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 02/13/2012
Town of Buxton Planning Board
February 13, 2012

Recorded by Hilda Lynch

Board Members Present:  John Vedral; David Savage, Sr.; Jeremiah Ross, III; Harry Kavouksorian; James Logan; Susanne Schaller; and Lawrence Curtis  

Others Present:  Henry Huntley, Cheryl Huntley, Bill Thompson (BH2M),  Amanda Stanley, Scott Reed, Jessica Buzzell, Marcel Chauvette, Alivia Stanley, Cliff Thomas    

Chairman Harry Kavouksorian called the February 13, 2012, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board together at 7 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance

Public Hearing for Jessica Buzzell who is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, which would allow an in-home daycare at 95 Carll Road; Tax Map 7, Lot 63A-3.

        Jessica stated that she would like to have 12 children in her daycare.  The Fire Marshall came out today, and Sharon (State Inspector) came out last week so she is aware of what she needs to do.
        Jim didn’t make the site walk with the Board but did review it on a separate occasion.  The Board members had no questions.  Harry said they reviewed parking.

Jere motioned, seconded by John, to open the public hearing for the above.  All voted in favor.

Harry asked if any abutters, neighbors or members of the public wished to speak.  He also asked if Fred had any concerns, and Fred had none.  He then read the standard Conditions of Approval.

Harry motioned, seconded by Larry, to waive the reading of 8.2.B. and 10.  All voted in favor.

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.  License from the State; railing fixed and any other items directed by the Fire Marshall.

  • Jere motioned,  seconded by Harry, 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, to approve the application with the conditions stated and from previous meetings.  All voted in favor.
  • Motioned by Sue, seconded by Harry, to close the public hearing.  All voted in favor.

Public Hearing for Normand Berube Builders who are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Fogg Brook Subdivision; Tax Map 9, Lot 15.

