Chairman, Carol Billington , called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. Present: Brian Libby, Gus Favreau, Alan Connell, Jeff Smith and PersonNameEleanor Dudek. Bill Foster arrived at 7:32 p.m. Staff present: Bud Benson, Planning Administrator and Donna Sawyer, Planning Board Secretary.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked for approval of the October 1, 2007, minutes. PersonNameEleanor Dudek made a motion to approve the minutes as written and Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed.
Carol introduced the two interpreters who were present tonight signing for an interested party for one of our applications on the agenda.
Carol introduced Stephen Ambrose, a third party peer reviewer for a noise study for placeCitySt. Joseph’s College. Carol also introduced the town attorney, Sally Daggett.
Carol Billington asked for approval of the Finding of Fact for:
Multifamily Dwelling/William Tompson – Map 6, placeLot 21E, addressStreetCape Road
Brian Libby made a motion to approve the Finding of Fact (FOF) and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. No discussion and all in favor.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked the members if the last item on the agenda, Redline Power Sports, could be moved to follow the placeCitySt. Joseph’s College presentation tonight. Members agreed to move this item immediately after placeCitySt. Joseph’s College.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
02-12-04-06 ROUTE 25 BUSINESS PARK/Mark Floor – Map 10, placeLot 11, 225 Ossipee Trail West
Subdivision Review
Bud Benson said he has heard from Mark Floor and the mediation date hasn’t been set yet and he is willing to have the item removed from the agenda. Brian Libby made a motion to remove the project from the agenda and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. No more discussion and all in favor.
02-02-06-07 WHEATON WAY SUBDIVISION (formerly Strout Brook Subdivision)/ A & H Land Development, LLC, Map 8, Lot 9, Wheaton Way Preliminary Approval May 7, 2007
Subdivision Plan Review
Bud Benson said that the applicants are still waiting for FEMA approval and it is expected to come through this coming month. Brian Libby made a motion to table the project to next month and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. No more discussion. All in favor and motion passed.
01-06-04-07 ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE EXPANSION/St. Joseph’s College – Map 20, Lots 5,6,7,7B & 8
Site Plan Amendment
Alan Connell recused himself from discussion and Jeff Smith recused himself as well. Jeff Smith is a new member and is not familiar enough with the project to vote.
Carol the college’s Representatives to present anything new concerning the project. Tom Doyle, attorney from Pierce Atwood, came forward for the college. He reviewed the following information:
1. DEP approval – approval was received late today and Bud Benson has a copy
2. Revised cul-de-sac with the “D” design – new design submitted late last week and Jim Seymour could explain the design if the Board wanted. Gorrill Palmer has reviewed the “D” design and commented on the design.
3. The insurance policy has been submitted and the college is waiting for comments from PWD in regard to the matter.
4. A letter from the college regarding impact fees has been submitted to the town. Gorrill-Palmer has also reviewed this letter.
5. The college has submitted a letter to the town regarding the college being in compliance with its prior lighting standards from the 1995 approvals
6. Some revisions to landscaping down gradient from the residential halls will be placed. It is between the halls and the closest neighbors. The new plan includes a variety of additional low-branching evergreens that are non-continuous.
He said that Scott Bodwell, noise consultant for the college, could discuss the noise issue, if the members so choose. Mr. Ambrose, peer reviewer from S E Ambrose & Associates, is also present. Mr. Ambrose performed the peer review on Mr. Bodwell’s work.
Bud Benson said he had not seen an estimate from the Portland Water District stating the cost to bring a watermain to the abutting properties in a radius of ¼ mile of the site.
Jim Seymour, engineer from Sebago Technics, said he did speak to 2 PWD employees who are researching their files to determine how far the water main was extended in 1995 and to what homes. They will get back to Jim Seymour. Bud Benson said he wanted the information to confirm that the amount of the bond is adequate.
