she put shavings down,
that would be where they would go. Harry clarified what she plans to do and the regular cleaning. David S. asked if there was a comment from the abutters about this. Mr. Lauzon asked about a disinfectant. She currently has two that she uses – a powder and a liquid. Harry asked Fred if using stall mats would qualify as “another surfacing.” He thought it would be an impervious layer so would qualify.
Kathy Peasley is concerned and thinks she might need to put stall mats everywhere. She wants to tell Gloria that she was the one who said she didn’t know she had nine dogs. She is concerned about the label “kennel.” She finds the ordinance very cut and dried. She believes the reason for the ordinance was the safety, odor, cleanliness and maintenance.
Harry stated that she does not have to have the fences. She could remove the fences and not have a run. The dogs could run where they wanted. She could choose to put down the mats to take care of the concerns. He hoped this would take care of the odor issues. He asked if there were any other items of concern they’d like to address at this point.
He asked if any members of the general public would like to speak.
Scott Winchester asked what the reason was behind the ordinance – why does it limit it to six dogs. Harry stated that more than six dogs would mean people would have to come before the Town for a kennel permit. That number of dogs would have more of an impact on the property. Scott wanted to know what the premise was behind it. If the reason behind it was that more than six dogs would annoy your neighbors, wouldn’t that be enough reason to limit it? Emily thought the ordinance went into effect after there was an issue in Town. Keith stated that the original ordinance started in ’76. More was added between then and ’93 when he came on the Board. What’s the premise, asked Scott? David A says that one of the things that have
to be kept in mind for a large number of dogs is sanitation, noise, and safe and secure housing of dogs for a larger number of dogs. Scott asked if part of the premise was the health of the dogs and care of the animals. David agreed. It does not include an impact on the neighbors, Scott asked? Harry says that part of the ordinance does apply to land use, the consequences of using the land for this purpose. There’s a land use table in the ordinance; certain activities are allowed in certain zones. 8.2.B. describes the conditions that must be met.
Ken Peasley, an abutter, asked about the other kennels in Town. He said that earlier it was stated that they’d approved a number of kennels and one had as many as 15 dogs. What’s the process if Gloria would like to have more dogs? Harry stated that she would have to come back to the Planning Board if she wanted 10 dogs. The Board would go through the whole process again. They don’t have any choice but to call this “a kennel.” Ken believes it is very important as the Board can see; he thinks the Planning Board should do something different before approving any more kennels. Ken says he’s talked with someone who is having problems and can’t seem to get anyone to go out. Harry says that he doesn’t mean to duck responsibility,
but the Board is not an enforcement group. Ken thought they should think twice before they approve. Keith said that even if they came up with something different, they wouldn’t be able to enforce. They can only put the conditions on it. Keith says that whatever enforcement needs to be done would come out of Fred’s office.
Ken asked when the site walk findings would be public. Jere stated that there would be no findings from the site walk. Harry referred to what they’ve received as Findings of Fact. Ken thought they had gotten the first site walk findings. Jere said that those were Findings of Fact and not site walk findings. Ken said that they don’t know what the Board saw on the second site walk. Harry thought they’d gotten a draft copy of the Findings of Fact and that this was a draft. Jere said that they went to the site walk to gather information. They will deliberate on whether the applicant meets the conditions. Ken said that they were pretty quick with the pencil after the first site walk. Emily and Harry clarified the
site walk and accepting the draft of the decisions is done at the end of the process. Ken stated that it did not say “draft” at the top. Kathy Peasley showed the Board what she got, and Jere stated that this was the applicant’s application. Harry said that the findings are addressed as they go through the items in the ordinance. He clarified what people can get from the Code Enforcement Office.
David A addressed Mr. Winchester and spoke about a positive thing regarding the label of “kennel.” People who have this are required to have an annual checkup from the ACO to make an inspection, which he thinks is a positive thing.
