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 06/01/2009
TOWN OF BUXTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Minutes
June 1, 2009


Recorded by Hilda Lynch

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

Others Present:  Fred Farnham, William Thompson (BH2M), Brenda Waterman, Hazel Pinkham, David Langella, Mark Pombriant, and Becky Turek    

Continued public hearing and discussion of site walk for Pleasant Ridge Subdivision owned by Normand Berube Builders, Inc., a proposed 7-lot cluster subdivision located on Pleasant Ridge Road (formally Paucek Road); Tax Map 8, Lot 40A.

Public hearing for Rebecca Turek of 56 Kairos Way has submitted an application for an in home day care; Tax Map 5, Lot 5-3  

Public hearing for Mark Pombriant who is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales at 28 Tory Hill Drive; Tax Map 10, Lot 16A-4.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vice Chairman Jeremiah Ross, III, called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

Pledge of allegiance

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING and discussion of site walk for Pleasant Ridge Subdivision owned by Normand Berube Builders, Inc., a proposed 7-lot cluster subdivision located on Pleasant Ridge Road (formally Paucek Road); Tax Map 8, Lot 40A.
        Bill Thompson from BH2M addressed the Board.  He talked about the public hearing being continued and a second site walk held on May 18th.  The Plan has been brought before the Board several times as well as undergoing a peer review.
        Bill thought the site walk went well with a number of Board members and several neighbors.  Mr. Marshall attended and was able to see where the lots would be so went away feeling much better about the subdivision.  In Bill’s last submission of May 26th, they cleaned up the ownership of the Emery’s lots and dealt with the maintenance of the access road.  There weren’t many issues.
        Jere said that everyone on the Board attended the site walk of May 18th.  They walked up to the northeast side of Lot 6 and looked at the drainage.  The drainage was going to go down and away from the Marshall’s property.  Any additional ditching would probably increase water flow so it was probably better to keep it as planned.  
David A thought that where the footprints of the buildings and the yards were would not impact the drainage.  He doesn’t think it will ever be different than it is now.  The roads and other impervious surfaces could increase the ability to absorb what it already has and the runoff will go away from the Marshall property.
Caroline concurs with David on the site walk.  The PBR was received.  The DEP application was submitted April 20, so the 14 days have elapsed so they at BH2M have assumed the permit is okay.  Caroline asked if they’ve received comments on the Homeowners’ Association documents from the Town attorney.  They have been received and a few changes have been made and submitted to the Code Enforcement Office.  Caroline asked about any performance bonds.  Key Bank will hold a cash account for the town to draw on should it be necessary.  She asked about any inspections that would be needed.  She thought that the same calendar that they’re suggesting for another project might be beneficial.  She appreciates their amending the Plan with all of the notes.
David S mentioned a discrepancy on the Findings of Fact regarding the number of lots.
When abutters were asked for comments, Keith mentioned a lot line that could not be taken out because there are two separate lots there.  He said the Road Commissioner had still not been contacted for test pits, which needs to be done.
Jere asked for any more comments from the general public.
  • David A motioned, David S seconded, to close the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
Jere asked for any additional conditions.
Bill mentioned that they’ve already done test pits and their intention is to get the Road Commissioner and Fred out there to look at this.  Jere feels the bonus is on the developer to see that this gets done.
They’ll submit a letter on how it would be done and the time frame – value associated with the performance guarantee.  The amount determined by Key Bank would be $95,155.  Bill stated he would not use any of the gravel on the road.
Jere asked Fred if he went out to look at drainage control and erosion.  Fred says he usually goes out once the site has been approved.  Fred says they usually get all of the permits at once.  Jere asked Fred if he felt comfortable with all inspections, and Fred said he does.  
Caroline asked if they’ve received the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) bylaws.  There should be a copy for the file.  Jere asked if they wanted to make it a condition to have them approved by Town Counsel.  Whatever the Town Attorney approves would be acceptable, it was agreed.
As part of the record, the applicant agrees to HOA documents as agreed to by Town Counsel.
Caroline asked if they would get a final set of plans.  Bill said that they would.  
Caroline asked about the lot line.  Keith says there are two separate deeds and two separate lots.  If the map is recorded in York County, it has to be shown as two lots or the Plan would be incorrect to the people of York County.  The original problem was that there was a lot with no name on it.  Now the lots have been combined.  Keith says that if you’re going to register a Plan, it should be accurate.  Bill asked if the Emery’s received a tax bill for each lot, and Keith said they did.  Bill will modify the lot Plan.  
Jere 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.
        3. That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of
Section 11. (if applicable)
        4. All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.
There are no additional conditions of approval.
  • Caroline motioned, seconded by David A, 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.   All voted in favor.
  • Caroline motioned, seconded by David S, to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings.  All voted in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING:  Rebecca Turek
        Keith motioned, seconded by David S, to open the public hearing.  All voted in favor.