Chair, Carol Billington, wanted to begin with a quick review of the noise study conducted by Mr. Bodwell. Scott Bodwell, Senior Project Engineer with Resource Systems Engineering in placeCityBrunswick, StateMaine, summarized his findings. He said that the date of the study was February of 2007 and he said he had spoken extensively at the Board of Appeals meeting. He conducted a sound level assessment for St. Joe’s to quantify the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed residence hall projects and to compare the results in relation to relevant standards. He did this by identifying noise sources associated with the project, reviewed state and local standards and then prepared a noise model, which was the largest piece of work for the project to estimate sound levels from primary
noise sources associated with the project. The Town of placeCityStandish noise standards do not apply to this use. A quantifiable standard is 75 db at a lot line at 600 cps and the State of placeStateMaine has much more stringent limits that apply at protected locations and these include residential parcels, conservation areas and schools and colleges. In this case, the college is a protected location. The limits that the State applies, based on zoning, in this case is zoned as non-industrial/non-commercial which is equal to residential zoning. There are also quiet area designations if there is a quiet area. Generally these designations are not applied where there are 300 residents within 3,000 feet. There are also several exemptions that the State rules have, and these include registered vehicles, human voices, emergency equipment including generators, snow removal, landscaping and other activities. The noise sources he looked at
include:
- heating ventilation air conditioning equipment and he provided a sound level to EYP to insure that it would not be a significant off site noise source and they said they could meet that specifications.
- Amplified sound systems seems to be the big issue
- Resident activities, human voices
- Access and egress
- Parking lot and related activity
- Construction activity
- Maintenance for parking areas, buildings and grounds and trash removal
There are several noise mitigation measures incorporated into the designs. These include:
- the building envelope, well insulated walls, windows and ceilings
- the limited access/egress toward the center of campus
- parking lot related activity, construction activity,
- maintenance for parking areas, buildings, grounds and trash removal
- the college also has quiet time hours for students and that applies during class days and starts at 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.
- On non-class days quiet time starts at 1:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and then during exam periods it is 24 hours of quiet time.
- Maintain vegetative buffers which are shown on the plans
- Maintenance scheduled during daytime hours
- No dumpsters or large trash trucks that collect refuse. Refuse is collected by golf cart-size vehicles.
He explained what he evaluated for primary noise sources. It included a terrain model, based on topographic information from Sebago Technics. He tested amplified music and quantified the sound levels from it, reviewed the site to identify vegetation, and areas where vegetation is significant and the approximate heights of that. He did several scenarios that are presented in the report submitted. He said he understands that the State of placeStateMaine has found the submission to be adequate and properly addressed those issues.
He explained that the first scenario he looked at was amplified music indoors with windows open. He referred to a plan depicting the new dormitory layout and showed where the windows were open with amplified music playing indoors. The resulting sound levels were at property lines or within 500’ of a residence on a protected location. These locations are shown because these are the State limits would apply. He said there are estimates provided for each scenario and the results summarized in his report. He said he would be glad to get into more detail if the members wanted.
He summarized the results at the nearest residence. It showed 28 decibels, 33 decibels and 42 decibels at the property line and quiet area 55 decibels or the standard would be 60 because it is over 500 feet. He said the scenario getting the most attention is the amplified music outdoors. The estimates were: at upstairs windows with speakers placed in them and the resulting sound level was 43 decibels and compared to a quiet limit of 55 and night time limit 45. All numbers are within the State quiet limits when vegetation is considered. The other area he looked at was noise from the parking lot. He based that on conservative assumptions for a commercial parking lot which had 4 linear feet of space, almost twice as much parking area and from what he knows a much busier parking lot
after talking with the college as to what their typical parking lot activity is like. He was told it is mostly week long parking and a little busier on weekends. Activity is considerably less than a commercial shopping center. Under the state rules it is actually an exempt source, but he looked at it anyway for his analysis.
