Town of Buxton Planning Board Meeting
August 24, 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
Others Present: Patsy Thompson Leavitt, Bob Lowell of the American Journal, Jackson’s, Nancy & Bruce Stedman, J. Oliver, Dan Glover, Kimberley Grover, Danny Reali, Marina Salang, Barry Miller, Pam & Herb Hurd, and Jean Harmon
Chairman Harry Kavouksorian called the August 24, 2009, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board together at 7 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Final subdivision submission for Narragansett Business Park, LLC, for an industrial business park located off Route 202, Tax Map 7, Lot 20A.
Patsy Thompson Leavitt, owner of Narragansett Business Park, spoke to the Board. Three items were sent to the Code Enforcement Office from the last meeting. Caroline asked if the Town Attorney had reviewed the latest letter of credit, and Harry stated that he had. Patsy stated that all of the changes had been made as requested and turned it in. Did we receive the okay from the DPW on the cost of the aggregate base and the erosion control. Caroline has issue with the under drains not included in the letter of credit. She knows these will be done after site work is completed; but usually an entire project is included in the Performance Guarantee. If the applicant is not able to increase the amount, she recommends not releasing any funds
until the under drains are completed. The release could be done at the end. She doesn’t know how the Board feels about it. Patsy thinks that some parts are included in the right of way and some in the lots themselves. Caroline wants some money left in there so when they get to Lot 2 there will be some money left there. Harry asked if Caroline would prefer to see this as an itemized thing in the list that goes with the Performance Guarantee. Patsy asked if it could be made a Condition of Approval. Caroline asked Fred if he agrees. Fred feels that it is up to the Board.
Jim asks if Caroline’s recommending that the Performance Guarantee be changed or could this be conditioned? Caroline thought they could put something in the Conditions for the Findings. Jim thinks it was left out purposely because it might be the responsibility of the buyers of the lots. He thinks they should be constructed as part of the road to address runoff. Patsy thinks that what will be put in for the road will be what is necessary. Caroline is concerned about the release of funds being done before the final under drains are done. Patsy is fine with it being put in as a Condition. She thinks parts of it will be on the private lots. Jim wondered if no building permits could be issued until the under drain system is complete. Harry asked if someone could come in and give them an estimate of the cost. Since they don’t know what the impervious will be on each lot, they aren’t able to put an exact number on the cost, Patsy thought. Jim asked about the $3,000
contingency. Caroline recommends that Patsy get an estimate of the cost of the under drains. Patsy clarified that they have a “Performance Bond.” Caroline says that usually the developer takes care of everything from the beginning to the end. She is concerned about the Town being covered. Jim asked if they could have something stating that a percentage won’t be released until these under drains are in place. Jere believes that the Public Works Director will let the Board know when it is time to release funds on the Performance Bond. Jere believes the under drains are on private property. Jim believes the under drains will remain the same size, designed to address runoff from the road. Jere asked if they had anything from Bill Plouffe’s comments regarding the Performance Bond. Patsy says that the version they have includes his changes, although they haven’t seen his notes. Harry clarified what Jere had stated
about the Public Works Director letting the Board know when they could release funds. Caroline referred to a note that said that no under drains were included in the Performance Bond.
Harry read the Findings of Fact for the record.
Motioned by Jim, seconded by David Savage, to waive the reading of Article 13. All voted in favor.
David S. mentioned that the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife letter has been received stating that no significant impact would occur. Caroline mentioned that the vote should be changed to August 10, 2009, from the May date in the Findings. Caroline wanted to add: the Board would assure by conferring with the Public Works Director that sufficient funds would be kept in the Performance Bond to complete the under drains for the road.
Caroline motioned, Jere seconded, to approve the Findings of Fact as amended. All voted in favor.
Harry stated that the Plans would be signed at the end of the meeting, and the Plans would be with Krystal and Fred until they are stamped.
