Planning Board Minutes 03/08/2010
Town of Buxton Planning Board
March 8, 2010

Recorded by Hilda Lynch

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

Board Members Absent:  David Anderson.

Others Present:  Fred Farnham

Chairman Harry Kavouksorian called the March 8, 2010, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board together at 7 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance

CEO Report:
        Keith asked Fred about the wood processing operation down on the Portland Rd.  Fred stated that basically the owner ordered too much wood this year and is processing it mostly for family and friends.  He will look into it further.

Approval of Minutes:  
        Minutes of February 22, 2010 - “confirm to” changed to “conform to” on p. 2; para. 7 - “cross the stream” instead of “cross the steam”; p. 4 - “access to the lots” to “access from the lots”; p. 7 - “planning conditions” changed to “blasting conditions” - shouldn’t be a new paragraph; “withdrawal of Holly Graves” to “Holly Gray”; under Other Business, “peer” missing an “e”
  • Motioned by Keith, seconded by David S, to accept the February 22, 2010, minutes as amended.  Five in favor; Caroline abstained (absent).
Approval of Bills:

        Leo Menard requesting refund of subdivision fees for Holly Gray.  Jim steps down for the discussion of this item, having had completed the soils analysis for this applicant.  
        Mr. Menard is requesting the $600 plan review fee as the project didn’t get beyond the first meeting.  Caroline didn’t see any provision in the Ordinance for refunds.  She suggested the Board of Selectmen review this request.  Harry thought it might not be in their purview.  Jere thought the Board should approve of it before sending it on if they should decide that it was agreeable to the Board.  Perhaps this should be added to ordinance changes.  Krystal stated that the Board has voted to give back fees in the past.  Board members only remembered releasing money for escrow accounts.

  • Caroline motioned, Keith seconded, that they refer this request for a refund by Holly Gray to the Board of Selectmen for review and possible refund   Five voted in favor; Jim not present for vote.
Workshop for Maine Brownfields conference - April 6 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. - located at Augusta Civic Center - See Harry if interested

Other Business:  
  • Review proposed peer review applicants – decided to wait until next meeting.
  • Review and sign Findings of Facts for:
  • John & Ramona Snell  - Harry asked the Board if their understanding was that they were to combine the lots and have this as a Condition, would they be able to go ahead and sign the Findings.  Caroline recommends having the lot number first.  Krystal will check to see if the deeds have been combined so they have the correct lot number.  8.2.B.4 - Should something be added regarding the letter received from the abutter?  Caroline believes it satisfies that criteria.  It was agreed.  Under 10.7, p. 2 and.11.17.D. - no parking area should be located between building and street.  The standard is met.  Keith mentions it pre-existing before zoning.  Harry stated the parking is typically on the side of the building.  Jere doesn’t think there is a specific amount of space for multi-family - only that it does not occur in the setbacks.  Caroline thinks it should read:  “There is ample parking available” and Jim suggests adding “for the additional vehicles.”  
  • Sunrise Ridge Subdivision – not available
  • Blueberry Ridge Subdivision - Harry mentions that Blueberry Fields is no longer the name.  Harry asks about a notation for a second site walk.  Further down, Harry mentions where it says “the two Boards met,” it should be “the two Boards voted”; Caroline mentions a groundwater analysis in the Minutes of March 23, 2009, which may have been what satisfied that item.  The Board didn’t require a hydro geologic study because the DEP was reviewing the entire site so they thought it would be redundant.  No. 48 & 65 appear to be in conflict.  Jim thought they would have had more than one review.  65 goes on to talk about buffers.  Under additional conditions, No. 4 should be “more than three bedrooms.”  There should be a note about DEP approval.  Jim asked if they got the number of the Permit from DEP.  It hasn’t been received yet.  Caroline asked if both towns would have to approve if there were any changes, and it was agreed that they would. Would the Site Location and Development application change also require the Buxton Planning Board approval, also?  Jim asked.  He thought this was a legal question.  Caroline refers to 13.7.  She thinks this answers the question.  He doesn’t remember something like this going back to a local planning board before.  He would ask specifically about changing the number of bedrooms beyond three.  Would this just go to Fred?  Jim would like to have the impression of Town Counsel.  His question is whether this should go before the Code Enforcement Officer or the Planning Board.  The Board generally agreed that they could leave it up to the Code Enforcement office, but they would also like a legal opinion.  Jere suggested breaking up the decision of the Buxton and Gorham Planning Boards in the Findings.  It was agreed that they would come back to these Findings.  
  • Town report submission
        Krystal asked Harry if he wanted to submit something.  Harry said he would look at previous reports and get something to her within a day or so.