The final figure that ties all of the music, parking lot, etc. and shows with that 3 parking lot sources and the amplified music outdoors, the result is still within the state quiet limits. There is some debate whether these limits would apply and he wasn’t sure where the state results came out because he has not seen the Order. It is his understanding that they are looking at the 60/50 that would apply. The peer review indicated that because it is a protected location, that the college itself may actually be exempt from the rules so the limits wouldn’t apply but it is his understanding that the college is committing to complying to the quiet area limits for the project. Tom Doyle, Pierce Atwood Attorney, said that the DEP with its approval on page 3 referred to Scott Bodwell’s
report and found that the applicant has made adequate provision for the control of excessive environmental noise and it met the department’s regulations for 60 daytime and 50 at night which they said were the applicable standards. That regulation has been described by other noise consultants as one of the most complex and sophiscated noise rules in the placecountry-regionUnited States. It isn’t like they don’t know what they are doing. They have reviewed noise very carefully both in their regulations and in this process. That can be said for every topic the Planning Board is reviewing tonight. If one looks at the DEP order, most if not all are reviewed and approved under the DEP site location standards.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked Steve Ambrose, peer reviewer for the sound assessment to come forward. Mr. Ambrose said he is a Board certified by the Institute for Noise Control Engineering that requires an 8 hour exam. He said this is a tough project. When it comes to noise, the public has an emotional attachment to it. He performed the peer review for the sound assessment done by Scott Bodwell, Resource Systems, applicable to the proposed dormitories at St. Joes. He said he was very careful trying to bring some public information to the Board about it. Noise regulations and ordinances are based on quantifiable sound level and not on audibility. That is where the difference occurs from his perception of the public response. Enforcement is with a measurable quantifiable level
and that is a very objective approach verses audibility that is subjective. He said we all experience this with various sounds that we hear. Some sounds we appreciate as music and if one is into car racing, one likes the voom voom. If one doesn’t like car racing, engine noise, etc, it’s noise. Further, he stated that if the public perceives things they are not involved with as noise or unwanted, ordinances do not address that issue. The EPA has performed many studies on what is the sound level that interferes with human activity. There are 2 criteria that the EPA has recommended and the State of placeStateMaine has adopted them and they also went one step further. EPA recommends a sound level average identified as ldq of 55 dba outdoor and this is to minimize normal speech interference. When you are outdoors carrying on a conversation at 5 to 10‘ or 6 to 8’, you can carry on a conversation without having to
pause when the sound is louder and that is EPA’s determination. When sound is of sufficient volume that it interferes with a human activity, it is determinital. Night time is different because we adjust to daytime because we expect it to be a bit louder than night. At night it is 45 dba and that is for indoor sleep interference. It is accounting for the amount of sound that enters through an open window and is reduced and is further reduced by being within the room so that the room environment is going to be in the mid 30’s for sleep.
The State of placeStateMaine adopted these 55 and 45 throughout the state. However, they brought in a quiet area because of a lot of rural areas. The rural area standard is 60 daytime and 50 night time.
Mr. Ambrose said that an advantage of this site is a good field distance between the receptors and the noise sources. As Mr. Bodwell pointed out, there are no applicable regulations that address this facility and how do you rule that a noise source can exempt itself.
Mr. Ambrose said he found the report of Mr. Bodwell’s was well written and went into an awful lot of detail that was sufficient amount of detail so he could extract information that was not presented. All of the information presented and what he was able to extract shows that the facility does comply with the Maine DEP in the Town of placeCityStandish. It complies even with the quiet area. His recommendations for the proposed residence halls is that since there is nothing that is enforceable here, is to encourage St. Joseph’s College administration to be a good acoustic neighbor. Standish and placeCitySt. Joseph’s College should mutually agree to noise level limits. placeCitySt. Joseph’s should limit outdoor amplified music to daylight hours. Limit vehicles on
campus when they are moving around to be courteous and no loud amplified music coming from a vehicle, no loud exhausts, etc. The facility has the ability to comply and there is sufficient for the neighbors, vegetation and topography to work well. Mr. Ambrose asked for questions. Mr. Ambrose said that Standish’s noise standard should be updated and Mr. Benson said that was being done.