Lana Ryan lives on the Lord Rd. Is this inspection pre-planned or is it a surprise? David A said he thought it was planned, and Lana asked why people would not be in compliance if this were pre-planned. She wanted to know how many kennels have been approved so far. She asked how this started. Jere stated that because of the situation at J’Aime Kennels. She wanted to know how they knew who had more than six dogs, and Jere stated that anyone who came to the Town and registered more than six dogs would be asked to apply for the kennel permit. He stated that some have been approved. Have they all been in compliance, Lana asked? She wants to know if each case is considered individually. Jere stated that everyone
abides by the rules.
Michelle, the ACO, corrected that the visit is an unannounced visit for a municipal kennel license inspection. Gloria would not have a municipal kennel license. This applies to five or more unspaded animals or animals kept to breed, show or train. Many of her dogs are altered so she does not quality for that. She would not qualify for the annual inspection. She wouldn’t qualify for a kennel license because most of her dogs are neutered. Keith asked if it could be a condition that the ACO goes down to inspect once a year. Keith believed that any approved should get a yearly inspection. She said she would be more than happy to do this.
- Keith motioned, Emily seconded, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Harry read the standard conditions of approval:
1. All elements and features of the application 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 change 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 8.2.B & 10.
8.2.B.1 – Emily wants to discuss why Board members are voting the way they are. Emily stated that the dogs have been on the property a long time and that there could be conditions placed with the word “kennel” so as not to diminish property values. Harry mentioned the signs. Emily said she thought some neighbors were concerned about the word kennel as a commercial operation, and she would put some limits on this, which would not affect property values. David A. stated that there was no compelling evidence brought before the Board that there would be a negative influence on property values, so he says that it could not be proven that there would be an adverse affect. Jere agrees. Keith says he lives next to a dog kennel, and he doesn’t think it has affected the
value of the property as there are now 5-7 houses there.
- Keith motioned, David A seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.2 – Jere motioned, David A seconded, to approve. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.3 – Not in flood hazard protection area – Keith motioned, Jere seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.4 – David A. doesn’t think this has been met. He thinks the plan needs to be investigated further. He thinks this has to be re-written or do something about this. He doesn’t believe curbside pickup is allowed. Harry referred to the time frame of disposal. The statement is not accurate in the application, David A. says. Jere asked if they were to make this a condition of approval. Emily stated that an adequate solid waste plan should be submitted to the Code Enforcement Office two weeks from today, and Keith wanted it shown to the Board.
- Jere motioned, David A. seconded, that the applicant would be in compliance once a suitable plan for solid waste has been submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer and approved by the Board. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.5 – Jere motioned, Keith seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.6 – Jere motioned, David A seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.7 – Keith motioned, Jere seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.8 – David A. mentioned “as noted in the Findings.” This is met due to the fire hydrant approximately 1500 ft. from the residence. Keith motioned, David A. seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.9 – Keith motioned, Harry seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. Emily asked if they should save this until the end. They decided to go on and come back.
Article 10 – Keith and Harry thought it was not applicable. David S. believed that there were several items that have not been addressed. 10.6 and 10.9 were mentioned. Emily suggested that they state that all provisions of Article 10 are met as long as the condition of the waste approval plan is met. Keith mentioned that he would like to make a condition under 10.11 that there is no sign.
- Emily motioned, David S. seconded, as above that all applicable sections of Article 10 are in compliance. All voted in favor.
11.11.A – David A. said that at the second site walk this was measured and found in compliance. Motioned by Keith, seconded by David A., that the applicant is in compliance. Emily asked if the wording could be changed. Jere said that they could as this is a draft. Harry clarified that the Findings of Fact would not be voted on this evening but at the next meeting. All voted in favor.
11.11.B. – David A found this was met by the 75 x 30 ft. fencing in of the play area. Emily motioned, Keith seconded, that this has been met. Five in favor, David A. opposed.
11.11.C – Jere motioned, David A seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
11.11.D – Harry mentioned that a measurement was done for the storage setback. Jere stated that there was no storage setback requirement in the kennel section of the ordinance. David S. reviewed. Jere mentioned that there were things that needed to be worked on before approval.