        Rebecca plans to have an in home daycare in her residence.  She submitted approval from the State of Maine.  The site walk was held on April 20, 2009, and all Board members were present except Caroline who went on her own.
        Board members agreed that everything looked good and that there was plenty of parking.  
        Jere asked if there were any abutters or general public present with questions.  None appeared.
  • Keith motioned, seconded by David A, to close the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
        Jere mentioned that Rebecca has approval from the State.  The State Fire Marshall was out in December.  She got a form stating that two conditions were needed and then she received the license.  Rebecca says she has to go back every year.  Caroline asked for copies to be submitted to the Town.  She’s asking to have a maximum of 11 children in her daycare as she has one of her own. 
        Jere 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.
        3. That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of
Section 11. (if applicable)
        4. All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.
        5.  Daycare license be on file at the Code Enforcement Office.
  • Keith motioned, seconded by David A, to waive the reading of 8.2.B.  All voted in favor.
  • Keith motioned, Jere seconded, 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.
  • Keith motioned, Caroline seconded, to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings.  All voted in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING:  Mark Pombriant
  • Keith motioned, seconded by Caroline, to open the public hearing.  All voted in favor.
        Mark spoke about the auto sales he plans to have at 30 Tory Hill Drive.  A site walk was held on May 4th with all Board members in attendance.  No Board members had additional comments.
        Jere asked for abutters.  Dave Langella lives behind Mark’s business.  Dave has no problems with him having used cars.  He mentioned another auto dealership which is throwing used tires, gas tanks, dumping motor oil, junk cars, etc. in the back of the garage.  He doesn’t want to go out in his backyard and look at this.  None of this was supposed to happen at the other place.  Jere said this is a code enforcement issue, and he should contact Fred to have him do an inspection.  Jere said that if they are violating the conditions of their approval, this needs to be dealt with.  Jim mentioned that if they are dumping oil, this is a call to the DEP.  Dave says you can see the oil on the ground.  He asked if there was a 40 ft. buffer zone.  Jere said he doesn’t have that in front of him and would have to go back and look at the records.  Jere found it on the Plan.  The cars are not in that buffer.  Jere asked Mark to address this.  Mark stated that he has no intention of doing anything like this on his property.  Mark and Dave have discussed this before and believe that what they see there now is the way it will be.  Dave is concerned about it turning into an eyesore.  
        David S asked how far away his well was from that oil spill.  His well is in front of his house so he’s 5 or 600 feet away from it.  Jere mentioned that a conditional use goes with the Pombriant property.  Someone could buy it and not be as attentive as Mark is now.  Maybe they should have a condition now that there won’t be anything but used vehicles there.  Dave is understanding about a working garage and knows that things might be set outside from time to time.  David A mentioned that they’ve received something which addresses tire recycling and other waste on the property.  He’s satisfied that Mark will comply with these issues.  
        Jere asked if there were any comments from the general public.
        Caroline asked about buffers for this property.  Jere said he thought it was taken care of with the industrial park.  Jim thinks the application is pretty complete and they don’t need to over condition it.  Caroline asked to have it said that these items are maintained for the life of the business.  
        Additional condition:
        The applicant will be limited to a maximum of 25 vehicles at a time.
        Caroline asked about these items pertaining to this particular use.  Jere 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.
        3. That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of
Section 11. (if applicable)
        4. All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.
  • David A motioned, Keith seconded, that the public hearing be closed.  All voted in favor.
  • Jere motioned, seconded by David A, to waive the reading of Article 8.2.B.  All voted in favor.
  • Jere motioned, seconded by David A., 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.
  • Jere motioned, seconded by David A., to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings.  All voted in favor.
        Jere asked about something needing to be signed, which has already been done.  
          

