Town of Buxton Planning Board
Minutes of April 13, 2009
Recorded by Hilda Lynch
Board Members Present: David Savage, Sr.; Jeremiah Ross, III; Keith Emery; Harry Kavouksorian; James Logan; Caroline Segalla; and David Anderson
Board Members Absent: None
Others Present: Fred Farnham, Becky Turek, Laverne Waterman Northrop, Patsy Leavitt, Neal Morrison, Stephanie Keene, Barbara Peck-Deister, Steve Reynolds, Nichole Williams, Dustin Reynolds, Brian Gaines, and Louise Morrison, Bill Thompson (BH2M), Steve Joffe
Chairman Harry Kavouksorian called the April 13, 2009, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board together at 7:05 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Public hearing: Stephen Joffe and Julia Colpitts are proposing a 29-lot, two-town subdivision located off Church Hill and Webster Roads. Blueberry Ridge subdivision consists of 7 lots in Buxton (Tax Map 7, Lot 30) and 22 lots in Gorham (map 54, Lot 4).
- Motioned by Keith, seconded by David A, to open the public hearing for Stephen Joffe and Julia Colpitts. All voted in favor.
Bill Thompson along with Stephen Joffe (one of the owner/applicants) appeared before the Board. Bill reviewed and outlined the plan for 27 homes to be built in the Blueberry Ridge subdivision and mentioned an existing home in Lot 5. The project has received preliminary approval from the Town of Gorham. The DEP has accepted the application, assigned it a number, and will start their technical review. They’ve been before the Board several times. Harry asked Bill to describe the phases of the project. Phase One will come in off the Webster Rd. for Lots 1 through 5, 5 being an existing home. Phase Two will come in off the Church Hill road to complete the loop and will include lots 6 through 16, and Phase Three will complete the project, 17 through
22. Harry mentioned that all of the roads will be constructed according to Gorham standards; this has been agreed to and is now part of the agreement.
The reference to the open space being equally owned by all lot owners is a question from David A. He’s wondering about the taxes from Buxton being different from those levied by Gorham. The total open space for the Buxton lots is labeled, Bill stated. They’ll have 1/7 of 15 acres on their tax bill; the balance of the open space will be pro-rated over the remaining 22 lots. The function and the use will be for everyone in the subdivision.
Caroline asked if a letter has been received from the Fire Chief. Bill has not received a letter yet. He wrote to the Chief on November 7th. Caroline would like a letter for the file. She asked Fred if the wording for the construction of the Town road and the oversight by the Road Commissioner is satisfactory. Fred agreed that it was. They’ve received the letter from the Road Commissioner. There’s a note on the plan about the access road, which she wondered if it would be removed. Would the note stay until the road is turned over to the Town, and Bill thought that it would. She mentioned the homeowner’s association documents and that they’re waiting for a ruling from the Town attorney. She mentioned working
with Krystal on the Findings of Fact. Caroline asked about the limits of buffering – lots 1 and 2 off Webster and 6 and 7 off Church Hill Rd. Are there any limits of clearing? Bill illustrated what is required to be kept for buffering and what is shown for storm water buffer. The intent is not to open up any of these buffers that are shown. Only dead and diseased trees would be removed. Keith mentioned the subdivision across the way where they said they’d leave 50 ft. Jim asked if she’d like a more “beefed up” note to show the limits of clearing for the 50 ft. buffer. Caroline said she would. Bill would review the homeowner’s association to see if there is protection, also.
Caroline wants to clarify the snow removal. Will this be shared? Keith said he would go in off Webster and come right back out Church Hill. He’s not sure what will happen with Gorham. Keith stated that there are other roads in the Town where they alternate years.
Caroline asked about the two-year storm event. Bill said it’s just an anomaly. As soon as construction begins and impervious area is created, the two-year storm seems to be impacted. As there is continued work on the site, the impact doesn’t seem to be as great for the 25-year or higher storm. There will be an exemption needed from DEP.