- Keith motioned, Jere seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
11.11.E – Keith doesn’t believe this applies because this building is not a kennel but a residence. Jere motioned, Keith seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
11.11.F – Emily believes that part of the yard is fenced in and is not a dog run by definition. David A. asked if they were going to require the stall mats as a condition. David S. stated that whether they consider it a run or not that the mats should be provided. Keith doesn’t consider it a run. David A. thinks the mats would be adequate. Jere stated that any enclosure on someone’s property where they have more than six dogs being considered a run is not what the intent of this ordinance was. Harry and Keith discussed whether a run had been created and decided that it hadn’t been. Keith talked about an exercise area and not a run as stated the definition.
Mr. Peasley threw his paperwork, and several of the neighbors made negative comments about the deliberations held this evening.
Harry polled the Board, and all members stated that they didn’t believe this was a dog run or that one has been created.
- Jere motioned, Keith seconded, that the applicant is in compliance because a dog run has not been created. All voted in favor.
11.11.G – No incineration vents have been proposed so this is not applicable. Jere motioned, Emily seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
11.11.H – Harry mentioned that there is no barking dog ordinance. David A motioned, seconded by Keith, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
8.2.B.9 – Jere motioned, David S seconded, to find the applicant in compliance. All voted in favor.
Motioned by Jere, seconded by Keith, that based on previous discussions, we find the application to be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Articles 8.2.B and 10. (if applicable). All voted in favor.
3. That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of
Section 11. (if applicable)
Jere motioned, Keith seconded, to find the applicant in compliance with Article 11 based on the previous discussions. All voted in favor.
4. All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.
- There will be no signs erected.
- There will be a maximum of nine (9) dogs.
- An adequate solid waste plan will be submitted.
- No commercial uses, meaning fees for services provided. No breeding of dogs for sale.
- Annual inspection of the property as she would for any other kennel.
- Stall mats/shavings will be used for areas where dog waste would be.
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by David A, to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings. All voted in favor.
Jere stated that Gloria is not approved until the Findings of Fact, are accepted by the Board.
Public Hearing 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.
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by David A, to open the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Katherine stated that she has a garage that she wants to have auto repair done by her good friend. This will be a retirement, supplement one-man garage.
The site walk was held on September 15th. Board members mentioned that the limit would be five cars. David S said they found there was plenty of parking. All Board members attended except Keith. They have a letter from Clean Harbors, and they needed one with the intent for the Parker Farm address. Emily asked if they had any objection to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and Jere clarified as well. Harry asked Fred if he had any questions. He asked for any abutters or members of the general public, and there were none.
- David A motioned, Emily seconded, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Harry read the standard conditions of approval:
1. All elements and features of the application 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 change 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 8.2.B & 10.
Jere motioned, Keith seconded, that they waive the reading of Articles 8.2.B., 10 and Section 11 if applicable. All voted in favor. David clarified whether the address was 145 or 149. It is 145.
3. That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of
Section 11. (if applicable)
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by Emily, that based on previous discussions, we find the application to be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Articles 8.2.B, 10 & Section 11 (if applicable). All voted in favor.
4. All outstanding bills paid before a building permit is issued.
5. Maximum of 5 cars.
- Hours limited from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday.
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by David A, to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings. All voted in favor.
Discussion of site walk for Jeanette Dodge of 534 Parker Farm Road, who has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow her to open an in home daycare; Tax Map 2, Lot 54D.
Jeanette stated she would like an in home child care business with up to 12 children. Harry stated that they did a site walk on the 27th of September, and everyone attended. David S said the only question he had was the parking, and he said it appears that they have ample parking. Keith said that whatever the State decides on the pond will be acceptable to the Board.
