Print
Share page with AddThis

Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Meeting date: 
Monday, November 6, 2023

                                                    Standish Planning Board

                                                            Meeting Minutes

                                                         November 06, 2023

 

 

The meeting of the Standish Planning Board was called to order by Chairman Charles Brown. Present were Andrew Walton, Patrick Gere, Frank Nappi, Deb Boxer, Carolyn Biegel, Town Planner Scott Hastings and Jackie Dyer, Admin. to Town Planner and Planning Board. Absent was Derek Wright.

Open Meeting

           a.        Call to order -Chairman Brown

           b.       Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman Brown

           c.        Declaration of a Quorum-6 present

Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 02, 2023

Mr. Gere said he had one edit from the minutes, it said he made a motion, and it was Derek Wright, as he had recused himself. Mr. Brown had one minor change as well and said he had called Mrs. Dyer earlier and she had corrected it. Mr. Walton made a motion to accept the meeting minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Nappi, with two minor corrections. All in favor.

Old Business:

  • PATCO Construction, 25 Ossipee Trl E, Map 36, Lot 34-Site Plan Application to build a 7500 square foot building for NAPA Auto Parts

Mrs. Biegel asked the Chairman for point of order. She said that she believes there is an issue that needs to be discussed. She said on page 2 of the memo from the planner it reads that “The applicant is proposing a 7,500sqft retail building.  In the Town Main street frontage, retail business is an explicitly allowed use requiring site plan approval.” She said she agrees that this retail business that they are proposing is allowed on the Town main street type, but she disagrees that this is what applicant has proposed and does not meet the retail business definition. She said in section 181.3 in definitions, a retail business is defined as” any business that is engaged in retail sale, rental, or lease of services individually or in small quantities to the ultimate consumer for direct consumption or use and not for resale. Retail trade or business shall not include other commercial uses specifically defined herein.”

Mrs. Biegel said that another use specifically defined herein is wholesale and that is defined as “a business that is operating primarily in sales to retailers, other merchants, industrial and/or commercial users mainly for resale or business use.” She said that in addition to retail sales, NAPA stores sell parts wholesale and according to their website, “they are fully committed to the success of their wholesale customers. As a trusted partner, they are committed to delivering quickly so that you can provide that same experience to your customers.” She read some other items from the NAPA website and said it continues to talk about wholesale customers and if you look at the website, you will see that NAPA has a fleet of vehicles that deliver to their customers. She said they offer discounts on wholesale part sales.

Mrs. Biegel said the public has described this building as looking like a warehouse. She said it has two thirds of its store marked as warehouse and if this functions like other NAPA stores, it will have a fleet of delivery vehicles and according to the applicant, this NAPA retail store will sell goods wholesale. She said that NAPA by our definition is not a retail store because of selling wholesale, which is another commercial use. She said the proposed project does not meet the definition of 181.3, retail business because it includes another component as a wholesale business. She said wholesale, even if it’s part of a retail business, is not a permitted use. She said uses not listed are not permitted and she believes this project should never have come before the Board, because it lists a non-permitted use, and this would not be approved by this Board.

Mrs. Biegel said they do sell wholesale to other businesses, and this is not an allowed use. She said with all the difficulty the Board has had with this project in trying to dress up a warehouse, you can see why something doesn’t fit and we run into problems. She said a permitted use is not something you can waive or modify, and she doesn’t see how we can get past the definitions from the Code Book. Mrs. Boxer asked if we need a legal opinion and Mr. Gere said he would like to hear from Mr. Hastings. Scott said that Carolyn was right as to what is in the memo and his opinion is this is a store to walk into and purchase items. He said just because a grocery store sells things wholesale or sells to restaurants, doesn’t mean it’s a wholesale business or a warehouse. He said if a hardware store sells to a carpenter, that doesn’t make it a wholesale business. He said it is a store front and open to the public, has posted hours and sells many different products, that are stored and this does not make it a warehouse. Mrs. Biegel said it is for retail use, but it is also a warehouse.