Carol Billington asked about 45, 55, 75 dba and what would be the worst noise to be relevant and how much noise does there have to be to move from 35 to 55 dba. Mr. Ambrose said that a whisper is around 10 dba. In order to hear something above background for us to speak above background, we have to raise our voice about 10 to 15 dba. He said his voice is loud and it would end up to be around 65 dba in the room. The ambient in here is quiet so the acoustics are all very good because of the way the room has been designed so you can have speech in the room very easily. There is no masking coming in from or any interference from the ventilation. Comparing indoor sound to outdoor sound is really not appropriate because most of the sound in the room is reinforced to the listener by reflecting
off hard surfaces. When you go outdoors, it is a free field, the sound passes your ear and continues to go out into space. Doing an indoor comparison is not appropriate. He said that a bedroom at night, away from a busy road, probably would be in the low 30’s to mid 20’s. When your furnace turns on, it probably goes up to 40. A truck at 50 feet is 85 dba and a car is about 65 dba. When in a car at highway speed, the sound level is about 63 to 65 dba and when you speak you have to raise your voice slightly from being inside a normal room so one would be talking at 75 dba. If you are listening to the radio, you want it 10 to 15 db above so you have good speech audibility and minimum amount of speech interference. So if you want to talk above the radio, you are talking about 80 to 85 dba.
Carol Billington asked for an explanation of the changes to the cul-de-sac. Jim Seymour, Sebago Technics, said the changes suggested at the last meeting have been made on the plan. It is a true cul-“D”-sac now. The second approach was straightened out that came off at a 90 degree angle and on the curve a raised apron was put in to allow for fire trucks to come in. It will be made of a different material so it will be distinguishable. He has added the signage as suggested by Gorrill Palmer today. He explained all of the signage. He made the return radius so a fire truck could have a smoother exist.
Monty Vogel, addressStreetHearthside Road, came forward. He asked when Mr. Bodwell took second measurements around the college or were they modeling? Mr. Bodwell said he took sound levels at a different site and used those results to define the sound levels and put it into the model. He could not simulate this exact setup with the elevated sources, vegetation removed, and that is why one uses computer models to show what is going to happen in the future. He said they has used the computer models and gone out later and confirmed the results. They are pretty accurate and they always try to over-model so that it doesn’t exceed the estimates.
Mr. Vogel asked what the ambient noise levels at the site in placeCityBrunswick. Mr. Bodwell said 30 to 35 decibels. Mr. Bodwell said measurements were taken at addressStreet55 Ocean Drive at his house in placeCityBrunswick. He said it was a very quiet area? Mr. Bodwell said he quantified the amplified music and then he applied it to the model to higher story buildings.
Mr. Vogel said he had provided a company in placeStateMassachusetts to do the noise study. Mr. Vogel asked why a Standish consultant was used? Carol Billington asked Bud Benson to speak about the noise data that Mr. Vogel had done. Gus Favreau, board member, told Mr. Vogel that by suggesting a firm to do the noise study, did not mean that the town had to select that candidate. Mr. Benson said he called around to find someone to review the noise data and Mr. Ambrose’s name came up. Mr. Vogel asked if Mr. Ambrose was a professional engineer. Mr. Ambrose said he went to PlaceTypeUniversity of PlaceNameMass and got a degree in engineering and upon graduation worked for a large company, Stone and Webster, in CityplaceBoston working in their noise engineering group. With his
experience with them and taking additional courses and producing evidence, he was able to take a Board certification exam, similar to a PE exam. There is a only one state in the country to offer a PE in noise control engineering and that is the State of StateplaceWashington. Mr. Ambrose said he has the equivalent experience and is not allowed to use the term engineer in this state. He said he is a professional or consultant.