Jere motioned, Keith seconded, to set a public hearing for Jeanette Dodge for an in home daycare on Monday, October 27, 2008, about 7 p.m... All voted in favor. Jere asked if they needed any additional information. They agreed that all they would need would be the State license and proof of fire marshal inspection. These would be conditions.
Discussion of site walk for Jerice Goulet of 40 Whispering Pines, who has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow her to open an in home daycare; Tax Map 9, Lot 13-11.
Harry stated that a site walk was held on September 27, 2008, and everyone attended the site walk. Jere stated that he thought there was ample parking. Keith thought it was good that she was on a dead-end road and at the end. David S mentioned that they couldn’t use the hammerhead for parking. Jerice clarified.
Jere motioned, David S seconded, to hold a public hearing for Jerice Goulet for an in home daycare on October 27, 2008. All voted in favor. The question was raised about having 12 children, and Jerice stated she would apply for 12 but would probably not have that many.
Discussion of site walk for Deborah Cote, who 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).
Harry mentioned that the entire Board was present at the site walk on September 27, 2008. David A said he believed that there were no issues. He reviewed all of the required items. David S asked about getting a measurement to the well across the street. Jere reviewed the measurements to the wells on the map. They obtained a measurement of 500 ft. located on the map. There’s 400 ft. to an abutter’s lot. The one behind was 400 ft. Lot 43-8 was David S’s question. Jere said he thought the well was right out in the front yard. Fred stated it would be in the folder. Jere mentioned that she should go down and see Fred for that distance. Deborah said she measured it already and didn’t go
on their property but to the edge of their property. Jere was asking about the two-story gray house. Keith’s opinion is that there was enough space. Emily asked if she measured it and did it meet the setback? Deborah said it was 300 ft. from the manure pile. Jere asked if it was a 50 ft. right of way, and it was agreed that it was. David S mentioned that she has 300 ft. to the edge of the road and that was all that she needed. Jere stated that it just needed to be shown on the plan.
Jere motioned, David S seconded, to set a public hearing for the above on October 27, 2008, on or about 7 p.m. All voted in favor. Harry asked Deborah to get the information she has into the Code Enforcement Office.
Barbara Pretorius has submitted an application for animal husbandry to house three horses at 38 Wescott Circle; Tax Map 7, Lot 64-8.
Barbara would like to have up to three horses on their property. Two sides abut open space, so what they wish would not interfere with other neighbors. David S said they could use this open space for distances to wells. Jere asked if she was showing 230 ft. from hers to Lot 6. Barbara said she’s not positive. Some of the Board members had difficulty finding the map Jere was referring to, and Barbara needed a copy of it. They spent some time clarifying the plan they were looking at. David A mentions the open space was a requirement of the subdivision that is to be used by everyone. It was a part of the approval of Wescott Circle. Emily asked where the horses would be, and Barbara stated there was a covered area
for them. Keith was going to suggest that the manure pile be covered. Jere asked if the manure pile could be moved further to the back of the property, and she stated it could. There was some discussion about the footage – 11.11.3 was referred to. The requirement of 300 ft. is stated in this ordinance. Keith reviewed the ordinance.
Emily asked if there was going to be a structure and if there were any setback requirements. David A asked about the drip line from the structure – 20 ft. from the sidelines and 50 ft. from the front. Fred asked about distances from a building? Jere clarified some information about the setbacks. Jere stated that Fred could give her some ideas regarding containers for covered storage. Barbara asked about containers. Fred said that they’d probably need a roof—more than just a tarp. Keith asked about the removal of the manure. They would use their truck to bring it to the Buxton Transfer Station. Jere stated that she’d want to talk with the Transportation Manager and is pretty sure it would be okay. Fred suggested
she talk with her neighbor Ben who has a farm who might be able to use it. The Board looked at possibilities for a site walk.