  • Keith motioned, Caroline seconded, to adjourn to a workshop to discuss ordinance revisions.  (Jere asked if they were going to talk about peer review.  It was decided that they would wait until the next meeting.)  All voted in favor.
  • Ordinance revisions:
Regarding net residential acreage, Bill asked if that included driveways; and it does not, Caroline stated, because it is part of the residence.  If you have a road created to connect to something else, then it does.
A question was raised whether to include National Cooperative Soil Survey or USDA, Jim believes they are they could be the same.  Caroline asked about matching to 11.6.B.3.  Jim says they can be identical in both places.  It should say the U.S.D.A. Conservation Service as the administrators of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.  When referring to map standards, then the National Cooperative Soil Survey is appropriate.  When it comes to soil types, U.S.D.A. N.R.C.S. is where they get their soil types.  No. 4 of the ordinance changes is where this information should go.
No. 3 - The definition for net residential density, the numerator, should say “net residential acreage.”  Cross out net development area.  This should match the definition up top.  Caroline questioned the net lot area and buildable area .  Should it read “minimum lot size required” to match 9.6?  Not “net lot area” but “lot size” - changing to buildable area to match another.
11.6.B.4 - Caroline doesn’t know how detailed they’d need to be.  She has asked about this but is waiting for the reply.  Jere asked about bulk fuel storage?   The question was raised about private use or re-sale to the public.
A clarification on another item…soil scientist certified by the State of Maine - under qualified professional.  Mapping units, soil series - should that be in there, too?  “mapping units to the soil series level of 1/8 of an acre or less”  
Should Class A for Cluster Subdivision or Class B for standard subdivision be included in this portion of the definition?  Jim doesn’t think it is bad to have it in both locations.  People could go back to definitions if they don’t understand the difference between terms.  Under No. 3 for Class A - or sub meter accuracy GPS.  Caroline clarified where some information would go.  Where would Class A go under cluster development section?  11.6.B.3.A.  Once you do your high intensity survey, you subtract out some info which could be under 11.6.B.3.B.  Jim referred to a sentence which they are trying to replace with a standard.  Jim likes the definition we had previous to this, but the question is where to put Class A standards.
It doesn’t appear that Bill addressed the issue of 8.2.B.1.  Didn’t we eliminate this?  People can go to court to challenge the Planning Board’s decisions.  “Peaceful enjoyment” is the issue for many for this change.  A discussion was held about taking 8.2.B.1 out.  Keith says that this can’t be proven is the reason for this being taken out.  All the definition has done is make abutters’ more frustrated and angry, Harry believes.  Jim would leave it as proposed but cross out “peaceful enjoyment.”  Jere agrees.  They’re eliminating “affecting the value of adjacent properties.”  Harry clarified how 8.2.B.1 should read.  Jim would like to say under this definition “the maximum net residential density - in parentheses, i..e. the number of dwellings per acre excluding roads  minus deductions  11.6.3.B.A. - add the Class A
Do we want to set aside a review for minor subdivision and major subdivisions or keep it the way it is?  Caroline asked.  Many ordinances are much clearer than ours as far as progression.  There’s nothing for final approval or timelines.  There’s nothing in there on authority, pre-application review, etc.  Do you want to call it the first step a sketch plan review or pre-application review?  Harry likes keeping it pre-application review.  Jim likes “sketch plan.”  Their preliminary meeting could include bringing a sketch.  Keith likes pre-application.  Fred likes “sketch plan.”  It was decided to keep it “Sketch Plan.“ Harry asked if they’re going to leave them as Caroline has written them.  The numbers would have to be adjusted.  Under 13.2.B.1.A. - the last sentence refers to things they’re always trying to get at the end.  Is there anything else that should be in there?  Change department heads to specific departments:  Public Works, Fire Chief, Police Chief, etc.  Caroline refers to p. 3 - Sketch plan consists of the following. - question on D - for clusters, do you prefer that it not exceed the net residential acreage?  Board members agree that this is how it should be.  