March 5, 2007
The meeting commenced at 7:01 p.m. Present: Carol Billington, Brian Libby, Eleanor Dudek, Chris Parkin, and Wayne Newbegin. Absent: Gus Favreau and Bill Foster. Staff present: Bud Benson, Planning Administrator and Donna Sawyer, Planning Board Secretary.
Approval of previous meeting minutes
Brian Libby made a motion to accept the minutes for the February 5, 2007, meeting minutes and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All in favor and motion passed.
Approval of Findings of Fact for:
Josie’s Brook Subdivision, Map 6, Lots 18 & 21, 139 Cape Road
Wayne Newbegin made a motion to waive the reading of the Finding of Fact and Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
Multifamily Dwelling, Mark Blier, Map 7, Lot 3, 1138 Pequawket Trail
Wayne Newbegin made a motion to waive the reading and Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed. Wayne Newbegin made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for the Multi family Dwelling and the Josie’s Brook Subdivision. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
Beechwood Subdivision, Design Dwellings, Map 6, Lot 89D, Bonny Eagle Road
Wayne Newbegin made a motion to waive the reading of this Finding of Fact and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion carried. Brian Libby made a motion to approve this Finding of Fact and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
01-12-01-03 WILDLANDS CLUSTER SUBDIVISION PHASE 2/BUSQUE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. - MAP 12, LOT 1, BOUNDARY ROAD
Subdivision Plan Review Received Preliminary Approval on December 2004. Waiting for DEP.
Brian Libby made a motion to table this project and Wayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
05-08-07-06 WILDWOOD (formerly CHADBOURNE ROAD SUBDIVISION)/Gilbert Homes – Map 19, Lot 56, 733 Chadbourne Road
Cluster Subdivision Plan Review
There is no new information for this project this month. Brian Libby made a motion to table this item and Wayne Newbegin seconded. There was no discussion. All in favor. Motion passed.
02-12-04-06 Route 25 Business Park/Mark Floor – Map 10, Lot 11, 225 Ossipee Trail West
Subdivision Review
There was no one present to discuss this project, however, Carol Billington read a statement from the applicant that stated he was not going to request an Appeals Board variance and will enter into a consent agreement with the Standish Town Council before proceeding with this subdivision. Brian Libby made a motion to table and Wayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS:
.
02-02-06-07 STROUT BROOK ESTATES (formerly Wheaton Way Subdivision)/A & H Land Development, LLC, Map 8, Lot 9, Wheaton Way
Subdivision Plan Review
There is no new information submitted this month. Ms. Billington said that a workshop was held last month and the applicant is working on those issues. Wayne Newbegin made a motion to table this item and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
03-02-06-07 COTTAGE SETBACK/Scott Batchelder, Sr. – Map 21, Lot 57, 58 Shore Road
Shoreland Zoning Review
Scott Batchelder, Sr. was present to discuss his project. Chair, Carol Billington, said that a site walk took place on Saturday, February 10, 2007, and 2 members viewed the project this afternoon. Eleanor Dudek and Chris Parkin also viewed the property previously.
Mr. Batchelder said there are 3 applicable items pertinent to this cottage. The first being the location of the new septic and/or replacement system, and, as a result, he provided several different site plans that showed the practical extent the cottage could be moved back. The other 2 pieces are the location of the adjacent structures and the 3rd is that there is an existing foundation. He said the existing foundation was not in good condition
Even though it is possible to move the building back because of the septic component, the other 2 options should be considered as well. His hope was to leave the building right where it is. He asked the Board for questions.
Wayne Newbegin asked if the owner was in violation because he started work on the foundation before receiving a permit. The owner said there was a misunderstanding about the permit in that was constituted a repair and what would require an application to the Planning Board. He stopped construction when the code officer said the construction was not a foundation repair.
Carol Billington asked if it was a full foundation. Mr. Batchelder said it was a crawl space with blocks used for the foundation about 24” high. The crawl space will accommodate the plumbing for a bathroom only. It is a 20 ft. by 24 ft. camp and heated by a propane fireplace. He said he added 300 blocks under the cottage before he ceased the operation.