Jerry Oliver of 17 Henderson Drive is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for firewood processing and bark mulch sales at Tax Map 7, Lot 26.
Harry believes that bark mulch sales has been stricken from his application.
Jerry spoke about his wood processing proposal. He has submitted the plans earlier. The Board went out for a site walk on July 27, 2009. Jim didn’t attend but has since seen the site.
Jerry is looking to process firewood in a 50 x 100 area for retail sales that will take place off site. He will be loading the wood and transporting to a homeowner where he will make the sale.
David S said he saw a lot of water there in the brook and culvert area. He referred to letters that he has received. He saw pictures of Mr. Grover’s property which is very close and his foundation drain was under water, which he was concerned about. He would be concerned about anything running toward the brook. Jere thinks the issue of the drainage needs to be reviewed. Harry mentioned oil being introduced into the property and where that will drain. Jere doesn’t think they should get involved in pre-existing conditions although it is up to the Board to debate and decide. There is no new construction as it has already been done; he doesn’t think the Board has jurisdiction over what has been done. There might be enforcement
issues. The whole issue of drainage and the pitch of the culvert to Webster Rd and the filling and grading are pre-existing conditions. He thinks the Board could decide differently.
Jerry believes that he and Mr. Grover have had a settlement on this issue. There was a lawsuit and a settlement. Jere believes he would be responsible for drainage that comes off his property. Is he responsible for what comes upstream to his property. Keith wonders if someone is putting additional water on his property. Jerry explained the drainage that he and Mr. Grover have done. It was away from that ditch at one time. Jere asked if all of the owners upstream are responsible for water that comes onto his property and then he is responsible for this water. David A asks how it gets maintained. Jim clarified what might be civil issues. Will his operation affect drainage to that stream?
What Jim was struck by when he went to the site was the question of whether this is a business that is appropriate for a wide-open lot with no buffers to the neighbors. He knows there’s already a chain saw operation across from it. He is sensitive to this because of his
own cutting and splitting of a much smaller amount of wood. Jim believes there has to be a major plan to buffer the site for the benefit of the neighbors.
Jerry is trying to obtain a permit for what he has now. Fred told him that he needed a Conditional Use Permit if he’s selling to others. He has a 200-acre lot that he is cutting the wood from--family-owned property in Farmington. Harry clarified that someone else could come along and use this lot if he sold it. Jim said that he would feel better if he were going to operate only a couple of days a week.
Jerry said that he doesn’t know when he will actually be processing so can’t make a stipulation about the days and times of operation. Jere and Jim raised the concern about the fact that no buffering is being proposed. If they give approval for the time he is asking for, it is a lot to ask of the neighbors. Jerry is looking at the surrounding area and what is already present. He didn’t think he was required to have a permit because he has a smaller area with similar impact to his neighbor as the man across the street. He is willing to put a buffer in if he knows what would be needed. The applicant would consider this and come back with a plan. Jim is concerned about the noise as well as the visual aspect of the site. There is a
difference between grandfathered and not. Jerry had Christmas trees there, but they’re just seedlings.
Keith mentioned the sizes of trees in the ordinance. Jim mentioned possibly a stockade fence and some trees. He is not willing to approve this application as it is. Jere believes there is a need for some revisions. Jere asked how many cords would be processed.
Jerry believes it will depend on the number of sales he has. There would be 75 cord there to begin with—a cord at a time as it is sold would be processed. It won’t be an ongoing daily stockpiling.
Jere asked if he would be willing to modify his hours to three days a week. Jerry is open to something like this. How much does he want to operate in a residential neighborhood even though it is a rural zone? Jere suggested. Harry says the lot is in the rural zone. David A had many of the same comments – remaining focused on the issues at hand. He’s concerned about the buffering; there’s a significant dumpage of fill. It does not look like a residential area and can relate to concerns of every neighbor in the area. No matter what he does, David A believes that the area is so wide open it wouldn’t lend itself to buffering. He thinks it is an industrial site that he’s unwilling to approve. Jerry asked what makes the site
industrial. It is a wide open industry; he doesn’t feel it is visually acceptable. David A wouldn’t want to live on that street.