Caroline thought about the process and wonders if they should waive the requirement of a performance guarantee so it doesn’t put the Town in difficulty. Jim referred to another project. He asked if they wanted to review 13.5.A.Types of Guarantees. There is a mechanism for the Board to use. Bill says it’s not really a waiver; it’s a performance guarantee. David A asked if we knew how Gorham was looking at this. Note 35 would apply for both towns, Jim stated. It is an allowable performance guarantee, Bill says. The major concern is that a developer comes in and starts working and then leaves it. Some towns ask for a letter of credit to cover erosion control. Bill explains this; they identify erosion control as a line item in
their cost estimate. Dave thinks that Buxton is the safe town since their lots go in first. He doesn’t know if a performance guarantee would be warranted. Jim asks Fred if he sees any potential problems in waiving the performance bond for the construction of the road until such time as they want building permits for the lots. Jere doesn’t think this can be waived. Jim says they’re providing an option for the developer. Fred says he would go by the phases. There would be no building permits issued until each phase is complete. Jere stated that we don’t want to have the Buxton side done and the Gorham side undone with construction vehicles using the Buxton roads until the Gorham side is completed. Jim says that we don’t have any recourse while it is a private road. The Dept. of Public Works will have to sign off when looking for Town approval, says Jim. When the recommendation is made at Town meeting that the road be
accepted, a consideration would be that the Gorham section would be done. Keith thinks the money should sit in an escrow account to build the roads in case things don’t go as planned. Jere asked for an estimate of the cost of the construction on the Buxton portion. Bill said their concern is for a lot owner not to have to travel over a road that is not completed. Some Board members want the escrow and some want a letter of credit. David S, Jere, David A, Jim, and Harry would accept a conditional agreement. Keith wants an escrow account. Jere stated that it could be made a condition of approval based on Town Counsel’s satisfaction. Caroline asked for an attachment of the breakdown of the items that would be included in that – in table format. Bill said he could do this.
Caroline asked Fred about set inspections. Is there a process? It would be inspected during each phase of construction, Fred stated.
Harry asked if there were any questions left from Fred, abutters, and the general public.
Steve Reynolds (father Cal Reynolds) owns the farmhouse that abuts the development. There’s a private air strip which will produce some noise although they try to be careful. There are airplanes there, and they were there first, he said. Note 25 is a note regarding the air strip on the plan. Jere stated that they also had letters from abutting gravel pit owners. They discussed it with Gorham, and they didn’t want them put on the plan. There were some other uses—Dearborn, Pompeo and Gorham Sand and Gravel.
Harry reviewed the additional conditions of approval:
1. The road will be built to Town of Gorham standards
- Approval will be done when a joint meeting of the Gorham and Buxton
Planning Boards is held.
3. DEP approval.
- Town counsel approval of the conditional agreement regarding the roads in lieu of a performance guarantee. A letter in escrow regarding erosion control would be part of the conditional agreement. Jim and Bill discussed setting a separate estimate for the erosion control. Jim and Caroline mentioned the storm water and drainage.
5. Retain a 50 ft. buffer
6. Legal counsel on HOA documents
7. Letter from the Fire Chief
Jere mentioned that, for the record, individual buildings would be sprinkled; and there will be no fire tank. Bill mentioned that the project across the street has a fire tank. They would like to look at any of the homes in Phase One to see if any could qualify for use of the fire tank. Keith says it would be up to the Fire Chief. David A asked about Condition No. 3 being changed or deleted because there will be no fire tank. Bill asked if this fire tank could be used. Keith didn’t think so because this is a separate project. Bill asked if he could consult with the Fire Chief. Keith stated that he could. Several agreed that the Fire Chief would have to weigh in on this issue.
Jim asked if the public hearing should be kept open until some issues are resolved. Caroline mentioned the homeowner’s documents. An amendment to the plan might be needed.