Mr. Hastings said that grocery stores and a lot of other businesses sell to more than just the public. Mrs. Biegel spoke about the retail and wholesale definitions and that NAPA has a huge component of wholesale business and the need for the additional parking spaces they have asked for is probably for their fleet of delivery vehicles. She said that the wholesale component makes it viable, not the retail. Mr. Walton said he thought we were approving the building and the surroundings, not so much the building on the inside. He said we are not looking at the inside and there are words that say warehouse, Mrs. Biegel said there are words on there that said NAPA. Mr. Nappi said that he agrees with Mr. Hastings, and this is just another reason that Mrs. Biegel is trying to stop this application. He said she is wasting the Boards time, and he agrees this is a retail store and not another reason to stop this. Mr. Brown said that he agrees there should be a legal opinion for clarity and Mrs. Boxer agreed. Mr. Brown said that the applicant has put a lot of time and money into this, and he feels the Board owes him clarity.

Mr. Gere said that the Board should hear from the applicant related to the use at this time and he would like to hear their input. Caleb Bourassa said he thinks they should be able to come to some kind of decision on this and he agrees with Mr. Hastings that this is a retail store and falls under that. Greg Patterson from PATCO said he wishes he had known about this before now. He asked if they could have some kind of vote as to whether he would get approved or not. He said he understands about seeking a legal opinion. Mr. Nappi made a motion to move forward and let them present the changes they have come back with. Mr. Hastings said that in dealing with lawyers, the Town Attorney would be more satisfied with giving the legal opinion before the Board does an approval vote. He said the Board should hold off on the vote. Mrs. Boxer seconded Mr. Nappi’s motion to get the legal opinion but move forward with everything else they have to present. All in favor.

Calab Bourassa from Gorrill Palmer was present and Andy Highland, architect from Port City Architecture. He said they have been here three times now, had two workshops and a site walk. He said they have made several changes, and they revised the sidewalk grading around the foundation, they have added some doors and some pedestrian access to the sidewalk. Caleb said for the drainage out in front of the site, there is capacity for any water. Mr. Gere asked about the foundation and what they are doing with that. Mr. Bourassa said they originally showed 5-6 feet of foundation, but that has gradually decreased, and they carry a more even grade.  Mrs. Biegel asked if the revisions were in the plan the Board has now and Caleb said they are. Mrs. Boxer asked about a landscape plan and Caleb said they were unable to have that for this meeting. They would like the landscape architect to provide the final plan as one of the conditions of approval. Mrs. Boxer asked about the side buffer and Mr. Bourassa said they are planning on leaving quite a portion of that and adding more to improve it. She asked if they needed a DEP stormwater permit and Caleb said they were well below what the DEP asks for.

Mr. Highland from Port City Architects spoke and said they have done a lot of revisions to the building. He said he has done a lot of projects for PATCO and feels they are meeting all the ordinances. He said this is a very versatile building. The roof will be shingles and the siding will be of the cedar type. He said they have added quite a few doors and some windows. Mr. Highland said this is a wood framed building and has a lot of opportunity to be modified in the future. He said the town calls for a colonial type of look, and he feels they have done that with the columns, fenestrations, and dormers, plus the outside changes. Mr. Highland said they have added many decorative elements like columns, small canopies, windows, stone base, etc. Mrs. Biegel said that she has a question on fenestration and what was the percentage. Mr. Highland said he did not calculate that, and Mrs. Biegel said she sees less than 20% and code calls for 30%-90%. Mr. Highland said that is a lot of fenestrations and would not look good. Mrs. Biegel said with retail you want to have big windows and that is what the code calls for.

Mrs. Biegel said her calculations were not what the code calls for and she did just the front. Mr. Highland said the code calls for colonial motif and 30-90% of fenestration would make the building look worse. He said he looks at what looks best for the building. Mr. Highland said this building works great with retail. He said that it is encouraged to have a second story per the code, but they have not added one. Mrs. Biegel said she likes the breakup on the frontage but would like it to be two stories and not a single door meets code as they are not operable. Mr. Highland said every door swings open and is operable. He said every door in this building is operable and there is nothing in the ordinance that says they can’t have a back door for people to enter. Mrs. Biegel said that the ordinance is supposed to make the village pedestrian friendly.