Caroline went on her own to the site. She has the same feelings as others. The history of the parcel – Lot 1 was already developed so that it didn’t get reviewed under subdivision when the others were. This lot has had some issues from the beginning. Wouldn’t they have to get a flood hazard permit for the tree clearing? She understands the business across the street has been there for 40 years – grandfathered – who’s to say that it won’t become unacceptable to the neighbors. She believes the business/ commercial zone is designed for this type of use. Manufacturing is a Condition of
Approval. She considers this warehousing and outdoor storage. Since this hasn’t been reviewed for any drainage, there has been no wetland study done. It is the Planning Board’s responsibility to review it from the get-go – to look at this project from the beginning to determine whether it conforms to the ordinance. It is up to the applicant to prove to the Board that it meets the ordinances.
Jere and Keith said this lot wasn’t included in the subdivision, and they couldn’t look at it. Caroline said it would have required a Flood Hazard permit for clearing. Fred said that something was wrong on the map. The elevation was established in 1996. Part of Lot 1 would be included in the floodplain – not where the business is being done. Jerry said that he left some trees and planned to grow some Christmas trees. Jim asked if they had any wetland delineation done. Jim thinks that would be a good idea from this time forward. Jerry thinks he did discuss this with Fred. He didn’t think it was required because the business wasn’t in the 100-yr flood zone so it wasn’t required. Jim says that both private contractors
and the Town have placed some fill on the property.
Caroline asked if he was going to be living in the residence. He said it is rented now, and they don’t have any issues. There’s a 12 in. culvert – some work was supposed to be done on it. The culvert was put in to cross the existing ditch – it’s just a temporary culvert to go across the property to access trees and a shed. David A mentioned that this culvert would be moved. Jere asked about the need for a permit to put a culvert on his property. Fred said he wouldn’t need one since it’s not a designated stream. Caroline saw the trees that were left; a fence was not going to do anything for the noise. It couldn’t be enclosed. She thinks it is the wrong place for this type of use. She understands he’s been doing this
Jerry stated that Frank’s firewood business was on that side of the road. Jim says that when Frank had it, there were trees on it. Caroline mentioned that now people are living there so that has to be considered. She doesn’t think it is appropriate.
Jim mentions the conditional use section of the ordinance, but there are elements of this that don’t comply with the conditional use categories. It is sort of like manufacturing, sort of like storage (not permitted under conditional use), etc. Jere thought he could cut the trees but not store them on the property. Jere asked if it was worth talking with Town Counsel about this. Harry believes it would be appropriate to get his input. Jere mentions that one of the abutters mentioned that the applicant doesn’t live on the property, which he believes is not an issue because Jerry Oliver is a taxpayer in the Town.
Jerry asked what he could do for a buffer to make this happen. Keith mentions that he would have to plant some trees. Jim mentions that he should look in the ordinance to see what the minimum is and bring something back to the Board. Caroline and Jim asked Fred if he had gone out with the sound meter to test a similar site.
Fred said there was a similar site proposed. Part of the review was recording the sound levels before and after—what it took to reduce the sound down to 55 decibels. Jere asked if he would be in compliance. It would be Fred’s suggestion to have sound meter readings made from various points—before and after.
Jere thought this would be something the applicant would need to prove to the Board. Jim mentioned a Bobcat and a conveyer. Jerry mentioned something similar to a cutoff saw—a motor running a pump. At this point, they are not ready for this. It will be a winter project to change the way the wood would be cut. David S asked about two chain saws. Harry mentioned that he said up to two chain saws. Caroline mentioned that Frank is doing basically the same thing, and she thought they could check on his business hours. They could test Frank’s operation from the property line to get an idea. She mentioned them operating at the same time and wondered about the noise level. Jim believes that the best extent he can do to narrow
this and make it clear to the Board, the better the chances he will vote favorably on it. There was some discussion about a building to enclose the business operation.