David A asked why they wouldn’t want to sprinkle all of the homes. Jim stated that it would be a cost savings. Bill stated that the key is to provide fire safety. Jere doesn’t think there is a provision to “piggy back” on another property. Keith said that they’d lose a lot of pressure from the fire tank to the road. On page 13-7, 13.4.K.1.c. is pretty clear, Jim believes, “shall be required…” Jim thinks they would be wrong to accept the tank across the street as part of the fire safety plan. Several Board members agree. Bill agrees with what they’re saying. The public would be best served by having the tank available as well as the homes sprinkled.
Several Board members think there are sufficient items to keep the public hearing open. Caroline asked if they could resolve things at the joint meeting. Jim thinks they would only be there to sign, having given the subdivision their approval. DEP still must give approval.
- Jere motioned, seconded by Keith, to continue the public hearing for the above project. All voted in favor.
Jere stated that it doesn’t have to be continued at the next meeting, but they would do it when the items have been received. Harry isn’t confident there would be a response from Town Counsel in a week. The Town Attorney and the Fire Chief items are summarized by Bill as items the Board would initiate and obtain through Krystal. The estimate on the erosion control Bill will put up as a letter of credit and review the note on the buffering. Caroline mentioned the cross sections of the plan needed to be corrected if going with the Gorham standards. Keith doesn’t believe abutters would have to be re-notified.
Steve Joffe asked about an altered note and new cross section on the plans. He wasn’t sure what the hearing was being held open for. Open space responsibilities – wording in the document – buffering, Jim stated. Steve asked if they could make these conditions. He is trying to get a sense of how to get this to completion. Jim thinks it would be closed after the next meeting and submission of information. Harry can’t guarantee that they’d have the Town’s Attorney information back by the next meeting. The recommendation would be to put this on the agenda for May 11 since all materials have to be in a week before the meeting (5/4). Jim asked about the fire suppression – will they provide more specifics for these houses. Bill said they
will all be sprinkled. Harry stated they would continue the public hearing on May 11.
Discussion of SMRPC’s review of Pleasant Ridge Subdivision owned by Normand Berube Builders, Inc., proposed 8-lot cluster subdivision; Tax Map 8, Lot 40A.
Bill Thompson, Project Manager from BH2M Engineers, addressed the Pleasant Ridge subdivision. The project went out to Dave Roake (State soil scientist) and SMRPC. In Bill’s letter of March 30, 2009, he summarizes the results of these reviews.
The changes in the soil mapping did result in a change in the net residential density. The soil category was mislabeled which did change the number of lots to 7. They went out and did some further test pits. They’ve eliminated Lot 1 and made Lot 2 a little bigger and didn’t make any other changes. The plan has been revised to show this. The SMRPC memo of March 13th referenced 10.1.8.2 which said the road was going to be private and that was an error. This road will be offered for Town acceptance at some time. The homeowner’s association covenants have been submitted some time ago to the Town Attorney. The 100-year floodplain has been delineated on Plan sheet 1, and there is a 500-yr flood plan shown on the plan. Note
18 has been revised to prohibit future division of the open space. They have submitted a letter from Key Bank stating they’re financing $95,155 for this project. For Item 5, there is a summary on page 2 is the memo from Dave Roake, the revised soil mapping report, a vernal pool letter indicating no vernal pools present, draft of protective covenants, road maintenance agreement, and letters from historical societies with no issues. They’ve been before the Board a number of times; unfortunately, they did lose a lot. They’re anxious to get going. Given the amount of review, they’d like to be considered for final approval.