Mrs. Biegel said Norway Savings has a second story with dormers and the same with Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Highland said this is not a Norway Savings and they are meeting the letter of the ordinance, and she can’t just deny the project just because she doesn’t want a NAPA. She said she has a whole slate of concerns. Mr. Patterson said he will not go on all night and Mrs. Beigel said she needs to air her concerns and Mr. Patterson told Mrs. Biegel that he knows she doesn’t like this project and is very vocal about it. She said that she thinks Port City Architecture can do a 3D four-sided color simulation, including proposed landscaping and grading. Mrs. Boxer said they should show the building as it’s going to look.

Mrs. Biegel said she has concerns about the grading, the plans don’t reflect the grade drops, she has a problem with drainage, fenestration of the building, landscape plan, sidewalk, parking lot and additional spaces, no buffering to the adjacent lot, nothing on the back of the building to soften the view, the lighting has been changed from the first couple of plans. She said they need a clear view of the lot and the building. Mr. Gere said they have addressed some of the comments from before and this looks like a great improvement from what was previously submitted. His concern is the roof, and they should have stone around the bottom where it drips off. Mrs. Boxer asked about the columns and Mr. Highland said they are pilaster columns, and they are attached to the building. Mr. Hastings said this is a very traditional design element used from the 1800’s. Mr. Highland said he has done a lot of projects just like this.

Mr. Brown said he went through the entire ordinance and the form-based code, and he has no major concerns. He said this is a lot better than what they had before, and he was okay with what they have presented and what Port City has put together resembles what they had for photographs. Mr. Patterson said they would eliminate a lot of the foundation being seen and will put stone around it. Mr. Brown said the pipe coming from the treatment pond could be extended so nothing pools at the abutting property. Mr. Bourassa said that they could do this, and a lot of the drainage is just natural drainage, but they can add overflows and run it elsewhere. Mr. Brown asked about extending the sidewalk and Mr. Bourassa told him they could. He said they are trying to match the grades out there as best as they can.

Mr. Brown said they need to get a legal opinion on retail versus wholesale and sees no reason to continue this. Mr. Hastings said they need to talk about having a third-party architectural review, as a motion was made, and he would like the Board’s comments if they still wanted this, or do they feel the plan submitted now is something they can go forward with. Mr. Brown said he is comfortable with going with what Port City has done, Mr. Nappi and Mr. Gere agreed. Mr. Gere didn’t think an architectural review would add much. Mrs. Biegel said that she feels the Board should go ahead with the review. Mr. Hastings said they can rescind the previous motion and Mr. Nappi made a motion to do so, this was seconded by Mr. Gere. Motion failed with a 3-3 vote. A motion was made by Mrs. Boxer to table this application. Tony Folsom asked if the public could comment, and a public hearing was opened.

  • Tony Folsom 85 Dolloff Road. Will the entrance be expanded or stay the same?  He said that a tractor trailer will have a hard time getting in there. He said the store is wholesale. They make deliveries to your house or business. He said he has supported PATCO coming but it could be built in a different spot.
  • Pam Slattery Thomas- she said the architect stated he wasn’t doing much retail. She asked what the plans are for the two buildings on the property.
  • Louis Dudek, Bonny Eagle Road-concerned about drainage behind the parking lot and room to put a retention pond. Said it doesn’t seem like it will work or make sense. Concerned about traffic at night and lights, as he lives right there, and it doesn’t make sense where they want to build it.
  • Derek Mustakakis-Oak Hill Road. Said project looks good and don’t give up. Said he has worked for NAPA, and this would be a country NAPA with a limited amount (maybe one or two) of vehicles for their deliveries. He said that it blows his mind to not want to allow businesses that might sell wholesale.
  • Izzy Higgins-Bonny Eagle Road. Said she doesn’t think of NAPA as wholesale. She said most of the NAPA’s she has gone to are retail and there are ordinary people they sell to. She said the Comp Plan and Master Plan were done two years apart and they were for people to be able to work, shop and live in Standish. She said this is a good opportunity.
  • Cara Childs for husband Tom and herself- said the building looks better than before. Said many people would not want this and want a colonial surrounding look.  She said the architect doesn’t seem to understand the form-based code and what the Town wants. There are other places in Town for this project.
  • Pam Slattery Thomas-this was the first school in Standish and should be taken into consideration.
  • Motion to close public hearing and all in favor.