Hazel Pinkham is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for an in home day care at 92 Chicopee Road; Tax Map 2, Lot 1.
        Brenda Waterman, her daughter, is representing Hazel Pinkham.  They would like to have a maximum of 12 children in their home.  The State and the Fire Marshall have approved them.  
        Caroline asked if they needed anything from the Fire Chief regarding a fire hydrant.  Brenda stated that they have ponds right on their driveway.  David A said that if they do have the certificate, it would be appropriate to have these documents for the file.  Brenda said that they weren’t able to get the permit until the Town has approved them.  Jere asked if they had a letter from the State Fire Marshall.  They can provide this for the Code Enforcement Office.  
        Jere asked if the Board was confident they had enough information to set a site walk.  
  • Caroline motioned, seconded by David A, to hold a site walk on Thursday, June 4, 2009, at 6 p.m.  All voted in favor.  
        Keith and Jim will go on their own.  The property is located right after Chicopee Lumber on the left, and the driveway is between a barn and their driveway.  Jere asked them to send their documentation to Krystal.  Jere stated that the sooner the better for the documents.  
        

CEO Report:
        Fred has no report.
        Keith asked Fred if Maranatha Farms has a kennel license approved by the Planning Board.  Fred said they had a license prior to the ordinance.  Keith said that they keep expanding and wonders why they haven’t come before the Board.  Keith has been asked by others why they haven’t been before the Board.  Fred said he considers him grandfathered if he had his license before the ordinance.  Keith thinks he has expanded three times in the last nine years and believes he should be coming before the Planning Board.  Jim wonders if an attorney would need to give an interpretation on it.  Caroline believes a substantial change would have to come before the Board.  The Code Enforcement Office can make an interpretation if it is something minor.  Keith believes it has gone beyond minor.  Jim mentioned “expansion of use” in the ordinance being a litmus test for a definition.  He read from the definition.  Jere asked Fred if he would look it over.
        Caroline wonders about the status of some of the projects they’ve reviewed.  She wondered about the Buddhist Temple and Aceto’s.  She’d noticed that three shrubs the Aceto’s have planted have died and they would need to replace them within a year.  Fred said he was at Aceto’s today and walked the complete perimeter.  They have an application with DEP to level or grade what’s there.  The septic system has been put in.  A pile of loom has been placed there and that will be spread.  He doesn’t know about paving yet.  They’ve brought in some gravel so they could tar; they’re building a base.  Caroline is getting a lot of input on that particular project because it isn’t finished and people don’t want it to continue the same as it has indefinitely.  Keith stated that they might want to put timelines on projects like this.  Caroline thought they might want to consider this for projects such as this.  Certain conditions haven’t been done.
        Fred said the parking lot and screen for the porta potties and the leveling device and erosion control has been done for the Buddhist Temple.  They’re doing work on the inside of the building.  They’re putting a fence along the road for additional screening.  They continue to work on it.  David S asked about the surfacing for the parking lot.  Fred said it would be gravel.  They wanted to put an additional culvert at the lower end of the parking lot so they’d have more than one access.  The Fire chief concurred that this wasn’t a bad idea and Fred concurred.  Keith thought it would be a safety issue – less chance of an accident.  Fred said that their funds are limited so they’re progressing slowly.
        Jere asked about the status of the school.  Fred believes it is on schedule.  The gym and office area are sheathed and roofed.  They’re working on Part C of the project.  
        Mapes is the other large project.  They closed down today, and they’re trying to make the transition.  They’ll be closed for about three weeks.  Keith believes it is a big improvement over there—the wall looks nice.  Fred believes it will be a real asset to the Town.  He thinks Jonathan has done a beautiful job with the architecture in an historical district of the Town.    