Caroline wants to confirm that at the last meeting she understood that the utilities were going to be placed underground but that’s not the case. Bill stated that there is a pole from which all utilities will be placed underground from there. It is quite an expense to put this pole underground. Dave mentioned that the wetlands and headwaters would be impacted to do this. The cluster ordinance requires something on the placement of the buildings, Caroline mentioned. Bill stated that in the past, this Board has not asked for this, giving the developer the flexibility. The well zones and utilities have been more important, Bill stated. Harry stated that the building envelopes were there. In reference to 11.6.B.2, she asked if this could
be waived. Bill stated that with the setbacks and well zones shown, that has been accepted in the past. Jim and Caroline discussed subdivision vs. cluster. She believes the ordinance requires the building placement. Jim tends to want to go by the SMRPC review, which suggests that for this subdivision, what has been done is okay. Jim thinks they’re doing it by default. He believes that the envelopes would be sufficient for a project of this size. Caroline believes she misread this and apologizes. Caroline addressed Fred about a note in the HOA documents about signage, 150” squared. She wants to know if this conflicts with the ordinance. Jere thinks the ordinance would take precedence over any HOA agreement. The Town Counsel still has to review it anyway – page 3. Some verbiage still refers to 8 lots, Caroline stated, which should be changed to 7. She asked about the status of “permit by rule”? Bill
said this is still pending as they want to see the land when snow has been removed.
David A mentioned that a 150” squared sign would be a 13” x 13” sign, which is tiny and much more restrictive.
In the deed and HOA agreement, Caroline wondered if there would be a note regarding the limited tree cutting—an added Note 20. She knows there is a Letter of credit submitted. Could a table be included breaking down what is included.
Jim makes a general comment about the review of soils mapping. He’s pleased it took place, and they’ve made an adjustment to the mapping and number of lots. Most of the comments were directed towards the Buxton ordinance, which does not require a level of mapping accurate enough to be adequate. He would like to suggest a higher level of detail be provided for calculations for net residential acreage and cluster subdivisions for ordinance review.
Bill stated that a cost estimate was submitted, and he displayed the sheet that included this. Caroline asked if there had been a public hearing. Harry asked if the Board felt they had enough information to set a public hearing.
- Jere motioned, seconded by Jim, to hold a public hearing on the above project on April 27, 2009. Six in favor, Keith abstained.
Bill will get the summary list to Krystal. Harry stated that he’d check on the Attorney’s review of the HOA agreement.
Discussion of site walk for Narragansett Business Park, LLC, for an industrial business park off Route 202 (across from Waterman Road); Tax Map 8, Lot 20A.
Charles Brown of Sebago Technics addressed the Board with Patricia Leavitt. They had a site walk last Tuesday. One item of concern was potential access to two portions of the project. Sebago Technics’ representatives have talked it over with the applicant, and the applicants would prefer to access the two lots over the internal road. Charles pointed it out on the plan. Caroline asked if there could be two buildings on one lot. Several Board members stated they could.
What is the wetland impact now, and why is the applicant against this, Jim asked? They’re under 15,000 for Tier One now; they could potentially go over if they were to fill in one area. Jim feels pretty strongly about it; he would be more comfortable watching those building windows go away without proposed additional wetland impacts. It seems ridiculous for people to go back out to the Town road to access a different piece of their property. Dave was very surprised with the amount of wetlands. It had rained pretty heavily a few days before. Jim would like it all a part of the application and have everything aboveboard.
David S asked about the small triangular piece being accessed off the hammerhead. Keith won’t vote for any access off the hammerhead. Plowing operations would be impeded. David A respects Jim’s comments. If something isn’t done upfront, there will be greater problems later on – “illegitimate uses.” What is being proposed is probably a better way to manage the wetlands. Jim stated that ultimately if they want to continue to show setbacks and show these little triangles of land as buildable, they should be connected on the main lot itself. One would not be relying on the Town road to access those properties. He would like to see a minimal amount of fill to keep it under requirements of a Tier One to make these two triangular lots
buildable. He would like them to come back with a limited amount of fill area of the wetlands to connect the smaller buildable lots to the major build able area. Jim wanted the limits of what could be done placed on the Plan to make it easier for enforcement by Fred. Because the wetlands are so significant, David A thinks this is the issue. Jim explained what he would like to see on the Plan for Charles. Jim mentioned “cumulative impacts” which makes it difficult for local authorities.