Jerry asked if it didn’t look like a field. Jim would suggest a wetland delineation before he does anything else. Jere mentioned they’d need some kind of site plan to show that the drainage doesn’t go into the wetlands. David A mentioned wetland vegetation. Jim outlined the possibility of an engineer doing some work on the site. The ordinance suggests that they’re supposed to review runoff to the drainage outlet.
David S asked about re-locating the business on the other side of the garage. Jerry asked about him moving his business across the street. Jim thought it might make it easier for him. Would he need a permit? Jim and Jere stated that he would. Jim mentioned David’s request to move it on the 5-acre site so it wouldn’t be so objectionable. Jerry says he doesn’t think this is in the best interest of everybody.
The burden of the applicant is for him to come into compliance with the conditions of the ordinance, Jere stated. He is within his right to proceed. Jere mentioned that if he were to locate his business in the business/commercial zone, he could obtain a permit from Fred. Caroline asked if he was even interested in pursuing this.
Jerry said he would start with the noise testing. He might even find someone who could help him with decreasing the noise. Jere mentioned a letter from a former Gorham Planning Board member so he could investigate what the Gorham Planning Board has imposed on a similar business. Keith mentioned asking the Town Attorney for advice about the use. Keith outlined what he would be looking at if the Town Attorney said that he could comply with one of the uses. Jim asked about polling the Board. Harry feels the application needs some work if he wishes to go forward: DEP application, noise, site plan, all of the issues outlined in the ordinance. The Attorney’s advice would affect Jere’s vote. Board members will let Mr. Oliver know
when they have a response from the attorney; Harry thought he might have it within a week or so.
Discussion of site walk for Daniel & Jennifer Jackson who are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to house six goats at 165 Long Plains Road; Tax Map 1, Lot 194-8.
Jennifer addressed the Board. Harry stated that they went out for a site walk last Monday. She submitted a new plan.
David A said his review was a good learning experience. It was clear that the Jackson’s seem to know what they’re doing. The facility would be unobjectionable to passersby. Caroline concurred, as did Jim. David S mentioned that since she would use covered manure, the wells wouldn’t be an issue. The garage didn’t look 100 feet from the property. Jennifer asked about a “dwelling” at the previous meeting. The building in question is a garage. Jere was fine with the site walk as was Keith. Harry asked if the Board was ready to set a public hearing.
Keith motioned, Jim seconded, to set a public hearing for the above on September 14, 2009. All voted in favor.
Harry mentioned they would go through the revised application at the public hearing. Jennifer asked about the contract she has with the hauler of the manure – would she need a copy for their file? They stated they would like that.
Discussion of site walk for Robert Horr & Marina Salang are applying for a subdivision amendment to Pinkham Development #3 for a land exchange to adjust property lines at 54 Seavey Drive; Tax Map 9, Lot 10G.
A Special Town Meeting was held on August 12, 2009; and it was approved by the Town that they go ahead with the land swap.
David A said it was a win-neutral situation: woods from woods. Caroline says that the land was the same type being swapped. Jim would make a comment that it is unfortunate that this type of thing occurred. He doesn’t think the Planning Board is the right place for corrections to property lines that people have done incorrectly; otherwise, he would be reluctant to have this be a Planning Board approval. Jere seconded what Jim said. He thinks the cemetery had a bearing. He doesn’t think it was good building and planning and suggested a surveyor be employed in any future building that she does. Keith concurred. Harry suggested they move forward.
Jere motioned, seconded by David S, that a public hearing be set for September 14, 2009, for the above. All voted in favor.