Approval of Minutes:  April 27, 2009
        Motioned by Jere, seconded by Keith, to approve the minutes as amended.  All voted in favor.
May 11, 2009
Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jim, to approve as amended.  All voted in favor.

Approval of Bills:  
  • To pay Portland Press Herald in the amount of $45.24 and  $20.88 for legal ads for the zoning ordinance changes to run twice and $114.84 for Blueberry Ridge, Narragansett Trail and Pleasant Ridge subdivisions to run twice – For a total of  $180.96.
  • Keith motioned, seconded by Jere, to pay the above bills.  All voted in favor.
  • To pay SMRPC for Jon Lockman’s review and proposed changes to the Shore land Zoning maps in the amount of $440.00
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jere, to approve payment of the above bill.  All voted in favor.


Communications:
  • Notice of Dig Safe Training seminar on June 11 – contact Krystal if interested
  • E-mail from Town Counsel in regards to what standards can be applied to development applications – how much leeway the Board has in applying standards to certain applications
  • A flow chart on the application process prepared by Caroline Segalla:
        ~Rough sketch plan
        ~Meet with planning board 7 days before submission  (if 6 months have passed, pre-app is necessary)
        ~Applicant supplies 11 copies of the plan 7 days before the meeting
        ~Move the site walk up to Step 3, Jere stated, if the application is pretty much complete.  Jere suggested moving the site walk to A and re-label B,C, and D.  Jim likes the idea of the site walk being relatively early.  Jere asked about adding the site walk to the preliminary stage of the application.  They almost always ask for additional information after the site walk.  What if it is winter or vernal pools season, etc., Caroline asked.  Jim thinks they shouldn’t make a broad generalization.  He doesn’t believe that it matters with some sites whether there’s snow on the ground or not.  David S mentions that daycares have not been a problem in the winter, either.  Caroline will remove the last two.  If there’s a question about the conditions during the winter, they can ask for a re-evaluation when the snow has gone.  
        Keith thought that subdivisions needed to be looked at before snow.  David A believes the Board needs to be open on a case by case basis.  David A thinks that if they’re establishing a policy, they’re not looking at it from a group perspective and for the applicant.  Jere mentioned that field work could be done before snow.  David stated that in respect to Pleasant Ridge, he was pleased to have an abutter make his opinion known.  The Board just can’t decide that a site walk is a site walk.  If things come up, it should be at the Board’s discretion.  Caroline asked about this process being terminated.  She asked about an after-the-fact site walk.  Would they be holding up a project?  Keith says that if you look at DEP subdivisions, they don’t want site walks when there’s snow on the ground.  The vegetation can’t be seen.  Caroline wanted to know if they could ask for legal advice from the town’s attorney on this.  Jim said that in his experience he’s never been stopped unless there are extreme circumstances, such as, blizzard-like conditions.  Jere said that it came up when they did Greensward Hamlet.  It wasn’t in the ordinance that site walks wouldn’t be held when there was snow on the ground.  He said there’s discretion in there.  Jim said it would beg the question, how much snow is too much snow?  Jere believes they have a role to serve the applicants expediently and judiciously.  Keith gave an example in which the Town might be stuck with a problem.  The Board might be liable for prolonging an application.  Jim mentioned second guessing what professionals are doing.  David A made a case for doing site by site evaluations.  They could determine whether a second site walk might be needed when snow is gone.  Jere thinks applicants might want to have site walks in the fall when it is drier.  
        Jim wonders to what extent that the Board members and applicants are fixed by the process being considered.  There haven’t been a lot of pre-applications in the past.  At least one Board member took issue with the fact that an applicant came to the Board without an application.  To what extent would they not accept an application that comes in front of them without having gone through this rough sketch plan stage.  Caroline says this is a mechanism to sound the Board out but might not always be the case.  This process would be used when it is needed—not mandated.  Jim has no problems with the flow chart.  13.2.2.A. and B. – Jere asks if they’re okay with this.  Caroline says it is straight from the ordinance.  
        Jere thinks there needs to be consensus from the Board whether peer review is needed.  Jim asks if things might come up at the public hearing that would necessitate peer review.  Several Board members believe that the peer review should be done before the public hearing.  At what point does the Board set the public hearing?  Caroline points out where it should be after the full evaluation.  The peer review issue needs to be switched.  Caroline will clean up the chart.  Jere believes the Board needs all the pertinent information before the public hearing is set.  Caroline asked Jere if she could send out a draft out first to the Board members.  
        Jim goes on the record “to laud the efforts of Caroline Segalla for her efforts in putting this flow chart together to help the Board.”  
        Jere mentioned getting the people involved before things go too far along—in the pre-application process.  Krystal sends out a letter (not a registered one), and Jere thinks that they get only a 20 percent response.  Keith doesn’t think the letters always go out.  Jere wonders if they want to spend the money to send these out twice by registered mail.  It is done twice for the town Caroline works for – both are certified and return/receipt requested.  It is done at the applicant’s expense.  Jere thought that instead of contacting the abutters, should they draw a circle around the project and anyone in a radius of 500 ft. be notified.  Caroline thinks they should check with staff first because it would impact their work.  The applicant is responsible for providing all of the abutters’ names and addresses on the application.  Keith mentioned the new Town garage.  Abutters were notified—just 500 more feet beyond wouldn’t work.  Jim would play devil’s advocate and go back to Jere’s earlier comment, should it not be in the ordinance in black and white.  Keith said it used to be there and was taken out – the issue was the people across the street.  Jim and Caroline believe there is legal precedence for that.
        Jere thanked Caroline for the work she put into the flow chart.
  • Conservation easement registry – Jere asked who was making people register.  The Maine State Planning Office, Caroline thought.  The IRS has cracked down on conservation easements, Jere stated.  They’d have to be registered and taxes paid on them.  
  • Agenda for the Gorham Planning Board – May 18th – talking about building joint fire stations – looking at Dingly Springs Rd.
Jere reminded the Board and the general public that next week’s meeting, June 8th at 7 o’clock, will be in the small conference room at the opposite end of the building.