Ms. Billington said the Board should be looking at this cottage as if nothing had been done to the foundation without the influence of the work already done. The Board has done many of these requests and moving back to the greatest practical extent gets mitigated by the tunnel effect that happens when you move behind 2 buildings. She said she looked at moving the cottage back 10’ to at least accommodate the 10 deck to be no further forward than the building is right now. In this scenario, the view was not compromised. Discussion went back and forth about 30% expansion, distance to move back, etc. Carol explained that the Board’s role is to determine the greatest practical extent to move back and said others have had to move their buildings back. This lot is flat and no trees
need removal. Carol asked for a motion and said she would support moving the building back. Mr. Batchelder asked that the building be moved back 10 ft., but his preference was to not move at all. Carol said she her decision to move back is influenced by the view.
After lengthy discussion, Wayne Newbegin made a motion to move the cottage with deck back an additional 10 feet. This means the high water mark to the deck will be at 43 ft
Chris Parkin seconded the motion.
In addition, the following conditions were added:
· This approval is limited in duration for a period of 6 months
· Applicant’s structure appears to be within the 100-year flood plain and will be to prove to the CEO that the lowest floor is 1 ft. above the 100-year flood elevation
· Stormwater infiltration plan to be submitted by applicant and approved by CEO
· Erosion and sediment control plan to be submitted by applicant and approved by CEO
· This approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant (either orally or in writing) and that any variation from the plans, proposals, and supporting documents are subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Code Enforcement Officer may approve.
· Applicant will submit a new site plan that shows the approved setback requirement.
Wayne Newbegin made another motion to accept the conditions of approval as listed above in this document and Brian Libby seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All in favor and motion carried.
01-03-05-07 Durgin Farm Animal Husbandry/Robert Harmon & Amanda & Andy Gervais – Map 19, Lot 19D, 52 Whites Bridge Rd
Site Plan Review
Robert Harmon came forward to discuss their request for an equine facility off White’s Bridge Road on an 18 acre parcel of land that is open and wooded. He referred to the aerial photo in the members’ packages. He said the property has always been farm land for cattle and/or horses and has been passed down through various generations. Mr. Harmon has met with the Code Officer, Mr. Benson and the Standish Fire Chief to discuss the facility with living quarters above. There will be an indoor riding arena, the biggest building and a 6-horse stable with living quarters above. He understood that any building over 10,000 sq. ft. would need a sprinkler system.
He referred to the parking requirements. He distributed pictures of the facility that his daughter and son-in-law own in North Yarmouth. Access from White’s Bridge Road will be a dirt driveway and referred to the pictures in his application that showed sight distances from both sides of the driveway looking up and down White’s Bridge Road and several showing the open field. A wooded buffer already exists and will be retained.
Mr. Harmon’s daughter, Amanda Gervais, came forward and said the stable will have 6 stalls and used for boarding/lessons/training facility. She has 4 horses of her own and will bring in 2 more to board. Hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Lesson schedule will be 5 days a week, with 3 to 4 hours a day of teaching and perhaps 6 vehicles will come to the property each day. The living quarters will be heated but the barn and arena will not be heated. Discussion followed on need for sprinkler system and number of parking spaces.
Carol scheduled a workshop for Monday, March 12th at 7:00 p.m. Amanda agreed to put up flags showing the location of the proposed driveway.
02-03-05-07 Pit Stop Fuels/Dana Lampron – Map 10, Lot 95, 125 Ossipee Trail E.
Site Plan Amendment
Lee Feldman, Sebago Technics, was present representing Dana Lampron, owner of Pit Stop Fuels. Mr. Lampron is seeking an amendment to his plan to include a 40’ by 48’ storage building and an office space above the convenience store used as an office. He emphasized the new building is for storage only. He reviewed tree buffers, parking spaces and the need for islands and berms as suggested by Mr. Benson in his memo to the Board. Mr. Lampron is requesting parking for a tractor trailer along the side of the building. A bridge culvert will be used to prevent wetland fill and access the building and Mr. Feldman distributed aschmetic. The bridge will be over the wetlands so wetlands would not be disturbed. He reviewed lighting, proper stamps of engineer, and showed
pictures taken on the site from various angles where the new building would be sited and showed the surrounding buffers.
He asked for comments. Mr. Newbegin asked what would be stored in the building and Mr. Feldman said supplies and materials for the convenience store and oil trucks in the winter months. There will be a spigot for a hose inside the building. Mr. Libby asked if the land was mostly wetlands and Mr. Feldman said this building is not located on wetlands.