Mr. Vogel said his concern was that he wants a clear and unbiased choice to do the peer review. Mr. Vogel said he agreed with most of what Mr. Ambrose wrote in his report. Mr. Vogel did read from a section of his report . . .“Noise regulations and ordinances are based on a quantifiable sound level and not audibility meaning that enforcement is with a measurable sound level which is objective and not audibility that is subjective. Noise limits recommended by the USEPA are used to minimize interference for normal human activities. Daytime noise limits are for outdoor speech interference (55 dba and night time limits are for indoor sleep interference 45 dba and he just reiterated that) and Mr. Vogel appreciates that. Mr. Vogel said it did not include annoyance—only interference, there
is a huge difference there. Also indoor sleep interference as we discussed before, does not take into account ambient noise levels. Ambient noise levels are very important to Mr. Vogel and that is why he is asking the questions. In this case, ambient noise levels are very low, not like CityWindham, placeCityPortland or even the center of Standish. Those ambient noises are much higher and the residents are used to it and the residents can sleep through it. If one is next to Hadlock Field, there is a world of difference. Mr. Vogel continued by saying that it is the non-routine noises in a quiet setting that the residents are concerned with. Mr. Ambrose measured short term daytime ambient levels with a very light wind at 35 and 36 dba. That is a very quiet level. It should be pointed out that leaf rustle and distant traffic does add to ambient noise and, in fact, that is most of what he measured.
It is the evening noise with the amplified stereo music, people screaming at ball games and, of course, placeCitySt. Joseph’s adding more sports programs, more fields will add to the noise. Every 3 decibels is a basically a doubling of noise. Mr. Vogel said he measured a 25 and 23 dba last spring. He believed that Mr. Ambrose was measuring leaf rustle and distant traffic and he was measuring it in the evening and early morning. 23 and 25 dba is absolutely quiet.
Finally, Carol Billington, asked if the Board wanted to hear more? Gus said he wanted to hear Mr. Vogel’s concerns, not his report. Carol Billington asked for his concerns. He said a computer program was used for the initial readings at the college and then later readings were taken at another location, and he also had concerns about Mr. Ambrose’s readings at the property lines were 1 decibel drop and 3 to 8 decibels at the homes. Carol asked again what was Mr. Vogel concern? He said he is worried about yelling, hollering, music, ball games, whistles, horns, abrupt noises that annoy, not the main decibel levels that are called interferences. He said they are hearing those noises now and he expects they will increase. Mr. Vogel reviewed all of the suggestions made by Mr.
Ambrose for the college to be a good acoustic neighbor to them. Mr. Vogel was candid about how he felt about the suggestions of Mr. Ambrose and the lack of responsiveness that the neighbors receive from the college administration. Mr. Vogel ended by saying the members are biased and their concerns are going to deaf ears. Gus Favreau said he objected to being referred to as being biased.
Chair, Carol Billington, reiterated that noise is not a consideration in the Standards that the Boards uses to make decisions. One Standard reads . . . alter the existing character of the surrounding zoning district in Standard I. The issue of noise was addressed and fully at the Board of Appeals level.
Lou Wood, addressStreetWesterlea Way, came forward. He wanted to ask the experts questions. He referred to a vacant lot owned by his father on addressStreetWesterlea Way. He wanted to know about 55 and 45 dba—where does that show up. Mr. Wood told the group what takes place in the summer months at the college. He talked about outside parties, loud music and wanted to know who monitored it. Mr. Wood asked for compromises from the college because they have done nothing to compromise yet.
Carol Billington stopped the discussion and read Standard I which reads:
Standard I. The proposed site plan will not alter the existing character of the surrounding zoning district or divisions to the extent that it will become a detriment or potential nuisance to said zoning division or district.
Carol Billington asked the town’s attorney, Sally Daggett, to comment on this standard. She said she has previously advised the Planning Board that this is subjective criteria and if it was the sole reason for denying an application, she did not know how defendable it would be in court. It is up to the Board to say they have heard enough testimony on this standard to make a decision. Ms. Daggett said they have probably heard enough to make a decision. Bill Foster said he would be open to more discussion if there was something that had not been said.
Mr. Ambrose came forward and said that unfortunately the law is for interference to human activity. He spoke again about audibility and said this is what people respond to. The measurements of 35 dba. The total variability of the sound was 34; that is the minimum of 34. That is typical for daytime and nighttime is typically 10 db quieter so the measurements of Mr. Vogel made are probably right. A 3 db increase is a doubling of sound energy. He talked about 6 db and 10 db and said our ears do not hear linearly. He further said that all of these measurements are well below the state’s laws.
Joe Sampson, addressStreetHearthside Road, said that the noise is a nuisance and is detrimental to the neighborhood. He expects it to continue to be detrimental.
Michelle Laughran, addressStreet20 Pine Drive, said there might be a great future if the college and the neighbors could agree to work together. It is in everyone’s interest to keep the college quiet and the neighbors to try to work together.
Stuart Jackson, addressStreetHearthside Road, told the group about an incident he had a few years ago in the summer and went to complain about a concert and was told that the sheriff had given permission for the concert.
Garrett Vanatta, addressStreetHearthside Road, said that from a legal aspect concerned two people speaking. The noise at St. Joe’s today will only increase in the future especially with more dorms. He told Carol Billington that he could hear the crack of a baseball bat, music at night. On most nights he can hear yelling that sounds like voices in the woods. Friday and Saturday night the music is louder. He considers it a nuisance.
Phil Yauck, placeCitySt. Joseph’s College, came forward to address several issues being discussed about unresponsiveness. He said that calls made to the college to complain about noise or other disruptive issues are a thing of the past. The college has addressed that issue and dispatchers now answer the calls at night. Many of the dispatchers came from the Sherriff’s office. If there are compaints about concerts, they are dealt with. He said he met with the neighbors on addressStreetWesterlea Way before going to the Planning Board and made compromises, but not all that they wanted.
Carol Billington spoke about recommendations in Mr. Ambrose’s report and asked if the college could come to an agreement. He said that he could make it mandatory that no music speakers can go in dorm windows or be moved outside of their dorm.
Jim Martell, Ossipee Trail, said he used to be a student at placeCitySt. Joseph’s College and didn’t see where all of these complaints are coming from.
Carol Billington closed public discussion on the St. Joe’s project. Bill Foster said he felt the noise study could have been done on the St. Joe’s site. He questioned Mr. Ambrose and asked if on a Saturday afternoon around the lake would the decbels be higher from the noise from the lake and what is going on at the college. Mr. Ambrose said he recorded a big, powerful boat on a calm day and it measured at 39 dba on the meter. A chain saw he also listened to was 38 dba on the meter. Because it was a short term event, it didn’t accumulate into the 35 dba leq measurement. Next he referred to a loud boat going by, it would be louder on shore than noise coming from St. Joe’s. Noise from placeSt. Joes’ in order to be heard needs to be down wind, unless it is
a perfectly calm day.
Mr. Ambrose said that having the sound test done in CityBrunswick verses at placeCitySt. Joseph’s College on elevated tripods doesn’t make a difference. The value of what he did was that he did a sound test and did not put the data into a model. He could measure up close and he could measure in the far field away from it and he could then with his computer model calibrate it. By taking these 2 measurements, he could then show the sound source power level was sufficient to match the data he took in the distance and that is a very important piece of information. The sound test was appropriate and valid.
Gus Favreau, board member, commented on nuisance noise within his own neighborhood and he calls them the reality of life. He blocks the noises out and learned to live with it by making adjustments, etc. Member, PersonNameEleanor Dudek, said she lives in placePlaceNameStandish PlaceTypeVillage and has until recently had a tavern in the neighborhood and she heard loud music, live bands, etc. Noise is an issue that she lives with also. Carol Billington said she lives in the woods and she hears noise and lots of it.
Gus Favreau made a motion that the proposed project meets Standard I. Brian Libby seconded the motion. Carol Billington asked to add an amendment to the motion. She wanted to add the following conditions for Standard I:
1. There will be no speakers allowed in the windows of the new residence halls,
2. There will be no outside speakers allowed in that cluster of new residence halls
Brian Libby seconded that motion. All in favor of the amendment. There was no more discussion from the Board. All were in favor and the motion carried to approve Standard I.
Carol read the next standard:
Standard J. The proposed development has made adequate provision for water supply, including an adequate supply of water for fire protection purposes.
Bud Benson said that the Portland Water District has increased the diameter of the water main within the campus to an 8” water line and that should be adequate. There were no comments from the public or the Board. Brian Libby made a motion that the project meets Standard J. Gus Favreau seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
Chair, Carol Billington, said the college is not in default on a previous approval and Standards K and L do not apply. The project receives preliminary approval.
Bud Benson said the DEP approval was received via fax at 3:00 p.m. today and that numerous plan changes have gone back and forth. Bud said that there are several small changes that need review. Carol Billington did not want to have the college wait 30 more days for an approval. Members agreed to hold a special one-half hour meeting for the college at the beginning of the workshop meeting scheduled for November 19th.
Bud Benson itemized the outstanding issues:
1. New set of plans
2. Portland Water District to review the water mains
3. Insurance amount for septic system fee
4. Impact fee – staff needs to finish review
5. Read DEP approval
6. Review the “D” shape cul-de-sac
7. Review all of the conditions from last meeting to see if still valid
Brian Libby made a motion to grant preliminary approval to placeCitySt. Joseph’s College and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
03 08-06-07 SRC, Inc., d/b/a CitySunRise Corner/Anne Farrar – Map 36, placeLot 34, 25 Ossipee Trail East
Site Plan Amendment
Bud Benson said that no new material was received this month. Brian Libby made a motion to table the project and Alan Connell seconded the motion. All in favor and motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
01-10-01-07 TWO FAMILY DWELLING/William Tompson – Map 6, placeLot 21E, addressStreetCape Road
Site Plan Review
William Tompson came forward and said he wishes to build a duplex on addressStreetCape Road on land he has an option to purchase. He distributed a new site plan showing setback and contours and sight distances from the road.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked the members if they needed a site walk and the members did not want one because they were familiar with the site. Bud Benson said he had paced off the site and there is over 600 ft. of sight distance. Bud said wetlands are out there and is quite wet. Mr. Tompson said there will be not be a full foundation. Discussion continued regarding septic design, location of furnace, etc. Mr. Benson said the road impact fee needed discussion. Mr. Tompson said this is a residential building and wanted to discuss this fee in more detail. Mr. Benson said the fee would be in the neighborhood of $4,000 and Bud said the Board members could craft a fee to be paid when the building permit was issued. Bill Foster said he looked at it as one building. Mr.
Tompson said he would be willing to pay one fee of $2,000 for the road impact fee. Brian Libby made a motion to assess this project a read impact fee of $2,100 and Bill Foster seconded the motion. Discussion moved to the authority of the Board to assess a fee. Brian Libby amended his previous motion and moved that the road impact fee be $2,087.95 for one house only. Alan Connell seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All in favor and motion passed.
Carol Billington read aloud section 181-73, the Standards A through L. Bud Benson commented on Standard D which is “The site plan adequately provides for the soil and drainage problems that the development will create.” He said he felt the floodplain would be contained within the wetland and the building is on the edge of the wetland. Anything Mr. Tompson says at the meeting becomes part of the record and Mr. Tompson has said he is not building a full basement for this duplex.
Carol asked for a motion and no one spoke so she presented a motion. She made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. Approval is subject to a letter of financial capacity at the time the applicant seeks a building permit for the duplex,
2. The Code Enforcement Officer approve the septic design prior to pulling a building permit,
3. An impact fee in the amount of $2,087.95 will be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. 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
Alan Connell seconded the motion. There was no more discussion. All in favor and motion passed.
PersonNameEleanor Dudek made a motion to adjourn and Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor and meeting adjourned.
These minutes were prepared and submitted by Donna Sawyer, Secretary to the Planning Board.
| 