  • Motioned by Jere, seconded by John, to open the public hearing for the above.  All voted in favor.
        Bill Thompson represented Normand Berube Builders.  They’ve made a final submission on 1/27/12.  He presented the plans at the meeting of 1/23/12 with soils updated.  Additional field work was done.  The application was deemed ready to go to a public hearing.
        The cover letter was updated based on the peer review by Joe Noel with Mark Hampton Assoc.  At the last meeting, the Board accepted the Plan.  There was a question about the DEP Stormwater Permit, which has now been submitted.  As part of the DEP conditions, all of the buffers and undisturbed areas have been pinned with red caps which was a requirement.  Bill has submitted a summary of what has been done.
        On Lot 2, Sue noticed it was 40,780 sq. ft. and that the Army Corps found 343 ft. of indirect wetland impact.  All other lots state the square footage of land area.  This one does not; and with 343 ft. deducted, it wouldn’t meet the lot requirements.  
        Bill stated that the indirect wetland impacts are at the request of the Army Corps.  They don’t believe it is a deduction.  Jim doesn’t see these areas pinned.  Bill said that if all wetlands could be kept under 15,000 sq. ft., they would be okay.  
        Sue thanked Bill for providing the sample deeds.  She noticed the protected covenants on Section 3, p. 2, Section 8, Road Maintenance - the maintaining of pavement hasn’t been included there.  On p. 3, Section 4 - Sue suggested that perhaps it would be better to say “erosion control practice.”  On p. 4, Section 16 - it looks like anything could be waived.  She’s unsure of the reason for the easements of this particular type.  Article 3 Easements - If they have easements which are not in the Plan, they would have to come back before the Board.   Section 4 - Deed restrictions under the Stormwater Mgmt. Law - Generally, these seem to be better written, clearer and easy to understand.  On the suggested deed description of Lot 7, Sue thought this was good because it describes the shared driveway.  None of the examples contain information about restrictions against filling of wetlands.  
        Bill thought the Plan had that information on it but was unable to find it.  Sue would like to see it in the deed descriptions, and Jim would like to see a note on the Plan.  Sue mentioned tree and brush planting to maintain the sight lines in Section 6, p. 3 and asked if that was noted on the Plan or is it in the Homeowner’s Assn. documents.  Although not in DEP notes, Jim believes it is still a valid concern.  Sue would like to see some assurance in the plan that sight lines will be maintained as part of the road maintenance agreement.
        Jim reviewed the original plan.  For the recalculation of area in the density calculations, our ordinance does not include any poorly drained soils.  The earlier set of plans mentions there is very little tolerance for 10 lots (10.03).  He wants some verification from Bill’s people that this is accurate.  Jim says it is explicit that some things be subtracted out.  He would like to see a note that no slopes are in excess of 20%.  
        Bill reminded the Board that they asked for peer review.  Joe Noel did extensive work on soil mapping.  Sue says the applicant states that the wetlands are delineated with Maine requirements – and asked for the field notes on vegetation and hydrology?  On Lot 5, there is a house indication, which barely meets the setback requirements.  Are they to assume that there will be no filling of the wetlands?  
        Bill stated that the wetlands have been pinned.  No house will be built that will impact the wetlands, he said.  
        Jim says the Board may want to have an ordinance revision regarding the forested wetland buffers.  
        Jim wants to call attention to the hydrogeology analysis submitted.  He calls attention to the water supply section.  He would like to have this note added to the Plan.  He’d like to have the note in the report match the note on the Plan.  Bill says that this is there - No. 19.  
        The road maintenance agreement - Section 3 - regarding the reference to three lots when the Town or Homeowners’ Assn. would take responsibility.  Bill says that Berube would be part of the Homeowners Assn. until all of the lots are sold.  Jim thinks the developer washes their hands of the road maintenance after three lots.  Bill says that would happen only if the Town accepts the road.  
        Jim refers to Lot 5 again - he expressed concern about where the well will be located.  He says the entire well zone is shown in the undisturbed buffer.  Bill needs to take a look at the calculations of the buffers.  He thinks there may be more buffer than needed.  Jim would be more comfortable with the tightness of Lot 5 if that were so.    
        Jim would call the Board’s attention to the DEP’s requirements; they might want to make these conditions.  Bill says that any buyer will be able to get the information from the Town regarding requirements.  
        Jere mentions that they have a letter from Key Bank.  Jim asked Krystal today, and there are three options.  Key Bank holds the funds the way the Town would.  Jere wants to know if the Board is comfortable with this as a letter of credit.  Sue says they could request a loan guarantee before construction.  Jere thinks the letter is too informal; he’d like to see a more established letter of credit in more official terms.  Sue mentioned this could be a condition of approval.   Section 13 is the section Jere is referring to regarding the letter from the bank.  Jim refers to 13.6.A.1 - instead of Key Bank holding the funds, the Town would.  He thinks Key Bank wouldn’t be allowed to release funds until the Town signs off.  Fred says the letter of credit lists all of the activities that the letter covers.  He says it is monitored, and the bank sees that these things are done and paid for.  The bank’s letter does not refer to a time frame so it could be enhanced, Jere believes.  Harry doesn’t see a commitment in the letter they have.  He’d like a more formal letter or a loan guarantee.  
        Bill says that it looks like the bank is willing to set this up under Berube’s direction when formal approval is completed.  Sue says they’re looking for an itemized loan guarantee, and Jim says the ordinance is very specific.  Bill says that Berube wants to get approval first, and then the money will be secured.  Jim doesn’t believe the Board has any latitude to do this.  
        Harry asked if they wanted to make these conditions of approval or notes added to the Plan.  Sue mentioned that it continues to be a concern whether this Plan will cover 10 lots.  Harry says that Bill is willing to go back and work on the buffers and the letter of credit.  
        Sue doesn’t know what to do with the statement regarding the Homeowners Assn., which does not include alteration or filling of wetlands, and no slopes over 20%.  
        Jere asked if they should send the deed to town counsel.  Bill says the deed has been reviewed by DEP.  Jim says that DEP isn’t looking at the Town’s ordinances when they’re reviewing.  Sue will be looking at language restricting the filling of wetlands in the deeds.   The first deed restrictions that are provided include the document which states in Section 16 that 2/3 of the people can vote to nullify it.  If this is going to stay, she would like to see this not taking priority over other deed restrictions.  Harry asked if they would like to have town counsel review it, and Sue said she would like this.  She stated what she would like to have reviewed.  
        Bill would like to make some amendments and will get it to Krystal tomorrow.  
        Jim stated that this site is much lower and wetter than the others they‘ve reviewed for Berube Builders recently.  His concern arises with the desire to have full basements under these houses.  He recalls that the applicant had to come back to them for an easement for the Pleasant Ridge subdivision, and he wants to avoid this.  In an effort to protect the homeowner, dose the Board want to make some recommendations more than general ones.  He wonders if they need to address drainage.  He wants to know if they should require the developer to follow the notes done by the people they’ve hired to do these studies.  If the land is being maximized to the extent it is in this development, he wants to see some kind of protections.  He’s bringing concerns to the Board and applicant’s attention.  
        Bill says they could put a note on the Plan that all homes will have a positive drainage.  Jim says he would be happy with this.  