Carol asked about traffic patterns from the street to the building. Mr. Feldman pointed out that 2 parking spaces would be removed on the plan for access to the building.
The Chair opened the meeting to the public and Carolyn Biegel, Route 25 and an abutter, came to the podium. She asked if this plan should go before the Board of Appeals and in Section 181-71 3B, it states that no plan shall be approved by the Planning Board as long as an applicant is in default of a previously approved plan. She believes that Mr. Lampron is in default for the previously approved plan. She cited examples of violations:
· Limit of 3 home delivery fuel trucks parked on the site. Four trucks park there now.
· Parking was precluded in front of the building and instead of the removable planters for the picnic area, 3 wheel stops appeared and cars park there regularly and ever since the store opened.
· A car vacuum station has been installed and requires cars to park in the no parking area
· Large delivery trucks were restricted to off-peak hours but a Pit Stop fuel tanker truck is seen by her daily unloading products during peak hours.
· Hours of operation were supposed to be limited, but if you call the Pit Stop line you can find out you can purchase home heating fuel oil 24 hours/day with a credit card. What happens if there is a spill, and who does one call.
· The 50 ft. natural buffer that this Board and DEP deemed necessary to retain the village character was clear cut, she doesn’t even want to talk buffers tonight.
· Blasting took place along Route 25 without DEP permits and without notifying local officials or neighboring businesses.
· Advertising signs are up and down light poles and this isn’t approved by the town’s sign ordinance.
· Repeatedly there is shown little regard for responsible development of people’s property within the village or the town ordinances and consequently, she would like before this plan is even considered, the original conditions of approval be enforced.
Ms. Biegel asked what the Board felt about the items brought up by her. Mr. Libby said the Board approves, not enforces. She urged the Board to address these items. Chair, Ms. Billington, said she had concerns about pedestrian traffic and car parking in front of store. She said her concerns don’t rise to the level of default. However, the Board may have the leverage now because Mr. Lampron is in front of the Board now for an expanded use. Board member, Eleanor Dudek, wanted a legal opinion from a town lawyer that tells her what this facility really is. Carolyn Biegel wanted the members to take a long, hard look at what this expansion is—is it a warehouse to store items for the convenience store. There has to be a long look at this request so that mistakes in
the past are not compounded in the future. She cited how tanker trucks are parked around the property helter-skelter. When do we talk about default issues and when do we start talking about the new site plan?
Carol said the first issue is to take a site walk and she wanted someone from Sebago Technics to be at the site walk. Carol asked if there was more public comment. Tom Childs, Blake Road, came forward and said he wanted to talk about the clear cutting that took place and the replanting schedule. He said he has been told that all of the replanting has been done and he said the new plantings do nothing to help hide the eyesore of the shopping center of Route 25. He doesn’t think anything should be done until those requirements have been met with more diligence. How many exceptions can be granted to an entity, how many is too many, is there no limit? This business was granted a special exception on February 28, 2005, and in its design development phase and allowed Pit Stop, 2,772
sq. ft. to do its business. This expansion is 140% of the sq. ft. limit allowed by code. The amendment would allow the use of 587 sq. ft. above the store for 169% of the allowable 2,000 square foot limit. The 40 by 48 storage shed brings this to 265% of the 2,000 sq. ft. limit and this does not account for the storage shed that already exists on this site. This project is approaching 3 times what the code allows. It was his opinion that the application should be denied and that the Board as a shining example for what not to approve.
Peter Biegel, Route 25 approached podium and he said the project fit was tucked in and hidden. Now, however, the owner of Colonial Marketplace is selling land around the center and the operations are becoming one unit. You’ll see it on the site walk all of the bushes and shrubs, but when you look at this development, you’ll see a wide open area and not a residential area. Scale is everything here. There will be bulk oil delivery, etc. and there needs to be limitations on growth. With all of this development, will anyone want to move to the village center?
Regarding the plans, there is no existing topography, only proposed topography. He thought there should be some checking of the existing conditions in the field adjacent to the operation.
Mark Lindberg, 148 Blake Road, said he was concerned about parking restrictions placed in the original approval for parking for 3 trucks and he wanted to know how that related to vehicles parking in the storage building. Would the trucks parked in the building count toward the 3 vehicles on site? He questioned whether food products could be stored with vehicles. He has witnessed large delivery trucks on site during peak hours. He also said there is a sidewalk that hasn’t been cleared all week and he felt Mr. Lampron hadn’t lived up to his approval.