Caroline said they looked at the site plan; there’s a note about a variance that was approved. With the land transfer, she would like a note that the variance would be null and void. She would like to ask Town Counsel for some wording. Harry stated the deeds were done. The variance granted would be null and void according to Article 13.7 – a revision of a previously approved Pinkham Development #3. The info about the Special Town Meeting of August 12 should be noted on Plan. On the plan reference right before Pinkham, add “revision of previously approved subdivision plan.” Caroline will send to Krystal who can send it to them.
Harry asked Jean Harmon about the note from Bill Plouffe about the billing from this. Jean said they haven’t received the bill, but it will be passed on to the landowner. Harry asked if there should be a condition. David A doesn’t think this is the Planning Board’s business. Harry wanted some clarification.
Danny asked when he would receive the reference to the Plan, and Harry thought he might get it sometime tomorrow.
Jere stated that they’d sign the Mylar at the next meeting, and then they could proceed to their next steps.
Nancy & Bruce Stedman of Little River Farm located at 160 Turkey Lane are inquiring about the use of their property for weddings and receptions; Tax Map 3, Lot 3.
Nancy stated that they’ve lived on their farm for 14 years. Nancy explained what they grow on their farm. She’s designed flowers for weddings, and there has been a trend in recent years to have weddings in a natural environment. There’s a trend to go green. It was a natural thing for them to start thinking about--having weddings at their home.
Krystal talked with Fred, and there wasn’t a clear-cut ordinance. She wants to know how they should proceed. Harry said that the issue is that the lot is in two different zones. Bruce said that the line goes right through their home. They’re proposing to use the rural area. It would be back about 500 ft. down from the main road. The tents wouldn’t be visible, and other facilities would be down over the hill and out of sight. Harry stated that they had a conversation with the Town Attorney, and they’ve been trying to figure out what the use would be. He thought the closest they could come up with would be a “restaurant.” Caroline has reviewed items like this in the town where she works. Parking
and hours of operation have to be reviewed. A restaurant would have to be within the principal structure; they’re proposing to have it fully outside. Bruce said it would be fully catered. Harry explains that they’re looking for the category to put it into. A retail business would not be permitted, Jim stated. They’re wondering if they could couch this loosely as a restaurant.
David S mentioned the river going through their property, so they would be in a shore land zone. Bruce stated they’d be well beyond the setbacks for the Little River. The Stedman’s would show aerial maps if they find that this is something that would be acceptable.
David S thought that parking would be an issue. Bruce thought they’d have plenty of parking away from the shore land zone. They’d be hosting events from 15-20 people up to 200. The people that would be attracted would be encouraged to carpool. The issues they’d have to deal with would be parking, noise, environmental, Harry stated. They’d go through with some testing for the noise. They’d have times in their contract for hours for music.
Keith thinks the biggest issue to decide upon would be the use. They’re planning on rental of tents. Jere asked if tents would be up for the whole season. They would have them set up only for the size of the event. Jim mentioned them looking at the maximum number of people they’d have for parking. They had some discussion about parking. Caroline asked if they had any indoor facility. Nancy said they wouldn’t right now. She’s thinking there would be probably only one wedding a weekend and only so many week-ends. Jere mentions port-a-potties. David S asked about being licensed. The caterer would have to have a license. Jere mentioned an event in town might need
a permit for selling alcohol. If they’re selling liquor, they’d need a license from the State. Jean Harmon clarified a victualer’s license would be obtained from the Town. Each caterer would have to request a license of the Town. For every event, they would need to come and get a license. David S asked if they’d need one if they had a schedule for the whole summer. Jim asked if they needed to know this.
Is this appropriately deemed a restaurant? There was some discussion about the number of events during a summer. Bruce stated they deliver flowers every week-end for weddings. They’ve done flowers for up to 27 weddings in a summer. This plan is being promoted by the State and throughout the country. It’s called agri-tourism. It started with wine tours in CA and has now expanded. David A said he could go with an expanded use. Jim asked Fred about the appropriateness of a restaurant for this kind of endeavor. He said that this is why it is before the Board. They questioned home occupation. Restaurant within a principal structure doesn’t fit for Keith. Commercial recreation, Jere asked? Some did not
agree. Jim asked about a private park for marriages. Caroline thinks it is similar to a restaurant because this is what she’s seen in another town. She mentions the Attorneys statement – “similar to a restaurant.” Jim mentions the definition of “principal structure.” There was discussion about “principal” vs. “temporary” structure.