  • Jere motioned, seconded by Sue, that they continue the public hearing until February 27, 2012, at 7 p.m.  All voted in favor.    

Review from site walk for Amanda Stanley, who is requesting a Conditional Use Permit allowing animal husbandry at 19 Jake Street; Tax Map 7, Lot 61-1.

        Harry said that he did go out and do his own site walk.  He asked if any Board members have questions.  Sue apologized for not having been on a site walk, and with Amanda’s permission, she would like to do so.  Amanda was in agreement.  
        Sue asked if any amendments have been made to her application.  
        Amanda stated that there would be 1 permanent pig, 1 pony, 6 goats, 21 hens, 2 roosters and 2 ducks.  She doesn’t plan on keeping the two goats that she’s caring for temporarily.  
        The Board will be looking for a revised number of animals.  Sue believes they’ll need a separate application from the neighbor who is housing animals on his property.  Has the abutters’ list been updated?  Amanda says that she and Krystal have done that.  
        Only Scott’s well on 61-1A hasn’t been located.  David asked if she gave a plan to Krystal today.  Amanda says she gave her one last week.  He had only the wells showing and not the distances.  Krystal has left the Board an updated sheet with distances tonight.  Amanda says only her well is less than 300 ft. from the manure storage.  David says he’s sorry for information given at the last meeting, but her well does count.  He mentions 100 ft. from the house and 300 ft. from any body of water or well.  Larry says it appears from the map that the proposed area could be moved 20 ft. and not affect other distances.  
        Amanda says they’ve shoveled all that they could of the manure pile.  They’ll take it out each week from now on; and in the spring, they’ll prepare a manure pit that will be 300 ft. from every well.  Jere clarified the amendment of the Plan to move the manure pile.  Jim only wants to point out one thing to the Board and to the applicant--this area where the animals are being kept lies over a sand and gravel aquifer.  There is very little in the soil to handle waste products.  This is an area that is known as a recharge area.  There is no prohibition in the ordinance.  The gentleman next door has a dug well that is least protected from this kind of application.
        Jere refers to 11.3.E - the Planning Board shall limit the number of animals permitted.  David wants to know if there’s any difference between having enclosed and unenclosed manure piles.  If it has a roof over it, Sue explained that the water won’t run over the manure and leach nitrates into the soil at a higher rate.  There is a no discharge provision, which would go along with Sue’s comments.  
        John went on the site walk and was quite surprised because of the proximity of the manure pile to a dug well.  He was hoping that the manure pile had been moved, which it has.  Quite a few animals are located along the property lines.  Amanda says she has a top on her pen now, and the chickens are confined.  The pig was not confined and could go over near the well, John said.  He thought there were a lot of animals for that small of an area.  His first impression was that there are too many animals there.  
        Amanda asked if they do apply for the removal of the manure pile and Scott applies for a permit, are they wasting their time?  
        Harry would suggest they come back with a new updated plan where things will be placed, the distances to property lines and wells.  She says only the chickens have been moved because she can’t move the other houses now.  Harry thinks there is a legitimate concern about the number of animals for the space.
        Jim didn’t have an issue until he went there and saw that they had a very large breeder pig.  Amanda said that they bred at one time and had piglets for five months.  He has a concern about a swine breeding operation.  Harry says there is some allowance for small animals.  Jim says this is almost beyond animal husbandry.  John says that the smell was obvious in the winter, and it would be worse in the warmer weather.  
        When they come back with a revised plan, the Board will come up with the number of animals Amanda can keep,   If the children are in 4H, they can evaluate the number of animals, Jim thought.  Harry says the Board has the ability to limit the number.  John says that he’d like Amanda to go back and re-consider how many animals she thinks she could have there.  Jere says that her application needs to reflect the maximum.  Sue says they need to look at the definitions.  Jere would like to see a reasonable number of animals and where they’ll stay on the property.  Is it possible to lease Scott’s land?  Some thought they’d be only spreading numbers around.      Amanda said that once they get everything situated in the spring, they won’t have anything on Scott’s property.  Jim mentions the keeping of ten or more fowl; she would not have to make application for ten or less.  David asked the neighbor how deep his well is.  Scott says it’s about 25 ft.  David says he would have the water tested, and Jere said that Fred has test kits here.  
        The Board agrees that they will hold out for more information before they set a public hearing.  Amanda reviewed the things that she would need to do with the Board.  If they provide a cement manure holder, the Board would feel better about these animals being over a sand and gravel aquifer.  
        Larry wants to point out that he appreciates that they’ve come to the Board with this.  He wants to commend her and her children for the time they’ve been sitting before this item has come up on the agenda this evening.          