Caroline did a site walk today. She asked about a structure on Lot 2 and also a structure on the triangular area. Charles said they were showing potential envelopes for building. This would be one lot; the problem is the access. She’s concerned about the abutter off Waterman Rd – how lights will shine onto the property if something is built on the lower left corner. She doesn’t think there is a lot of space there to put something and is concerned about the access to it. She thinks they would need some buffer in the front. She concurs with Jim about accessing the triangular portion. There is a portion 50 x 70 ft. in the lower left corner of the plan. Jim said they wouldn’t have to come back if the building is less than 2000 sq.
ft. Caroline thinks they can condition the application. Jim asked Fred for clarification. There was some discussion by the Board whether this could be conditioned. The Town Counsel gave them wording on this, Caroline stated. Some of the Town Counsel’s response was that they could give a condition for a particular type of use. Because there aren’t specific proposed uses, the Board can make it a condition that the buyers of the properties come back. Charles clarified the site plan approval.
Fred mentioned the Tory Hill Park where some businesses did come before the Board and some did not come before the Board because they were small enough to be reviewed by the CEO. If the Town Attorney says there is some other way you can do this, he’s okay with it. Did the applicant receive a copy of the Town Counsel’s response, Caroline asked? They had not received it, so Caroline read the response from the Town Attorney. Hilda gave Patsy her copy of the attorney’s response. Jim clarified Caroline’s comments that any applicants would have to come back before the Board as a condition.
Will there be any sharing of driveways for Lots 2 and 3? How would one access Lot 3? Caroline asked. Jim and Caroline discussed this. Caroline would consider some buffering on the sides for the Stockwells or Mullers – to keep the trees that are there but perhaps provide a stockade fence or something. Charles mentioned a drainage ditch that must be maintained on the other side of the property. It is pretty open out there, Caroline stated. If this is going to be a street accepted by the Town, she would strongly suggest planting of street trees along the roadway—per the ordinance. She’d recommend keeping some trees in front to provide some buffer for the abutters. She asked if any trees would be kept in the front portion. Charles
said that the evergreens were left in the wetland. The setback is left vegetated currently. She thought they asked for a landscaping plan at the last meeting. Based on comments from some of the abutters, Jim thought they should be considering buffering the subdivision from the existing landowners. Patsy thought a plan would include plantings within each lot. Caroline is primarily concerned about the buffering in the front and on the side where the residences abut. The ordinance refers to this. The fence would be along the residential use. Caroline referred to when the Board has asked for some trees along the front of Aceto’s property. Caroline thought they could ask for things on the plan. Patsy asked if they were requiring her to put up a stockade fence. Jim felt it was up to the developers if they wanted to present it to the Board. Caroline felt they could ask for specific things. Patsy stated that she
didn’t think stockade fences held up well.
Fred stated that if the Board is going to be reviewing buildings, then they would ask for buffers to be put in. Jim doesn’t think this is necessarily the case because they’re talking about separating a residential from a commercial zone. Fred doesn’t think they would require anything before a building is put in. The Board would ask for what would be required for the use then. Jim thinks they’re giving it the blessing of the Town. This is their opportunity to get the developer to comply with some of the elements in
the ordinances. Caroline asked about keeping what is there now until they see what comes in and then address it accordingly. Keith thinks that when the people come in to build, then you hit them with a landscape design. Keith concurs with Fred.
Caroline stated she wants to make sure that the items have been addressed that are applicable and make positive findings on them. Keith gave an example of how current landscaping might be undone. Caroline stated that they could make a condition for the people that come in to build while leaving what is currently there. Dave A says he believes there is currently a buffer there along the road. Section 13.4.L.1A was reviewed by Jim; it is already in the ordinance. Harry said they would require it and move on – a plan for the area between the residential and commercial. Caroline thought the engineer had agreed to it at the last meeting. Patsy didn’t understand it as such. Several abutters were at the site walk and mentioned having a
buffer. Caroline is trying to find a balance.
Jim feels the lot layout hasn’t been adjusted to show any additional wetland impacts. Charles asked if this would be on the grading and utility sheet. One is shown, Jim says. He’s looking for an internal connection to upland portions. Charles said they came out of the site walk with the knowledge that the site would require a General Construction Permit. They’re in the process of filing this. The clearing of trees wouldn’t generate it, the re-grading activity they did triggered it. This is an “after the fact” permit. Whoever did the land alteration, the General Construction Permit is the one most commonly forgotten. It charges a fee for one acre or more of disturbance. It is supposed to be done.