Jere motioned, David A seconded, to consider this as a restaurant for a conditional use. Five in favor; Keith and Jim opposed.
Harry thinks that this is a similar use according to the attorney. Jere said that they need to work on an application for a restaurant. They’d like the plan delineated as well as they could. Caroline asked if they’ve talked with any of their abutters yet? They haven’t done so yet. She mentioned a nuisance permit they’ve gotten in which she conferred with the neighbors. They would want guidelines and would be respectful of their neighbors. Caroline mentioned them having a calendar of their events. They could perhaps get brochures from farms similar to theirs and find out how others have handled these things: # of people, hours of operation, sanitation, site plan, parking, etc.
Fred spoke about the FEMA maps. The new updated versions have been received. He showed what the old maps looked like. It has been 27 years since these have been published. They’re looking at the maps to determine whose land is in the flood zones. There are now 19 of them instead of four. They’re on a different scale and are also topographic – satellite photographs – flood zones overlaid. Fred illustrated locations on the map. He wants to point out the amount of work Krystal has been involved in – taking these maps and transferring them to the tax maps to identify the landowners. We have over 400 people who will be notified. He shows the outline of Buxton, and the squares are indicative of the 19 maps that
compose the town of Buxton. Krystal had to enlarge the aerial photographs to bring them up to the size of the town tax maps, Fred explained. The scale is usually 1 to 500 for the tax maps. She would overlay the tax map over the flood plain map and follow the flood line and trace it onto the tax map. She used one of the windows for this. Jim mentioned that he has a light table that he would be happy to loan them. Krystal deserves a Medal of Honor to go through all of this. They now have a set of tax maps with these overlays.
Harry asked how the criteria changed? Fred said there were actually no real changes. He said that the one study that was done in detail was up at the Standish line on the Saco River where there is a small island, and they did the right fork. There were no houses there, so there were no changes. One thing was mentioned that was concerning Bonny Eagle Pond in 1996; they had what they called “the deluge,” so Fred made a mark of the high water on that pond. There has been an elevation established, and he hopes to get FEMA to acknowledge that high water mark to get people out of the flood plain. Jere asked if they were removed from the flood plain, would they need flood insurance? The mortgage inspection will trigger this elevation.
The onus is on the homeowner. It is up to the homeowner to prove that their house is not in the floodplain. Jere asked about change, and Fred said there probably won’t be any change at all. Jim comments that the effort that Fred and Krystal were involved in, many towns send out to be done and pay for, so he gives Krystal a lot of credit. Regarding the “deluge” that happened in ’96, there was a scientific article to determine that it was a 500-yr event. Caroline asked about a letter for an appeal letter. Fred said they’re sending a form letter with each notice to the landlord. All they have to do is sign it and send it to FEMA. They have to acknowledge that their home wasn’t impacted by the 500-yr event. Fred would like to thank the Board for taking their vacation, which afforded Krystal the time to do this. What month did “the deluge” occur? Fred said it was in October 1996. He says there are a number of
references around town with an elevation reference.
At the last meeting, Keith queried the status of Steve Cawood’s kennel and site. He questioned the conditional use in the rural zone. Keith checked the files, and the Board does have the information – a December 1999 letter concerning the status of his kennels. When presenting the letter to Mr. Cawood, Fred had the opportunity to see the facility. It was considered animal husbandry so based on that, Fred withdrew the letter and no further action was taken. Since this question has been raised about Maranatha activities, if they are to pursue their status, Fred would ask two things: To get it on the record, there is none of the last one in the minutes. He is requesting a vote of the Board if they wish to initiate action—not just one
individual’s request. Secondly, he’d ask the Board for a statement about their concern and the basis of that concern so he’d have something in writing on the record. He wants to know if this is the consensus of the Board and what are the particulars.