Max Brackett inquiring into the Conditional Use Permit issued to Clyde Hennessey for auto repair garage at 884 Long Plains Road (approved 8/28/1995); Tax Map 3, Lot 86A.

Max is not present.  Fred talked with him and needs to do some research on the status.  No permit was ever issued to Clyde Hennessey.  The issue is whether it is an automobile graveyard or junkyard.  It is more of an enforcement issue.

CEO Report

        Fred didn’t have time to get this information to the Board so distributed some of it and will give them time to read it later.  One is a letter to the town attorney dealing with nonconforming lots.  How are they determined, limitations, etc.  The question has been raised by Harry about a lot that was or was not buildable.  Once Fred started looking at the wording of the ordinance, it wasn’t clear.  It left some interpretation.  He would like a clearer definition of a nonconforming lot and what constitutes a buildable nonconforming lot.  He would like them to consider re-wording to make it clearer in the ordinance.  The ordinance doesn’t meet current standards but should be able to be utilized in some way.  
        Fred had Krystal catalog the nonconforming lots to get an idea about how many are out there - how many are or are not buildable.  People may be being assessed for a buildable lot, and their lot may not be buildable.  If nonconforming lots are not going to be buildable, the assessments will be nil so other taxpayers will be picking up the dollars on the tax rolls.  
        For example, there is a term called buildable area - that part of a lot that can support a house or septic system.  In Table A, there is a lot size which is the minimum area of the lot; within that size, there is a buildable area.  In the Village zone for example, it is a 2-acre or 80,000 sq. ft. lot requirement.  Out of that 2 acres, at least half of that has to be buildable.  The way the ordinance reads now, a nonconforming lot has to have the same buildable area as a conforming lot.  That doesn’t seem fair, Fred thinks, because these lots were already here and smaller sized.  There should be some way that the lot should not have to have the zone’s buildable area.  He looked at the relation between the lot size and the buildable area.  A lot size of 2 acres would have to have a 1 acre buildable area.  He would use that proportion for a nonconforming lot.  In the rural zone, for 4 acres of lot size, the buildable area would be 2 acres.  If there was a 1-acre lot in the Village Zone, the buildable area would be a half acre.  It would meet the same ratio as a conforming lot.  He felt this needed to be addressed to make it fairer.  
        Jim would recognize that unlike other ordinances, our ordinance is very restrictive.  Most other towns provide some relief.  If a nonconforming lot is bought by an abutter, our ordinance should require that they be combined together.  He believes they’re talking about nonconforming lots that don’t have a dwelling.  David asks if he’s taking into consideration septics and wells.  Fred says he is.  Jim says there are provisions for that to happen at the State level.  Fred thinks we have about 250 nonconforming lots that don’t have dwellings.  Jim suggests that they might find what other towns are doing.  Sue says the size of the lots would be of interest.  Jere says he would be curious if some of the small nonconforming lots are being assessed the same as other larger ones.    
        Fred is also dealing with the automobile graveyard issue.  They may need to change the statute.  Jere said that they didn’t change it when they were considering three or more unregistered vehicles being considered a junkyard.  It just wouldn’t fly.
        There was a discussion regarding the phasing of subdivisions.  Jim brought up the phasing of Marshall Lane so this is something that needs attention.  John stated that the developer has five years to get the subdivision going.  Jim thinks it is pretty simple for people to come back and request an extension.  Fred believes it is key that they come back and request building a certain number of lots.  
        Jim says it would be relatively specific to have an official phasing in of subdivisions; otherwise, it might be appropriate to have people come back in when the housing industry is slow as it is now.  
        John mentioned an animal husbandry concern that Fred had.  Fred had someone who wanted to purchase a 3-acre property on Depot Street and wants to have a horse and a pony.  According to animal husbandry in the rural zone, it is permitted and the footnote says it is permitted on 3 acres or more - conditional use on less than three acres.  If it is a 3-acre property in a 5-acre zone, it would have to go through conditional use.  9.8.C. conflicts with what is being said in the footnote.  Harry has asked David Kallin in Bill Plouffe’s office, and he said that it could go either way.  Jere says you don’t want to increase the nonconformity on a nonconforming lot.  This may be something to consider for future ordinance changes.
  • Harry mentioned the mass gathering ordinance to Fred.  Fred mentioned a snowmobile race, but it would depend upon the number of people.  Basic sanitation and safety would be concerns.  Harry has written to the Police Chief about this.  
Approval of Minutes:
        January 23, 2012  Sue distributed minutes to the Board separate from the minutes that Hilda had provided and Krystal had sent with the Board packets. Sue had revised the minutes and went over the edits she had made with the Board.  Hilda did not have a copy of Sue’s edits to determine whether these would be changes she would agree upon as official recorder of the minutes per the Planning Board‘s motion at the previous meeting.  Sue did not go over the edits she had made to the minutes for the public benefit.  Regardless of the above, the following motion was made:

Jere motioned, Larry seconded, to approve the minutes as amended.  Six in favor; Jim abstaining.

Approval of Bills:
        Larry spoke with David Anderson about the budget.  He recommended that they keep all of the accounts the same.  Two years ago, there were large reductions in the budget.  Larry had a question regarding shoreland zoning maps.  He believes this is not an every year expenditure, so if there is no need this year, they might be able to strike this $500.  Harry stated that we do not have a current shoreland zoning map so an official one is needed.  Jim says that the definitions have been changed, so there is need for a new one. Harry and others offered some explanation to Larry.  
        If no objections, Larry’s plan is to turn in the budget request to Krystal tomorrow and then make arrangements to meet with the Budget Committee.  Harry asked if all were in agreement.  Jim mentioned a discussion about digitizing.  Some USM students are preparing some maps at no cost.  The Board gave Larry the go-ahead.  


Public notice to file - CMP upgrade - have an application before the DEP

Other Business:
        2012/2013 Budget review due February 3, 2012 - See above
        Sue had a question about the workshop on the ordinances and wondered what the result of Harry’s meeting with the Selectmen was.  Harry said that the Selectmen didn’t think they’d asked the Planning Board to do this.   Harry wrote a letter to the Police Chief asking if there had been any incidents in reference to mass gatherings and has not heard back from him.  Someone had come in to the Code Enforcement office asking if they could have an event on their property.  This may have been how it came about.  They might develop a sheet listing people who might need to be notified.  Harry thought they would wait to hear back from Chief Grovo before going any further.  They would like to see issues brought to them in writing with some justification behind it.     
        Further review from the workshop on Mass Gathering and Adult Entertainment Ordinance.
        David stated that Adult Entertainment would be part of land use.  Harry said that David went to the Selectmen, as the Selectmen stated that David came to them.  David said they asked him if he would look into it.  Harry stated that in the future they would like to see things come in to them in writing with justification behind the requests.  
        Jere agrees that adult entertainment, sales of fireworks, and marijuana dispensing would be Planning Board issues.
        John believes we could have the same conditions for adult entertainment as for bars.  Sue would want to see the conditions.    

Motioned by John, seconded by David, to adjourn the meeting at 9:33 p.m.  All voted in favor.

Approval Date:  ________

_________________________________           _______________
               Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman                    Signature Date

Town of Buxton
  185 Portland Road, Buxton, ME 04093 (207) 929-5191
Town Office Hours: Mon, Tues, Thur, Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm & Wed: 11:30am - 7:30pm
For departmental office hours please visit that department's home page.