David S says he was pleased with the way the site walk was set up – the road staked and with all the footages was very helpful. Jere concurs with Jim – if they’re going to show the entire building envelope on the lot, they need to show access to the two upland areas. Jim says the DEP has zero setbacks for these kinds of lots. Perhaps the Town would like to consider some wetland impact beyond the DEP’s requirements, Jim commented. The upper lot would be 60 x 90 ft... Jere would like to see them connected with some kind of access plan. The one on the left could be accessed from the main road where you come in. The one above might require an easement. Jim thinks there’s just enough to put a driveway in.
Keith couldn’t make the site walk. The back lot needs an access from within, he thinks. For the first lot – he would like it noted that they cannot fill an internal road. Jim thinks DEP would require it anyway if they knew about it.
Caroline asked if there is any lighting proposed. They’re not proposing any yet. She would presume they would provide cross sections for the road and meeting Town standards. It should be on the detail sheet, Charles stated.
Keith asked Fred about the standards for roads. Would it be the same in an industrial park road? Jim says this is not being called an industrial park. Keith asked about the road being built tougher. He decided it wasn’t appropriate to discuss this at this time.
Charles asked if it would be appropriate to schedule a public hearing. David S asked if anything is on the table that needs to come back. Harry mentioned access to the pieces of property on the plan.
- Caroline motioned, seconded by Keith, to set a public hearing for April 27, 2009. All voted in favor.
Jim asked if they would be able to get info in within a week to the Board as well as the public would be able to review it. He mentioned the grading for the crossings and some buffering—amending the grading and utility plan as well as a landscape plan. A question was asked by Harry about power. Charles said that it would be three phase power, so they generally like those to go overhead.
Patsy asked if there would be further need for any site walks. The Board is all set.
Rebecca Turek of 56 Kairos Way has submitted an application for an in-home day care; Tax Map 5, Lot 5-3.
Rebecca addressed the Board. She submitted an application for an in home day care for up to 12 kids (she has one, so that’s 11). She was licensed a few weeks ago. This would be for children K-5. She would like six but is asking for 12. The Fire Chief has been out and is all set. It’s a before and after-school, so would be 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Rebecca stated. If there’s a snow day or school holiday, she would need to be open all day.
Keith said she’d need to get a letter from the Fire Chief. She received a response after the Fire Chief who had been there in December. Rebecca didn’t know she was supposed to submit it. Harry stated that they still need to set a site walk and public hearing.
Harry asked if there were any questions prior to a site walk. David A said that Rebecca insinuated that they would be using hammerhead parking. She knows they couldn’t use this for parking. Caroline asked if they needed a letter from the Transfer Station Manager. Board members didn’t think they would.
- Jere motioned, seconded by David S, to hold a site walk for the above on April 20, 2009, at 6 p.m. All voted in favor.
Fred wrote the Board a letter concerning the Mapes’ project. He wanted to check in with the Board on this. This has to do with the drive through for the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts at the J.D. Variety Store. They are not going to be in the store so there will be no drive through so the drive through berm and the wings on the parking spaces wouldn’t be needed. They will be delineated on the surface with paint. If perchance there is another type of drive through, such as, Subway or some other, they would go ahead and install them at that time.
Keith believes they will need the curb by the building. It would be part of the landscaping, too. Fred says they want to delineate it by paint – planters or something there in the summer if needed. It’s going to be very difficult to plow this in the winter time. This is one of the reasons they want to wait for an actual drive through. Caroline asked what was going to happen when a drive through goes in. She wants to know what the difference is if it goes in now or later as far as plowing. There was some discussion about where the trucks will be going around because of the pumps in the back. Fred thinks it is something that can be incorporated later.