Jere asked if they have a Condition of Approval on file to operate a kennel. Would it be Fred’s view that they’re operating a kennel. Fred said they’ve been operating one for a long time. Fred said that he thinks there is grandfathering. Jim thinks it is a legitimate question when looking at “expansion of use” that he would ask to be used for any business entity in the Town of Buxton. Jim thinks the question was about their expanding their business. Jim recalls a conversation between Keith and Fred. Jim thinks this is a trigger that they would have to come back before the Board. He goes over the ordinance. He believes this is the objective way to look at this. How much have they done in the way of expansion and does
this constitute a need for them to come before the Planning Board. Jere mentioned that they have to have a Conditional Use Permit to operate a kennel. Jere disagrees with them being grandfathered. David S mentions the letter, which was withdrawn because it was considered animal husbandry. Jere asked when they adopted the kennel ordinance. Mr. Cawood started before the kennel ordinance. This is why Fred wants to know from the Board some particulars. Jim asked if it is true that he opened in ’97. Fred said that he built his home in ’76 and had dogs then. Jim clarified the site. Caroline asked if there have been any complaints; Fred said there hasn’t. Caroline said that they have been calling upon people who’ve had more than six dogs to come back as a formality. Caroline said that it went from animal husbandry to kennel at some point. The kennel definition came out, Fred said. Caroline thinks it would
be a formality if they’re asked to come back. Jim is still going to Keith’s question about the expansion. Jere mentioned that there has been no Planning Board permit. Fred stated that they’ve been training dogs for some time, and they’re now offering a greater variety of training. Caroline clarified others being grandfathered and coming before the Board. If someone else were coming into the site, then they might need to review it. Keith mentions that doggie daycare is an expansion. Jim mentioned that it is still kennel. Caroline said they’ve never come before the Planning Board. Keith clarified the expansion he sees.
David A asked Fred if they’ve always gotten permits and gone before the CEO for any permits for construction. Fred said they’ve addressed all of his issues. He says everything is topnotch – A1 done. He’s going by what he’s looked at in the books. David S said he’s been taking his dog there for nine years. Jere mentioned taking his dog to Paucek’s which was a great place, and look what happened there. He is concerned about what would happen if someone else should purchase it. The Board took a poll: David A (expanded use if already a conditional use) – No; Caroline – No; Jim, No; Harry, Yes; Keith, Yes; Jere, Yes; and David S, No. What would Fred consider a need for him to come before the Board? Fred doesn’t see that he needs to come back. Caroline thinks that Fred has already made the decision for the Board.
Approval of Minutes: August 10, 2009
Board members have not yet received these minutes.
Approval of Bills: none as of 8/17/09
David did a summary of the Fiscal 2009 budget. He would put it in the packet for the next meeting.
Review Findings and sign Plans for Narragansett Business Park – done by reading at the meeting this evening. Jere asked why this was done this evening. Harry thought it was appropriate because they hadn’t waived the reading of any of the articles.
Review By-Laws – there were some edits last time, which haven’t come back.
Review proposed Shore land ordinance changes and map – Caroline hasn’t done what she was going to so will work on that for the next meeting. Jere would like to make a push to get it on the ballot for November. Caroline asked if it had to be done by the first of September in order to make the ballot. Would Krystal check on the dates when they’d have to have a public hearing and the timeline for getting this on the Nov. ballot? Harry mentioned that they were down to three or four issues when they went over this with J.T. and the attorney. Caroline would recommend taking the time after the public hearing next time to get this done.
- Motioned by Caroline, seconded by Jere, to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 p.m. All voted in favor.
Approval Date: __________________
Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman Signature Date