Caroline will add this somewhere.  2nd paragraph from bottom, do we want to work on policy for refunds here?  Caroline read Gorham’s.    If just a sketch plan is given, then they wouldn’t have given any money yet.   A discussion was held about when the money should be given for the fee.  Jere asked whose responsibility it is to educate people about the process--should the person who is doing a project educate themselves or should the Board educate them?  With a sketch plan, Keith doesn’t think they would pay anything because they could be just coming in to ask questions.  Others thought an application should be done with a sketch plan.  13.2.B.1.A. - This is where the money comes in with a dated receipt.  There should be something in there about the initial $50.  There was some discussion about the amount that should be charged.  Caroline will send Board members the fees that are being charged by other towns or an average.  Keith asked if this has to go to the attorney?  Yes.  Board members agree that they should try to get these done; and if they don’t make it, then they’ll have a special town meeting.  Krystal doesn’t know if those doing the town report would be aware of the amount of information that could be coming to them.
Under E, p. 3, does she have to say something about utilities serving the site?  
The public hearing would have to be at least 15 days prior to town meeting.  May 24 is the final date.  P. 4 - are existing 13.3.A.22 - identification of any areas - should it be adjacent to or within a subdivision.  Jere thinks it is fine the way it is.  It was agreed they’d leave it as is.  Do we need something about great ponds, vehicular trip generation, traffic impact analysis?  Caroline was going to add something about that.  There’s nothing in there about traffic study, and it was agreed that something should be in there. Do we want to have, “prior to submittal of final plan, the applicant must have all State and Federal approvals in hand”.  Submissions for final plan - it says that within 30 days, an applicant must submit a final plan.  Should that be increased to six months or a year?  Board members thought six months would be appropriate.  Does something happen if they can’t submit within that time?  If they’re just a few days out, it wouldn’t be too much of a problem.  They could add something like “as determined by the Board.”  Harry said it could lead to the perception that people are being treated differently.   The point was made by Keith that the time limit could be a problem if the Board wasn’t meeting around the end of the six months.
There was some discussion of the Per lot fee?  How many sets of the maps or drawings are needed?  12  The 24 x 36 size  was agreeable.  On page 6 - this is the information about final approval.  If they don’t start or finish the project within a certain time frame? “significant effort into it”, what does that mean?  Work started - do we want to define?  The enforcement portion - nothing changed, but it was just moved over.  General standards - what is reviewed as they review the project.  She did the best she could with what she had as far as the order of things.  
Under enforcement, something needs to be added regarding penalties if a Plan is not constructed according to Plan.  The reference to the Comp Plan or Inland Fisheries & W should be left in.  Jim commended Caroline on a great job.  David S asked if 11 should be changed to 12 on p. 3 - mentioned in D.  Caroline asked if they wanted to have the provision that within 30 days of public hearing date to make a decision?  Some members thought there should be some flexibility.  
Caroline asked if the Board wanted to tackle the comprehensive plan.   There are only three people left on the committee. They’re trying to meet the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of each month.  Jere said he would consider it.  Caroline says that usually Planning Boards do this.  
        Keith asked about hammerheads being on the right side of the road.  He didn’t see anything.
Caroline asked him to put it in the definition of hammerheads.  “The hammerhead should be to the right hand side,” Keith stated.  David S asked Caroline if she would address adult entertainment and medical
Marijuana dispensaries.  Some thought that many towns were putting moratoriums on these questions or enacting ordinances.

  • Motioned by David S, seconded by Keith, to adjourn the workshop.  All voted in favor.      
     Approval Date:  __________

_________________________________           _______________
               Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman                    Signature Date