Harry doesn’t think there is a need to have these things now. Caroline asked if the Board got a performance guarantee. Board members didn’t think they had. Caroline thinks that the berm and wings should stay because they’re never going to see it, in her opinion. Jim concurs with Harry but wants to know how long they would leave this open ended. Fred says it doesn’t mean they’re not going to delineate the area. Keith asked why delineate it? Why not amend the plan? David A concurs with Fred. Caroline says that it is still needed for pedestrians. This would separate pedestrians from automobile traffic. Jim mentions a painted crosswalk coming from a sidewalk in the front. Fred says
that whatever is going to be displayed on the blacktop will be there. David A. says the berm around the back is the most important thing. Fred says there won’t be any cars there for a drive-up window. Keith thinks they need to come back and amend the plan. Fred says the islands are going to be painted on. Caroline wants to know why everything revolves around plowing and stated that they put it on the plan initially. Jim asked if they were still going to use the parking spaces around that side of the building. Fred clarified for Jere. Jere could see eliminating the “Queue” lane. Harry looks at it as a phased thing – when the need for the drive through is there, they would put it in.
Caroline doesn’t think it will happen. She thinks there could be an amendment; and then, if they do come back for a drive through, they would have to put these things in. She thinks the two “bump outs” should stay. What is the difference about when they go in? She is concerned about the landscaping and things looking nice in Town. Jere thinks the building looks very nice. Fred asked about the “berm” out back. The Board concurs with the striping of that. The Board thinks the curbing around the building should be done. Jere is confident that Fred will see to it that what has been approved will be done if a drive through will be put in later. Jere is concerned about kids coming from the back of the building to the store. He believes it is a great difference in what was there before. Harry clarified that they would ask to have the curbing put in. Fred will let them know.
Jere asked about the canopy. Fred said they’ve already put it in out back. Jim asked about a rough idea about completion. Some time this summer they will complete. They’ll probably be closed about a month when the old building is demolished. David S asked if they would be going to Fred for anything they need to do. Fred said he’s been going there about every day.
Because we’re not getting a Dunkin’ Donuts, Hollis is, Fred stated. On Rt. 117 and the Plains/Waterboro Rd. intersection, just above Deer Pond Variety, they’ll be putting one in Hollis. Caroline asked if the DOT standards would still be in effect.
Clynk, the recycling folks working with Hannaford, are sponsoring a clean up of Pleasant Park. What will be done is compost material and wood chips will be used to delineate the trails, especially on the south portion of the Park. Donations have come from C.M.P. and the Transfer Station. Fred explained on the map where the trails will be delineated. The Park needs some attention because there are some places where some erosion is going on. Fred asked for help on April 22 from 9 to 12:30; it will be most appreciated. Local businesses will provide water and lunch – Low’s Variety will provide lunch; Hannaford, water; and Aubchon and Carter Design Group, implements. It is during school vacation week.
Approval of Minutes: March 23, 2009
Board members did not receive them in their packets.
Approval of Bills:
To pay Portland Press Herald in the amount of $30.45 for the Roy and Randall applications.
- Keith motioned, seconded by Jim, to pay the above bill for the Roy and Randall public hearings. All voted in favor.
To pay SMRPC for Jon Lockman’s review and proposed changes to the Shore land zoning maps and ordinance in the amount of $2,797.50.
If this is not the final, it is the second from final bill, David A says.
- Jere motioned, seconded by Jim, to approve the above bill. David S asked if we were still within budget guidelines. David A says that we are, although it is getting closer. All voted in favor.
David A mentioned that SMRPC was asked to provide peer review for the Blueberry Ridge developers and Berube Builders, Inc. Bills have been sent, and the check from Blueberry Ridge has been received.
- Keith motioned, seconded by Jim, to pay SMRPC for the Blueberry Ridge subdivision peer review for $420. All voted in favor. David A. apologized that he’d made an error. It was Berube Builders, Inc., who had paid for the peer review. Keith and Jim withdrew their previous motion.
