Standish Planning Board Amended Meeting Minutes 05/02/2016
Standish Planning Board
Amended Meeting Minutes
May 02, 2016
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Carol Billington. Present were Mike Willette, Brian Libby, Alta Harding, Adam Higgins, Bud Benson, Town Planner and Jackie Dyer, Secretary to the Planning Board. Absent was Cindy Beckwith and Amanda Martin.
The first item on the agenda was the approval of the meeting minutes from April 04, 2016.
Because the secretary gave the wrong month’s minutes to the Board, this was tabled to be approved at the June 06, 2016 meeting.
Approval of Finding of Fact :
Walter Butler, 234 NE Road, Suite 3, Map 10, Lot 48- Site Plan Amendment
Mr. Libby made a motion seconded by Mrs. Harding to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
Old Business:
Item #1 Acres of Wildlife, Pequawket Trail, Map 11, Lots 1-4 Site Plan Review
Item #2 Mark L. Woodbrey, 175 Stuart Shores Road, Map 59, Lot 19A- Shoreland Zoning Application
Item #3 Michael Lyons, dba Tower Publishing, 650 Cape Road, Map 3, Lot 20- Site Plan Application
Mr. Benson said that all three of the above applications had asked to be tabled as they are all in the process of gathering more information for their applications. Mrs. Billington said that a meeting was held regarding Acres of Wildlife and making it the first contract zone ever. Mr. Benson said that they are going through the standards to be able to do this. Mrs. Billington said the ordinance went into effect years ago for something like this. She said it needs to go through the council so they can have a reading and make their decisions. Mrs. Harding made a motion seconded by Mr. Willette to table the applications to the June meeting. All in favor.
Alan & Jane Bell, 23 Burke Rd. Ext., Map 20, Lot 5C- Shoreland Zoning Application
Carol Morrissette from Residential Design Studio was present to represent the Bell’s. Mrs. Billington said she had gone over to the property today. Carol Morrissette said that they are looking to increase the footprint between the two existing structures. She said they have made a modest addition to connect the existing house to the new garage. This straightened out the existing garage better than before and it looks better from a structural standpoint. They are trying to stay out of the shoreland zone as much as possible. The house will remain the same with renovations being done on the inside only. They would be building above the garage in the future as they are losing one bedroom in the house and would like to add a guestroom down the road.
Mr. Benson said the application and changes are exactly what she is describing and they have made any changes they have been asked to. He said the normal high water line across the abutting lot is what is shown. The foundation and the deck on the house now would not be destroyed and remain the same.
Mr. Libby said this seems like a very practical way to get another room on the house and renovate the garage by replacing it. Mrs. Billington said it looks like the house and the garage are a two story structure. Carol said they want to build the shell now and finish it later on, especially the second story. They are trying to shift the garage half way under the bedrooms to be built down the road. She said any future work would be interior finishing above the garage. Mr. Benson said the new code sets maximum building heights and they are trying to lay the high water mark down ahead of time. He said they don’t go by volume any more. He said they try to work with the applicant and their plans and the renderings done. Carol Morrissette said last time she was here, they had a three dimensional rendering and she said it is often confusing to look at.
She showed the maximum building heights illustrated on her drawings. Mrs. Billington asked how the square footage works on this. Mr. Benson said you can see the existing garage and also the proposed garage behind the 100 foot set back. He said the expansion is actually behind that. Carol said they are actually under the 30% expansion and they are also under the percentage of expansion allowed. Mrs. Billington asked about the 100 and the 75 foot setbacks and moving back to the maximum practical extent. She said she thought when you are building a new structure forward of the 100 foot set back, it becomes a non-conformity, is it back to the maximum practical extent. Carol said they have built the new design back to the maximum practical extent and as far away from the shoreline as possible.
She said it was never their intention to keep the garage in the same location. She said with the modest connector it gives them ability to keep the garage as far away as possible from the shoreland. She said they have asked for a side set back of 10 feet so they can keep the existing trees and shrubs there and not cause them to be destroyed. She said if they are allowed a 30% increase, they are within the 100 foot and 75 foot setback. Mr. Benson said they are developing somewhat in the middle of the lot. He said there is one corner of the existing setback by the corner of the foundation which is just outside of the 100 foot setback. He said the furthest point of the setback is at the most north easterly property line. Mr. Libby asked about them rebuilding in the future and Mr. Benson said it would have to be done in the rear. He said they are doing minimal to the house now and moving it over wouldn’t change it that much. He feels this plan is okay the way they have it now. He said that every situation is unique.
Carol Morrissette said what they are talking about is where the existing septic tank is now. She said they have done the most minimal they possible can. Mrs. Harding asked about the number of bedrooms when finished and Carol told her there would be two and eventually when they finish over the garage they would be adding a third one sometime in the future. If an upgrade is needed on the septic, they will deal with it then. Ms. Morrissette said they wanted to be right up front with the application and what they plan to do in eventually.
Mrs. Billington asked if the Planning Board was ready to proceed. Mr. Libby made a motion to find the application complete with the six conditions of approval as stated on the memo. Mr. Higgins seconded the motion. All in favor. The following are the conditions of approval:
1. 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. Existing Main house stone/concrete foundation with 35.15 ft. Setback from normal high water to remain. Existing garage to be demolished and replaced with a new structure stretching from the existing house somewhat along the middle of the property away from the Lake to the approximate location of existing garage being demolished. As shown on Plan L2 Bell Lake House by Residential Design studio dated 04/04/16.
2. The following plans and calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Code Enforcement Officer before permits are issued: a. Structure expansion calculations per § 237-12 C. (1) (a), reconstruction
b. Maximum percent impervious lot coverage not to exceed existing per standards found in § 237-15 B.(4),
c. Storm water design to reduce runoff and encourage infiltration per standards found in § 237-15 J.(1),
d. Erosion & sediment control plan per standards found in § 237-15 Q.
e. Clearing and a re-vegetation plan (include plantings on the lake side of the property) per § 237-15 P. (2) (a)
3. Per standards found in § 237-15 B (3) , the applicant’s proposed new structure may be within the FEMA delineated 100-year flood plain and will, at minimum, need an (Elevation Certificate) to prove to the Code Enforcement Officer that the lowest floor is at least 1 ft. above the 100-year flood elevation. The site plan shows a proposed building footprint. The lowest floor elevation or openings of this building, including basement floor must be more than one foot above the FEMA 100 year flood elevation.
4. This approval and any permits issued under this approval shall lapse and become void unless the start of construction or operation as defined in § 237-16. Administration. F “Expiration of permit.” A permit of the Zoning Ordinance begins within one year from the date of the CEO approval. 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.
5. Plans approved by the Town CEO for expansions under this subsection § 237-15 B must be filed in the registry of deeds of the county in which the property is located within 90 days of approval.
6. The approval is dependent on and limited to the plan and proposals submitted by the applicant either orally or in writing. Any variation from the plans or proposals is subject to review and approval from the Planning Board, in writing, except for minor changes which the Code Enforcement Officer may approve.
Mr. Libby made a motion to put the Amendment to Standish Town Code, Land Use last on the agenda. This was seconded by Mr. Willette. All in favor.
New Business:
St. Joseph’s College, 278 White’s Bridge Road, Map 20, Lots 7, 7B, 8, 9-Final Site Plan Review for Approval of Athletic Complex on Westerlea Way
Jim Seymour from Sebago Technics was present to represent the College. He gave a brief overview of the project and is looking for final approval. He said they have gained preliminary approval and now they are looking for final approval. He said they are waiting for the final DEP approval, which they hope to have in the next week or so. He said they do have some issues with tree clearing and they would like to do that as soon as possible. He said they have the site under contract to be cleared but cannot do anything without approval from both the town and the state. He said they have made some changes, but they are what he calls cosmetic actions to do with storm water runoff. He said they had some minor detail calculations and how the water runoff would be handled. He said the hold up with DEP has been that people are not in the office. He said they hit delays and has been told that they would get this to them as soon as possible.
He said they really want to start taking those down before certain insects get going and also some sort of bat that eats moths and larvae in those particular trees. If they are able to get the trees down before June 1st, they would not have to do a bat study. The Army Core of Engineers is ready to start and would like to immediately. He said that there is only one person in the State that reviews these applications and can sign them. He said they have been over three months since submitting this application to the State and hopes the Board might be a bit sympathetic with them.
Mrs. Billington said she is sympathetic with the College. She said there is a project being held up through Avesta Housing for what she thinks is some particular species of moths. Mr. Seymour said that is what you face when you have vernal pools and this is the same with the bats. He said you can’t go into where they are sometimes until late summer. Mrs. Billington said she is sure DEP has some justification or real reason why they do this. Mrs. Harding said it’s all relative to the echo system and how they work for different species. She said the public should be made aware of this and why, and how one species depends on the other. She said the loss of habitat and people building makes it hard on everything. She said all of the echo systems are important to her and that’s why she sits on the Planning Board. She said she would rather they clear the trees before the eggs are laid.
Mrs. Billington said she has a hard time with the bureaucracy. She said it is hard when the person that is over seeing things cannot be found. Mr. Seymour said that is exactly what they face. He said the application was submitted in November and not seen until April. He said it sat there for four months during which time the Army Core of Engineers changed policy and the Department of Inland Fisheries of Wildlife has to start enforcing it. He said when the changes came out, it was February and then everyone had to get educated on it and so forth. Mrs. Billington said that is where the bureaucracy is. She said that in the memo from Mr. Benson that there is a policy in place about if there is an application before them and there is an outside agency involved, the Board needs to wait for their approval before they can give theirs. She said that now there is a dilemma about what to do.
Mrs. Harding said we should have a special meeting in a week or two. Mr. Seymour said the engineer would prepare his report, it will go into the final draft and then it goes to Augusta for the last read over. He said it would probably be 10 to 14 days before they have it back. Mr. Benson said they can’t start anything in then standards, but is there anything in the standards about the cutting of the trees. He said the Board might want to consider allowing them to cut the trees and set up a continuance in two weeks. This would give them time to get the report from DEP and come back for final approval. Mr. Libby said we can limit the buffer, but not stop them from cutting the trees. They have proven financial capability and should be allowed to go ahead and cut the trees. Mr. Seymour said there are no guarantees on DEP and when they get this back. Mrs. Billington said this is not a final approval until they have the report. The college would really like to get started and go beyond the tree cutting and start some of the earthwork.
Chuck Dawes spoke for the college and wanted to know if they can gain approval pending the report from the DEP? Can the CEO take over and not have to come back to the Planning Board. If they miss by a day on the 14th day, they would be out of luck and have to wait for the June meeting, which would be too late for them to start. Mr. Benson said they need the final approval, but it has to be done in a meeting that has a set date. Mrs. Billington said a final approval is a final approval. Mrs. Harding asked about a week out and hope they had the paperwork by then. She said she feels that it’s vital to get the trees down as soon as possible.
Mrs. Billington said the Board can craft something so the College can move forward. Mr. Seymour said he finds the two weeks for another meeting would be better and that would be May 16th. The only thing being discussed in the continued meeting is the DEP approval. Mr. Libby made a motion that Standard #6 has already been met and they should be able to move forward with the tree cutting. Mr. Willette seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Mrs. Billington said the Board would hold a continuance on Monday, May 16th, 2016 for final approval.
Grondin Aggregate, LLC., 295 Middle Road, Map 9, Lot 15- 5 year gravel pit renewal
Larry Grondin was present to represent himself. He said this pit is located on the Middle Road in Steep Falls and there really haven’t been any changes since the renewal five years ago. He said there has been very little activity, the last time they hauled from that pit was when the new bridge in Steep Falls was being done last year. He said they have their annual inspections done every year and knows that there is one to be done soon.
He said he has a monitoring well report and an updated copy of the pit itself. He gave each member a copy of each and also one to Mr. Benson. The monitoring well report tells which one is which and what the readings have been over the past few years. He said he feels the wells are well beyond what the Town might be concerned about. He said on the original plan, it showed the wells but the depth from a few years ago. He said they are pretty consistent on their depth. Mr. Benson said the wells are showing depth only and not from the top of the casing. He said that everything else is fine and seems to be covered by the previous conditions of approval.
Mr. Grondin said in 2006, they combined the renewal and change in the gravel pit. Mrs. Billington wondered where there had been very little activity, would they do a site walk like they usually do? Mr. Libby said there is minimal gravel and material that has been removed and he felt a site walk is not necessary. Mrs. Harding asked about the plan Mr. Grondin had given the Board and is that what he wanted approved? Mr. Benson said they are looking at the open space in the pit and are there any neighborhood concerns or environmental impacts at the pit? He said he tried to put aerial photos in his memo so the Board could see what it looks like and how it’s being kept internally drained. He said there has been very little work there over the past few years. Mr. Grondin said it is inspected every year and Mr. Benson said there are no real issues. Mr. Libby said he feels they don’t have to worry about the reclamation bond as nothing has been done lately. Mr. Libby made a motion seconded by Mr. Willette that the application is complete. All in favor. Mr. Libby made a motion that the pit be approved with the previous conditions of approval.
Mr. Benson said that the plans have already been updated with the information needed. All in favor for approval of the 5 year renewal with the previous conditions of approval and an added condition that Mr. Benson be able to review the document showing the monitoring of the wells.
The following are the conditions of approval as stated 5 years ago with one condition added:
1. “No gravel will be hauled over Middle Road except for local deliveries.”
2. This approval is for mineral extraction only. Once seasonal high water is determined, the site plan will be modified and pit floor elevations must remain five feet above the high water table. Limit of excavation is the same as the reclamation plan. Thickness of loam and clay material layer not to exceed a depth of 3 feet. Only clean fill that would not pollute the groundwater may be used to bring the pit 2.5:1 side slopes to reclamation grade.
3. In no case shall the total area needing reclamation exceed 15 acres. This includes working pit plus all associated on-site storage areas and stockpiles.
4. A surety bond for reclamation will be established. A performance bond in the amount of $45,000 is required. This amount assumes a cost of $3000/ acre for a total of 15 acres. This includes only 10 acres of working/non-reclaimed pit plus 5 acres for aggregate storage that will need to be reclaimed once the piles are removed. Bond language will need a review by our town lawyer as to legal sufficiency. In no case shall the total area needing reclamation exceed 15 acres. This includes only 10 acres of working pit and associated on site non-vegetated storage areas and stockpiles.
5. Topsoil shall not be removed from the site, but shall be retained on site for reclamation. Adequate loam to cover all reclamation needs shall be retained on site for the purpose of reclamation. A minimum of 550 CY of loam per acre of reclamation shall be preserved on site or hauled to the site and then retained on site for the required reclamation.
6. A minimum of one steel cased monitoring well with lockable cap will be installed per phase within the pit floor. Well depth will reach a minimum of 10 feet below the lowest elevation within that phase or into the ground water table.
7. Seasonal high water within all monitoring wells should be observed and reported by a registered professional engineer or geologist. Annually records of the seasonal high water table elevation should be kept by the applicant and submitted to the town’s Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the annual July gravel pit permit renewal.
8. Blaze the property lines at minimum 100’ intervals along the areas adjacent to existing and proposed pit, if not already done.
9. The applicant will supply the Town Planner with a document to be reviewed showing the monitoring wells and all documentation over the past five years.
10. 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.
AMENDMENT TO STANDISH TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 181, LAND USE, SECTION 181-7.1, FORM BASED CODE VILLAGE DISTRICTS (FBCVD)
This ordinance is a change of use in the Standish Corner District. This was introduced by the Council on April 12, 2016 and would allow use of some recreation in the District. This would also allow for some outdoor recreation limited. Mr. Benson said it allows those uses on the Town Main (Rt.25 to Randall Road) and the Town Avenue. Mr. Higgins asked if this is a pool hall allowance and Mr. Benson said it would allow that. The outdoor recreation would be for a piece of property less than 3 acres. A building housing recreation would be limited by the size of the building.
The Town Attorney, Sally Daggett, said this would have to be consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan encourages recreation and this type would be permitted. Mr. Libby said this is definitely in relationship to the plan and encourages things to be done in those buildings. Mrs. Billington said Main Street would be hard because they are small scale buildings. She said she feels the 3 acres being used would fit just fine. She said there will be changes and just amend them as you go. Mr. Libby said the square footage of the buildings is still on the books and is small. Mr. Benson said there is a maximum of 5000 foot usage. Indoor archery and shooting ranges would be allowed Mrs. Harding said and she feels this would create headaches. Mr. Willette said he grew up living right behind one and had no problems. He said it was basically indoors and no problems.
Mrs. Billington said that all the Board has to do is give input and Mr. Benson said he will report back to the Ordinance Committee what the concerns and comments are for feedback. Mr. Willette said having a shooting range is good for the younger generation and helping them with shooting and safety of firearms.
This meeting will be continued on May 16, 2016 at 7:00pm.