A motion was made by Mr. Brown to table this until the architectural review is done and the attorney’s opinion about whether this is retail or wholesale and an allowable use per the ordinance. Motion was seconded and all in favor.

  • Patrick Michaud and 5 Brothers Construction 11 Cider Mill-Subdivision Application to build Brookstone Condominiums at Cortland Place-10 Units

Dustin Roma from DM Roma Consulting Engineers was present to represent the applicants. He said they were here at the last meeting and had several issues to address that were minor. He said their concern about the driveway for unit one and they have turned that driveway to make it more easily accessible, they have extended the sidewalk so it reaches the full extent along the road extension, added easements along the sides of the right of way and added some extra area so the road could be extended if needed, they need to add a surveyor’s stamp to the final plan if approved. He said the Board had signed the previous approval for the Cider Mill project and this has all been finalized. Dustin said they have added some landscaping around the project, they have underground power and water, they have added some street trees and shrubs around the fronts of the buildings.

Dustin said there are areas that will remain forested, and he feels they have addressed all the comments from the last meeting. Mr. Hastings said there was a site walk done and he feels they are in good shape. Mr. Hastings said these are two separate applications, one plan that will approve everything in the end. Mrs. Boxer asked about the DEP permits and Mr. Roma said they have not received them yet. She said the Board would be looking at preliminary approval for this until all DEP reports are back. Mr. Roma said the stream crossing is a permit by rule and because of the wetland fill, they view this as two permits. Mrs. Boxer read the application guidelines as to why this should be a preliminary approval because it is subject to review by the DEP before finalized and approved.

Mr. Brown said this is just an amendment to the subdivision for Lot 11. Mr. Hastings said the Board has approved two phases and this is phase three. Mrs. Boxer said this should be a preliminary approval. She asked how much fill would be on top of the culvert. Mr. Roma said there will be over six and a half feet of fill over this culvert and they can be buried up to 20 feet with no issues. Mrs. Boxer asked about lights, and can they do dark sky lights and not anything that shines brightly all over. Mr. Roma said they are doing some gooseneck lights that point downward. Mrs. Boxer asked about the insurance for the septic. Mr. Roma said many of the tanks are shared with two lines, but they all will be pumped out as a shared expense. He said Unit One will have their own septic system and all the others are dual septic’s. Mr. Nappi asked about the complaints on the low water pressure by other homeowners. Mr. Roma said the water mains should have higher pressure as these are downhill. Mr. Nappi said more than one person had brought up low water pressure on Cider Mill.

Mrs. Biegel said she wasn’t part of the first two phases. She said when they went on the site walk, they talked about connectivity. She said she doesn’t know what the original connectivity plan was and is there anything else on Cider Mill? Mr. Brown said one was eliminated because it went straight into a wetland. He said there was another one that went into the condos, so there were two. Mr. Hastings showed the past plan that was approved and an approval from last year. He said there was a road removed going up over the hill. Mrs. Biegel said the one that was straight was another way that leads directly out to Route 35, and she is not sure why that would be eliminated. She said the more roads there are, the more advantage there is to the community. Mr. Roma said to the west, the lot is very wet and there is no potential for development. Mr. Brown asked about the road extension and does it come back out to Route 35. Mrs. Biegel said she doesn’t know why we would not want to keep all possible road extensions.

Mr. Roma said he sees a potential for the road to the condos that could be extended and create a loop with a spur at the end. He said maybe this will be proposed in the future and it’s very easy to see where it can happen. Mrs. Biegel said that with all the other development potential, like Cram Road, she thinks that all of them could somehow be connected. Mr. Roma said they are not trying to burden the Town with more roads, but they could develop more connectivity in years to come if it is needed. He said they would like to keep all their roads as private infrastructure and not burden the town with water lines, septic systems, etc. He said any backland in this development would not have any road frontage. Mr. Gere asked about an access easement across the condo road. Mr. Roma said they are in the process of adding easements but can’t do it across private property. Mr. Roma said they reserve condo rights if they want to expand into other properties when the opportunity might become available. Mrs. Biegel said they heard from residents about tree planting and that is yet to be completed. Mr. Hastings said a tree is to be planted every 50 feet and they are not in violation of any approvals. Mr. Brown said there is a bond, and the Town can take money out of that bond to do that. Mr. Roma said usually the last thing done in a project like this, is the road and the trees. He said you usually go in and do it all at once and this is very close to being completed. Mr. Roma said they have a couple of landscape architects, and they bring them in to help with difficult areas. He said they propose the landscaping on the plan so that others know what they are planning to do.  Mr. Roma said there is a lot going on underground with this project that isn’t seen.

Mr. Roma said there is some flexibility in the landscaping of the condos. He said the maintenance of the structure is the homeowner’s responsibility. Mr. Hastings said he has what each unit will be like with parking, common area, etc. He says the Town, or the Board does not look at elements of the landscaping and that is up to the homeowner as their landscaping plans change. Mr. Brown opened the hearing to the public:

  • Maurie Hill-are the condos going to be on a slab or have a basement?

Mr. Roma said these will all have daylight basements for storage, and each will have a garage as well.

  • Wendy Brandensteiner- said that if this is going to be a private road, will their road remain as is, how does that work when they are using Cider Mill to access their property? Mr. Hastings said it is his understanding that the condo owners will have to join the homeowner’s association. Ms. Brandensteiner said that their HOA and changes were supposed to come to the Planning Board and did not.
  • Tony Folsom-problem with the culvert. Said culvert on Moody Road that serves one house was put in and over $ 100,000.00.
  • Izzy Higgins- said that a lot of roads have connectivity and that can change. She gave three examples of streets in Gorham and Westbrook, and they became an issue with way too much traffic. We should be concerned about people living on those streets.

Mr. Roma said that the intent of Cider Mill Lane is to eventually become a public road. He said the Association paying for winter maintenance is temporary providing the Town accepts the road. He said as far as the condos and Homeowners Association goes, they will figure out each piece and figure out who does what.

Mr. Gere said the HOA didn’t vote on the lot reconfiguration and Mr. Roma said that these documents are set up for the developer to reserve easements, change lot lines and whatever else they find they need to do as far as underground utilities and they reserve these rights until all the lots have been sold. At that time, they forfeit developer rights, and everything reverts to the Homeowners Association. Maurie Hill asked about the Town taking over the road, the is the Town is responsible for certain things. Mr. Hastings said when the Town does take over, it becomes their responsibility to take care of all infrastructure and repairs. Maurie said the Town Council does not have to accept a road and this needs to be thought about. A motion was made (Mrs. Boxer) and seconded (Mr. Gere) to close the public hearing.

Mr. Brown said they need a motion to approve the subdivision amendment. Mr. Gere asked if the DEP approval was needed in hand to find the application complete. Mrs. Boxer said they can do a preliminary approval. Mr. Hastings said that he would say the subdivision application is complete and can get final approval to merge Lot 11 for phase three and move the lot line. The DEP approval is for the site plan and final approval. Mr. Hastings said there is a future right of way for connection. Mr. Hastings said this subdivision amendment is very minor. He said they are still leaving what would be public road at the hammerhead. Mr. Roma said the Town would plow to the hammerhead and not beyond. Mr. Hastings said where the culvert is, would not be part of the road offered to the Town.

Mrs. Boxer made a motion to find the amendment for Brookstone Subdivision complete. This was seconded by Mr. Gere. All in favor. Mrs. Boxer made a motion to find the site plan application for Brookstone Condos at Cortland Place complete, seconded by Mr. Nappi. Mr. Brown said this is subject to DEP approval. Mr. Roma said that nothing will be signed until the DEP report comes in. Mr. Brown asked about the impact fee and Mr. Hastings said he doesn’t have it in front of him. Mrs. Biegel asked about financial capabilities and Mr. Hastings said they did receive a bank statement from the applicant showing his capability. Mr. Brown asked about the Fire Department letter and Mr. Hastings said that was given to the Board before the last meeting. Mrs. Boxer said she would like to have the DEP reports for the site plan. Mr. Brown said they can add conditions to the preliminary approval and then grant final approval at a later meeting.

Mr. Brown read the following.

“Move that the Board grant approval of the amendment to the Brookstone Subdivision as submitted by DM Roma Consulting Engineers having found it to meet the review criteria of Chapter 181 – Part 3, Subdivision Regulations, all other relevant standards of the local

ordinances and the requirements of Title 30-A, Chapter 187, §4404 of the Maine State Statute for Subdivision Review, with the following conditions:

  1. This approval is an amendment to a previously approved plan and review was limited to those elements of the plan that have changed.  All conditions and waivers of previous approvals are still in effect.
  2. No deviations from the approved plan are permitted without prior approval from the Planning Board for major changes, and from the code enforcement officer for minor changes. The determination of major or minor shall be made by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  3. The revised subdivision plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of approval and a copy of the recorded plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
  4. Prior to the plan being signed, final DEP approval is required.

Mr. Nappi made a motion to grant subdivision approval, seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor.

Mr. Brown read the following:

Move that the Board grant preliminary approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the site plan application submitted by DM Roma Consulting Engineers for Lot 11 of the Brookstone Subdivision in Standish as amended, having found it to meet the site plan review criteria of §181-73, the performance standards of §181-7.1, and all other relevant standards of the zoning ordinance. With the following conditions: “

V. CONDITIONS –

  1. All work shall be in conformance with materials and plans submitted by DM Roma Consulting Engineers which consists of a site plan and supporting application materials.
  2. All new exterior lighting shall be full cutoff as required by §181-7.1 E.5.g.2.b of the Land Use Ordinance.
  3. This approval shall lapse and become void unless the start of construction or operation as defined in §181-70.1.A which reads: “Following the issuance of site plan approval for a specified use by the Planning Board, the applicant shall make a substantial start, as defined in Part 1, §181-3, and determined by the Code Enforcement Officer, on the approved use within three years from the original date of approval. If no such substantial start is made, the Planning Board approval shall lapse and become void.”
  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 or applicant’s agent (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.
  5. The impact fee must be established prior to final approval.

All in favor of preliminary approval and the applicant will be back with the DEP permits for final approval later.

New Business:

  • LGJ Construction & Joe Banville Drywall, 634 Cape Road, Map 3, Lot 21-Subdivision Amendment to split a parcel of land.

Kaitlyn Hall was present to represent the applicant. She said that she had met with the Code Officer, and he was okay with this split. She said the title company wanted a formal approval with the Planning Board. Mr. Hastings said that there is a legal disagreement with this and typically it goes through Code Enforcement, every town does it differently. He said this parcel does not fit the current code and a waiver will have to be approved for building an internal road. He said that he put that into the memo, and this meets the back lot requirement for a legal lot. This subdivision plan was done in the 1970’s. Mr. Hastings said there is nothing to gain by making a road back to the rear lot. Mrs. Boxer asked if this was in a flood zone as the plan was not clear. It says it’s in zone C, which is not a flood map area, said Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown asked for the plan that shows bearings and distances on the back lot. Mr. Hastings said we have the original plan but not an official, stamped, survey. Mr. Brown said there is no monumentation done and the surveyor should have done that. He said they can add that as a condition of approval. Mr. Hastings said the only new line is the easement, everything else is the original plan. Mr. Gere asked if there are wetlands on the plan, Caitlyn said there are some listed, and Mr. Hastings said there is no delineation. Mr. Gere asked if this is an amendment to the original subdivision and Mr. Hastings said it is. Mr. Brown said that no boundary survey had been done and that could also be made a condition of approval before any building permits are issued. Kaitlyn said she knew the surveyor had been out there a few times but wasn’t sure if he had pinned the whole lot. If he has done all the pins, this needs to be shown on the plan.

There was no comment from the Board and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Brown said the plan just needs to be complete and a waiver needs to be issued to waive the internal road. A motion was made to find the application complete by Mrs. Boxer and seconded by Mr. Nappi. All in favor. Mr. Hastings said the purpose of the waiver is, so they do not have to build an internal road and that the new lot has road frontage.

Mr. Brown read the following from the memo:

“I move that the requirements of §181-97.1 be waived as allowed under §181-108 B due to there being no interest of public health, safety, or welfare in the creation of a new road to serve a single lot which cannot be further subdivided, meets the back lot requirements of the ordinance, and is in a subdivision which was not subject to these requirements at its original approval.“

Mr. Brown made a motion seconded by Mrs. Boxer to grant the waiver for the internal road. He said he assumes there will be some type of maintenance agreement for the road and Mr. Hastings said that both parties will be responsible for the shared maintenance. Mrs. Biegel asked if one of the homeowners sells, does that have any ramifications for the road? Mr. Hastings said this will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and that would be on the deed and included in the sale. Mrs. Boxer asked if Mr. Hastings looks at everything that goes to the CEO after it is approved by the Board. He said he doesn’t see everything.

All in favor of granting the waiver. Mr. Brown read the following:

“Move that the Board grant approval of the creation of a new lot in the previously approved  Daniel Libby Subdivision as submitted by Kaitlyn Hall having found it to meet the review criteria of Chapter 181 – Part 3, Subdivision Regulations, all other relevant standards of the local ordinances and the requirements of Title 30-A, Chapter 187, §4404 of the Maine State Statute for Subdivision Review, with the following conditions:

V. CONDITIONS –

  1. This approval is an amendment to a previously approved plan and review was limited to those elements of the plan that have changed.  Any standards or conditions of previous approvals are still in effect.
  2. No deviations from the approved plan are permitted without prior approval from the Planning Board for major changes, and from the code enforcement officer for minor changes. The determination of major or minor shall be made by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  3. The amended subdivision plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of approval and a copy of the recorded plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
  4. The applicant shall provide the Code Enforcement Officer and Town with a plan showing both lots with bearings and distances and the appropriate lot monumentation for both lots, that are in conformance with the Board of Licensure monumentation requirement.
  5. A road maintenance agreement will be provided to the Code Enforcement Officer prior to a building permit being issued.
  6. Location of a septic system may need a wetland permit per the HHE200 form, as submitted, or may be required by the Code Enforcement Officer.

A motion was made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mrs. Biegel to approve the application with the six conditions of approval. All in favor.

 

  • Donna Ross & Donald Smith, 34 Sandbar Road, Map 49, Lot18-Shoreland Zoning Application to remove existing cottage and build a year-round home.

Donna Ross and Donald Smith were present to represent themselves. She said they have owned this seasonal cottage for thirty years and would like to tear this down and make it a year-round home. Mr. Smith said they have 54 feet of shore front and they had done ad addition in 1994. They are looking at doing a foundation, a well and converting the septic to a year-round system. He said no trees or shrubs will be removed or destroyed. Mr. Smith said the existing house has some stairs within the 25 feet zone and they are proposing to place those back at least 4 to 5 feet. Mr. Smith said the new building would be around 990 square feet and moved back approximately 4-5 feet. He said for non-vegetated area they are adding about 30.4 feet, grass, shrubs, and flowers. He said the septic is about 30 years old and they feel they can use the same system.

 

Mr. Hastings said he stated in the memo the septic had been worked on and it had been inspected only and as a 3-bedroom system. He said a site walk was done and he didn’t see anything that wasn’t in the application. Mrs. Boxer said if they had already expanded in 1994, they couldn’t expand again. Mr. Hastings said they can expand up to a thousand feet and they are within their rights to do so. Mr. Gere asked if they are going to demo, how is this an expansion. Mr. Hastings said they are going to tear down and they can expand up to a thousand feet. He said they are relocating to the maximum practical extent. He said they can only go back so far because of the septic. Mrs. Boxer asked about the existing septic and Mr. Hastings said the HHE200 they have is what is there now, and the current document is what the Board has. Mrs. Ross said it was installed new in 1994 and inspected in 2017. Mr. Brown said the new well would be going 80 feet from the septic system and Mr. Hastings said they would need a variance from the Code Enforcement Officer. Mrs. Boxer asked about the neighbors and do they have wells. Mr. Smith said the other neighbors draw their water from the lake. The building was shifted so they are no longer over the setback line.

 

Mrs. Boxer asked where the 75-foot mark was, and Mrs. Ross said it’s right in front of the storage shed. Mr. Brown said the new house will be moved quite a way back. Mr. Gere said the way the FEMA flood plain appears, the structure will be built in a flood plain. Mr. Hastings said it’s above the flood plain requirement, so they are okay at 2.3 feet above elevation. Mrs. Boxer said their non vegetative area looks like its all sand and Mr. Hastings said all sand is the natural state of the property, nothing has been hauled in. He said it’s tricky to constitute the vegetive state because of all the sand. There were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed.

A motion was made by Mr. Walton and seconded by Mr. Nappi to find the application complete. All in favor. Mr. Brown asked about maximum practical extent and the Board said it looked like they had moved back as far as they can.

Mr. Brown read the following:

“Move that the Board grant approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the application submitted by Donna Ross and Donald Smith, for the reconstruction of a legally non-conforming home at 34 Sandbar Road in Standish. Having found the application to meet the requirements of §237-12, §237-15, §237-16, and all other applicable sections of the Standish Code of Ordinances with the following conditions:

V. CONDITIONS –

  1. All work shall be in conformance with materials and plans submitted by Donna Ross and Donald Smith which consists of site plans, building elevations, and supporting application materials.
  2. This approval shall lapse and become void as laid out in §237-16 F which reads: “Permits shall expire one year from the date of issuance if a substantial start is not made in construction or in the use of the property during that period. If a substantial start is made within one year of the issuance of the permit, the applicant shall have one additional year to complete the project, at which time the permit shall expire.”
  3. An erosion & sediment control plan per standards found in §237-15 Q including a stabilization plan for all disturbed areas per §237-15 Q.4 must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Code Enforcement Officer and other authorities as relevant before permits are issued.
  4. Per standards found in §237-12 C.1.b the Planning Board approval of this site plan is limited to structure setbacks to the maximum practical extent. The new structure will be setback from apparent normal high-water line by approximately 25.5’ and this represents a practical relocation as allowed under the ordinance.
  5. 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 or applicant’s agent (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.

A motion was made by Mr. Walton to approve the application and seconded by Mr. Nappi. All in favor.

  • St. Joseph’s College,278 White’s Bridge Road Map 8, Lot 20-Site Plan amendment for proposed land division

Jim Seymour of Sebago Technics was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Gere recused himself from this application. They would like to amend a 2016 approved site plan along Westerlea Way as the college would like to split a parcel of land off this approval to be sold. He said this includes the widening of Westerlea Way and 2 tennis courts plus some athletic fields. He said they were told they did not need to be here but wanted to do this split the proper way. He said the college no longer wants to pursue the athletic fields or expansion of what they already have. He said they have applied to DEP with permits for the phosphorus output and are waiting for their reports.

Mr. Hastings said this is unusual as we are not asked to not build on something. Mrs. Boxer asked if this could be built on or not, or a subdivision built. Mr. Hastings said if this land is split off from the college, it can be sold and built on to whomever buys it. There were no comments from the public hearing and the hearing was closed.

A motion was made by Mr. Nappi to find the application complete, seconded by Mr. Walton. All in favor. Mr. Brown read the following:

“Move that the Board grant approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code the application or site plan amendment submitted by Sebago Technics for the property map lot 20-7, 20-8, and 20-9 in Standish, having found it to meet the site plan review criteria of §181-73and all other relevant standards of the zoning ordinance. With the conditions as listed:”

V. CONDITIONS –

  1. 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 or applicant’s agent (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.
  2.      This approval is an amendment to a previously approved plan and review was   limited to those elements of the plan that have changed.  Any standards or conditions of previous approvals are still in effect.
  3. The applicant must submit the DEP approval to the Town when they receive it.

 

A motion was made by Mr. Walton to approve the application seconded by Mrs. Biegel. All in favor.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:46pm.