Dana Lampron approached the Board and said he had hoped this would be an opportunity to mend fences with this project. He referred to his pictures that were taken today that showed the buffers of shrubs and trees. He has already spent considerable money replanting trees that were cut by mistake. He told the group about all of the extras he had placed around his property to make it more attractive and were not required. He reviewed the difficulties he has encountered while doing his very best to make sure he is following the conditions of approval for Pit Stop Fuels. He cannot do any more to his site and it is in compliance. He referred to the plantings around his proposed expansion. He needs more trucks and they will be parked further back behind trees. There are 3 trucks
parked now and 2 trucks will be in the building. He asked for questions.
Chair, Carol Billington asked who cut the trees. Mr. Lampron said it was a logger that his contractor hired. He doesn’t want to be penalized again for the tree cutting. There will be a site walk for this project and look carefully at the site. Her biggest concern was that this project does not harmonize with what the town’s envisions for the Village Center District. This is not compatible with that vision but agreed that he has a clean site and well designed building and is probably an improvement over what was on this site except for the trees that are gone. She expressed her concerns about expansion of the site and with this building the commercial space is increased by 120% of what is there, then she questions if it is an accessory use. She also expressed her concern
about having a tanker truck parked on the site. She said if this project was presented today with that large storage building, truck parking and traffic moving around, she would not vote in favor. This is not an accessory building, it is a warehouse and the Ordinance allows warehouses under 2,000 sq. ft in a business and commercial zone with site plan approval, and it is not mentioned in the Village Center zone. She also alluded to the Village Center Study that the town is paying for to find out how the town can have an attractive village that will attract residential uses as well as more businesses. The decision that this building meets the accessory use can be appealed if one thinks this is the wrong category for this expansion. She didn’t believe it was an accessory structure and believed it was a warehouse and would like to see the use appealed.
Dana Lampron came forward and said it was not a warehouse and it would house only products sold at his store and he is not wholesaling products to others. Carol read the definition of warehouse and Eleanor Dudek, Board member, said the word “warehouse” is used in his application. Dana emphasized it is a storage facility only and he will store 2 trucks and products in it. Bud Benson, Planning Administration, said that Lee Feldman faxed a new front page of the application that changed the wording from maintenance facility to a storage facility.
Peter Biegel spoke again and asked if the Board could get a second opinion. Can’t the question go back to the Code Officer for a determination or a legal opinion? Carol stated again that this Board doesn’t make the determination of use, someone else does.
Wayne Newbegin said he wasn’t on the Board when this project was originally approved and wanted to know why items that were agreed to on the first application weren’t done? He would like answers. Is there a legal opinion out there?
Eleanor Dudek was concerned that the ground was frozen and she didn’t think a site walk would be appropriate. Wayne Newbegin agreed. Bud said there is a narrow strip of land to cross over to get to where storage building is proposed but members will be able to see the buffer and the general layout of the building’s location with its surroundings. The site walk was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 10, 2007, with the workshop scheduled for Monday night, March 12th.
03-03-05-07 Cottage Setback/Stephen Gallant – Map 47, Lot 4, 5 Crescent Shore Drive
Shoreland Zoning Review
Kurt Christensen, builder, was present representing the applicant, Stephen and Joyce Gallant. They are proposing to tear down the building and put a new foundation under a cottage located at 5 Crescent Street on Sebago Lake. They want to build a new cottage in the same footprint and expand 30%. He understands that the Board will determine if the cottage must be moved back to the greatest extent possible in order to complete this project.
He said there are issues that need to be addressed and that is the septic tank, 5 to 6 mature trees that would need to be removed if the cottage is moved, and the location of other structures to the left and right of this building. The site plan presented shows the building is approximately 5 ft. back from the cottage on the right and to the left. If the building was moved back too much, it would hinder water views. He said he wasn’t involved in the previous approval and the owners said these plans are completely different from the last application. Carol scheduled a site walk for Saturday, March 10th at 10:00 a.m. at the site.
There were no more items before the members. Brian Libby made a motion to adjourn and Wayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed. Meeting adjourned at about 9:15 p.m.
These minutes were prepared and submitted by Donna Sawyer, Secretary to the Planning Board.
| 