- Keith motioned, seconded by Jim, to pay SMRPC for the Pleasant Ridge subdivision to pay SMRPC $362.50 for the review. All voted in favor.
Letter from Caroline Segalla regarding fast food franchises; she thinks they need better performance standards. Keith doesn’t have a problem with fast food franchises because these are local people with franchises. He feels the Town needs business. These are some things abutters have brought up, Caroline says. She wants to have performance standards enhanced. Keith mentioned teens getting jobs as a plus. She wants to see how Board members felt about making things “pretty—getting some discussion going about performance standards.” Her third page comes from the Comp Plan regarding business/commercial.
Keith mentioned composting. Keith had a printout of what would be accepted at the Transfer Station. The Transfer Station Manager would like the applicant to go and see him to get a form he will come up with so that he’ll know they’re coming in and when – there would be a more formal process. Jim thinks they will need to revise the current sheet.
An e-mail on ordinance comments from Town Counsel
Planning Board and Board of Appeals workshop
Maine Turnpike Authority letter
- Review and sign Findings of Facts for: Blueberry Ridge Subdivision
- Review proposed Draft copy of zoning map and Shore land Ordinance changes from SMRPC.
- Review proposed ordinance comments from Town Council.
- Review of zone change comments from Town attorney.
- Motioned by Jere, seconded by David A, to hold a Public Hearing to review ordinance changes and shore land zoning on May 11, 2009. Copies of changes will be available at the Code Enforcement Office. All voted in favor. (I don’t have an actual vote for this one, but all were in agreement.)
Jere suggests giving Krystal Bill’s feedback to make the changes in the ordinances. The draft being looked at is March 20th. 9.8.C – conditional uses have to be on conforming lots for that zone – to clarify for Code Enforcement office which applications should come before the Board and which should not, Jim stated.
Caroline asked about a hydro geologic assessment. Jim thinks it has been brought up. Other Board members think that Gorham asked for it. Jim thought some things would need to be done for the DEP.
Jere asked if Bill reviewed SMRPC’s shore land zoning. Others didn’t see anything on it. Krystal, will make sure that Bill Plouffe gets the SMRPC shore land zoning info to review.
David S wants to know where the Board stands regarding the Town Counsel’s comments on zone changing. He asked about the re-consideration of the zoning change previously discussed. Jere didn’t see anyone present asking them to vote. Harry clarified what had happened, and what the Attorney said could be done.
David S asked if the new plan would be considered major. Jim thought it would be. Jere wondered if this is what they needed to vote on previously. The first proposal had virtually no buffer for abutters. The second proposal included land (5.61 acres) that would be put into perpetual trust as a buffer. Harry clarified whether the subject is major. Jim believes it would be substantial to give away 5+ acres in perpetuity. Jere thought they reserved the right to use it for storm water retention. Jim thought they would then have some kind of protections. Jim asked if the Board could agree that this would be a major change. Harry clarified that they could come back to have it reconsidered. There was considerable
discussion about whether a vote is needed to consider this being a major change. Harry hasn’t heard anything more from Patsy Leavitt about it. She was supposed to be notified when Bill Plouffe’s response was received.
Ask Krystal to make sure the applicant for Narragansett receives the response from Bill Plouffe regarding procedure for reconsideration of the zoning change. Would you please make sure, Krystal, that all applicants receive info that has come in for the Board?
The Board doesn’t know if she has received this item. She was told specifically that she would be given a copy of this response. There was some discussion about whether the Board should vote on whether they believe this is a substantive change in order to consider this as a new submission. Jere thought they needed to vote on this. Jim thought it should be done—voting on this being a substantive change. David A stated that because it is a new submission, therefore, the entire Board would vote on it. They believe this is what Bill is saying. Jere thought they needed a motion to re-consider and another to see if this is a substantive change. Harry asked about the order. It was generally agreed that the motion to re-consider should
be made first. No motion was made by Jere, Harry or David A, those in the majority for the previous vote of “No.”
- Motioned by Jim, seconded by Caroline, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
Approval Date: __________________
Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman Signature Date