  • Copy of Budget
  • A Maine Townsman
Letter from American Planning Assn.  – tells what they are - $9 dues – Jere asked if Caroline was interested, and the Planning Board could pay for it for her.  Caroline will look at it.
E-mail from Bill Plouffe’s assistant in regards to changes and amendments to the shore land zoning – next step is to schedule a workshop with Joanne to give her some of Mike’s changes and then meet with her to go over shore land zoning.  Keith thinks they need a workshop.  Jim doesn’t think it is compelling for Mike to be there.  If they meet with Town Counsel and there are compelling issues, the Board may need to meet with Mike Morse.
Krystal – have you forwarded changes from Mike Morse at DEP to Bill Plouffe’s office?
        Caroline asked if the draft Shoreland Zoning map would be ready so they could review it at the same time.  Caroline will contact J.T. Lockman.  
        Caroline asked if the Board could have a workshop on a regular meeting night.  Jim mentioned that this would postpone some of the applicants.  Jere doesn’t believe they could have just one meeting a month for applicants.  He tried to look ahead to see if they’d have to meet in July.  It doesn’t look like they will need to meet in July.
Krystal – tentatively schedule a meeting with Joanne on the 29th of June at 6 p.m. or someone from Drummond Woodsum – fallback date, July 20th

Other Business:  
        Review finding of facts for:
        Narragansett Business Park - postponed
        Pleasant Ridge Subdivision - postponed

        Review proposed Shore land Ordinance changes with DEP and Town Attorney comments - postponed

Motioned by Jim, seconded by Caroline to adjourn at 8:48 p.m.  All voted in favor.


Next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 8, 2009

Date approved: ___________                              


 ______________________
Date signed:  ______________                      Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman
                                                  Town of Buxton Planning Board




 
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