Keith motioned, Jere seconded, that the Board hold a site walk for the above on October 18, 2008, at 9 a.m. David A believed he could go by on his own as he isn’t available this Saturday. All voted in favor. Barbara asked if they needed any info. Jere stated that if she came to an agreement with Ben, then it would be good to have it in writing. She could also get something from the Transportation Mgr. in writing that he would accept the manure. Jere explained the process of meetings. Any info has to be in the Code Enforcement Office one week before the meeting. Jere stated she could ask any questions of Krystal and speak with Fred about the container. He mentioned the Co-operative Extension.
Approval of Minutes: September 8, 2008
Keith motioned, David A seconded, to accept the 9/08/08 minutes as written. Five voted in favor; Emily who abstained.
September 22, 2008
Jere motioned, Keith seconded, to accept the 9/22/08 minutes as written. Five voted in favor; Emily abstained.
Approval of Bills: Portland Press Herald in the amount of $21.75 to cover legal ads for Steiger and $50.46 to cover legal ads for the amended subdivision Whispering Pines, for a combined total of $72.21
Keith motioned, Jere seconded, to pay the above. All voted in favor.
David A stated another treasury issue—the follow-up to the zoning map, shore land zoning overlays, and aerial photography. He got in touch with SMRPC, and he’s gotten a final number, $8,690, from them. It includes the zoning map and overlays of the shoreland zone. They’ve combined two projects into one. He mentions that he could follow up with e-mails. They’ve been approved by the Selectmen to do some aerial photography for mapping purposes. David A would provide a breakdown for the Board of the costs and approval of the monies, and he would show what a carryover figure would be for 2008-09 to cover all of these bills. He said that more than enough money is available to make this happen.
Jere mentioned that they could work on this at the workshop with Caroline and J.T. Lockman. They’re asking for some money for the aerial photography and possibly half of the mapping costs. David A will explain what he’s doing in the next few days; he’s also gone over this with the Selectmen. Keith expressed concern about the Selectmen spending their money. David stated that $2850.36 would be for the aerial photography. Jere asked if the Selectmen were going to cover the $3000 from their budget, and this was David’s initial understanding. The Selectmen have asked if the Planning Board could take care of this. David says that now they’re going to have two maps in one so they would save a lot of money. Jere asked when this was
going to be done. David was in touch with J.T. and Jamie Saltmarsh. J.T. is meeting with the Board on the 17th to discuss the shoreland zoning and how it would be overlaid. He’ll have a prepared a draft of those maps to be reviewed at that meeting.
Keith says the only thing that makes him a little ugly is that the Selectmen said they were going to come up with some of this money and then come to the Planning Board for the money. David A somewhat disagrees because these are mapping dollars provided by the Town. Keith expressed concern about where the money was taken from as he felt he was being lied to. Jere says it doesn’t really matter because it all comes out of taxpayer’s pockets. Keith doesn’t want them to tell him one thing and then do something else. Jere said that it all comes from the same place.
Sub-division and Land Development Law Conference – Board members mentioned that these are kind of expensive. Emily said that they’re good, and one member could bring back the materials.
David S went to the free workshop for renewable local energy planning issues. It would have cost several hundred dollars if he’d had to pay for it. In 4-6 weeks, they’ll send a CD. Basically, if someone comes before the Board for a permit for a windmill or solar panels, then we don’t have anything set up. They were trying to explain where they could get more information. There was a PowerPoint presentation, which will be on the CD.
David S wants to go to the Right to Know workshop. It was postponed until after the elections since they didn’t get enough people. Jere mentioned that they couldn’t have conversations that are not in a public forum.
Jere mentioned the meeting on the 20th in Gorham at 7 p.m. (David S may have provided them with the info.) Keith mentioned that it was going to be held at the old junior high, and they talked about directions.
Harry mentioned that two Board members still needed to sign the by-laws.
Review and sign Findings of final plan for Normand Berube Builders, Inc.
Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jere, to accept the Findings for Normand Berube; Tax Map 9, Lot 13-13. Five voted in favor; Emily abstained.
Adjourn – Motioned by Jere, seconded by Keith, to adjourn at 10:03 p.m.
Approval Date: __________________
Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman