Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Standish Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 02, 2018
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Adam Higgins at 7:00pm. Present were Charlie Brown, Pat Knight, Jolene Whittemore, Roland Cloutier, Gerald Lonnstrom, Bud Benson, Town Planner and Jackie Dyer, Admin. Assistant to the Planner and Planning Board.
Open Meeting
a. Call to order
b. Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman
c. Declaration of a Quorum-5
Election of New Planning Board Chairman and Vice Chairman
Mr. Higgins asked for nominations for the Planning Board Chairman position and Mr. Lonnstrom nominated Mr. Higgins seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor with Mr. Higgins recusing himself. Mr. Higgins nominated Mr. Brown for Vice Chairman with Mr. Lonnstrom seconding the nomination. All in favor with Mr. Brown recusing himself.
Approval of Meeting Minutes from June 04, 2018
Mr. Brown made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to approve the meeting minutes. All in favor.
Approval of Finding of Fact:
Eileen & David Burnell, 72 Watchic Road 19, Map 30, Lot 19- Shoreland Zoning Application to add on to existing cottage
Mr. Brown made a motion seconded by Mr. Lonnstrom to accept the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
Ruby Nelson, 1000 Pequawket Trail, Map 7, Lot 1-Site Plan Application-Pine Root Farm for Retail Sales
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mr. Brown to accept the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
*Hearings:
a. Old Business:
Item #1 Chris Duchaine, 525 Pond Road, Map 19, Lot 6- Preliminary Subdivision Application (Patriot Place)
Andy Morrell from BH2M was present as well as Chris Duchaine. Andy said that they are seeking final approval for this subdivision, Patriot Place. He said they have made some minor changes since the June 18 workshop with the Planning Board. He said all of the conditions of approval have been made on the final plan, along with the fire tank and the responsibility of the road until the Town accepts it.
Mr. Brown said the plan shows that the monuments are to be found, but should say they need to be set. This is in the legend on the final plan.
Project Name/Description: __Patriots Place Subdivision off Pond Road.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Town of Standish Subdivision Ordinance, and other Town ordinances, as applicable, and the review standards of 30-A MRSA § 4404, the Standish Planning Board has considered the application of _Chris Duchaine_, including supportive data, public hearing testimony and related materials in the record. The Planning Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Duchaine’s “Pond Road” 5 lot_ subdivision.
A. Findings of Fact: The Planning Board makes the following findings of fact with respect the application for subdivision approval:
1. Applicant Name: Chris Duchaine_,
2. Applicant relationship to property: Owner of Record CCRD Bk. 33335 pg. 49__
3. Property Location(s), map and lot number(s): Tax Map 19 Lot 6
4. Summary Description of Proposed Subdivision:
Zoning District(s) of Property: Rural Residential
Proposed number and size of lots: 5 lots of approx. +120,000 SF each
Number and Type(s) of structures: Single Family Residential
Number and Type of streets: One public street built to local road standards named “Patriots Place”
Type(s) of Wastewater Disposal: Individual subsurface sewage disposal systems
Solid Waste Disposal Method(s): __Town transfer station
Water supply Source(s): All lots to be serviced by private wells
Other facts specifically related to dimensional requirements or performance standards: Project is being approved as a conventional subdivision.
5. Waiver Requests, If Any: Submission Requirements: ______________________________________
Standards: § 252-32 Dead-end streets of 2500 ft. The Planning Board is allowing longer lengths because of property configuration, and to provide access to adjacent properties. The radii of turnaround at the end was also waived for the same reason. _______________________________________
6. Nonconformities present in the Proposal, If Any:
Those that are grandfathered: _NA
Those for which a variance application must be/has been filed: NA
Date of filing, if Any: NA
7. Required Approvals (federal, state, and local): NA
Obtained/Not Yet Obtained: NA
8. Procedures Followed (reference procedure(s) in applicable ordinance(s) :
Date Application Received: ___1/18/2018
Site Walk Date(s), if any: 03/12/2018 at 3:00 PM.__
Date Planning Board Found Application Complete 07/02/2018
Public Hearing Date(s), if any: 2/5, 3/5, 4/2, 5/7, 6/4, 6/16 and 7/2/2018
Date Planning Board and Applicant agreed to extend application process: Same as above.
Date Planning Board granted preliminary approval:07/02/2018
B. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Board makes the following conclusions of law with respect to this Final subdivision application, with respect to its conformance with the Standards of Chapter 142 Fire Prevention, and Chapter 181, Part 3, Articles XVIII and XX of the Standish Town Code and with respect to the statutory subdivision review criteria contained in 30-A MRSA §4404 and incorporated by reference into Part II, Chapter 181, Part III of the Standish Town Code:
§ 142-11 Fire ponds, tanks and dry hydrants.
(4) A detailed plan of the pond/tank hydrant, piping, overflow and roadway shall be submitted to the Fire Chief and Public Works Director before construction starts. Once approved by the Fire Chief and Public Works Director, a permit will be issued.
(5) The fire protection water supply with dry hydrant shall be in working order, tested and approved by the Fire Chief or his designees and the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy within the subdivision or location.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: _A fire tank is proposed as shown on plans.
Part II, Chapter 181, Part 3, ARTICLE XVIII General Standards
§ 181-83. Performance guaranty.
A performance guaranty shall be provided to insure the completion, proper installation and maintenance of all street grading, paving, storm drainage, utilities and other improvements for public benefit or use in accordance with § 252-22 of Chapter 252, Streets and Sidewalks. Where the Planning Board has approved a phased development, public improvements both on- and off-site shall be assigned to a phase of the development as part of the Planning Board’s approval of the subdivision. The applicant shall be required to maintain all improvements and provide for snow removal on streets and sidewalks until acceptance of said improvements by the legislative body.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Applicant has chosen to use the “In lieu of a performance guaranty” process as outlined in Standish Code chapter 252 Streets and Sidewalks section 252-22 Performance Guaranty B.) (2). Final subdivision plan notes #33 and 34 have been added to the plan addressing this issue.
§ 181-84. Information to accompany plan.
B. There shall be submitted to the Board with final plan:
(3) A performance guaranty to secure completion of all improvements required by the Board in accordance with § 252-22 of Chapter 252, Streets and Sidewalks.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Per B (3) above the “In lieu of a performance guarantee clause” per code section 252-22 has been added to the plan.
§ 181-89. Planning Board to consider requirements.
In reviewing applications for the subdivision of land, the Board shall consider the following general requirements. In all instances the burden of proof shall be upon the person proposing the subdivision.
§ 181-90. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan.
Any proposed subdivision shall be in conformity with a Comprehensive Plan or policy statement of the municipality and with the provisions of all pertinent state and local codes and ordinances.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: __This proposed subdivision road, and lots will meet zoning requirements and preserves the rural character of the area per comprehensive plan criteria.
§ 181-91. Preservation of natural and historic features
A. The Board may require that a proposed subdivision design include a landscape plan that will show the preservation of existing trees (10 inches or more), the replacement of trees and vegetation, graded contours, streams and the preservation of scenic, historic or environmentally desirable areas. The street and lot layout shall be adapted to the topography. Extensive grading and filling shall be avoided as far as possible.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale:
Total parcel size is 18.95 acres. The 5 new lots are each approximately 3 acres in size with balance of the property containing the road right of way. These large lots preserve the rural character and natural features of the site. Natural drainage paths are protected with drainage easements.
B. Within six months of any grading or construction on any lot, the sub divider shall grade, loam and seed all scarified ground with perennial grasses and shrubs or trees. The composition and preparation of the seedbed and type of seed shall be in accordance with recommendations of the United States Soil Conservation Service for the type of soil and slope on each lot. A copy of this recommendation shall be attached to the final plan for approval.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: _The plan set has an erosion control plan attached that addresses the construction methods of the site. As shown on plan sheets #3 and #4.
§ 181-92. Land not suitable for development.
A. The Board shall not approve such portions of any proposed subdivision that:
(1) Are situated below sea level: _NA_
(2) Are located within the one-hundred-year frequency floodplain as identified by an authorized federal or state agency or, when such identification is not available, are located on floodplain soils identified and described in the National Cooperative Standard Soil Survey.: _NA_
(3) Are located on land which must be filled or drained or on land created by diverting a watercourse, except that the Board may grant approval if a central sewage collection and treatment system is provided.: _NA_
(4) Are determined to be freshwater wetlands, wetlands associated with great ponds or rivers, or forested wetlands: _As shown on the plan and subtracted from net developable area.
B. In no instance shall the Board approve any part of a subdivision located on filled wetlands or filled or drained great ponds (natural body of water 10 acres or more in size).
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The plan avoids construction in land not suitable for development. Lands not suitable for construction (floodplain and wetlands) have been excluded in net developable area summary as shown in Final plan note 25.
§ 181-93. Lots
A. Lots shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Standish Zoning Ordinance.
B. The depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for all purposes shall be adequate to provide for off-street parking and service facilities for vehicles required by the type of use and development contemplated.
C. Double-frontage lots and reverse-frontage lots shall be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential development from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least 10 feet, across which there shall be no right of access, shall be provided along the lines of lots abutting such a traffic artery or other disadvantageous use.
D. Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Lot lines are substantially at right angles or radial to street lines.
§ 181-94. Easements for natural drainage ways
Where a subdivision is traversed by a natural watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the lines of such watercourse and such further width or construction, or both, as will assure that no flooding occurs and all storm water can be disposed of properly. Such easement or right-of-way shall be not less than 30 feet in width.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Easements are provided on the plan to convey water across the site as shown on plan sheet #1.
§ 181-95. Utilities
The size, type and location of public utilities, such as streetlights, electricity, telephones, gas lines, fire hydrants, etc., shall be approved by the Board and installed in accordance with local practice.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Utilities including power, telephone and cable services, will be installed in accordance with local practice. As built drawings are required of developer. The monuments are to be set.
§ 181-96. Street trees, esplanades and open spaces
A. Street trees, esplanades and open green spaces may be required at the discretion of the Planning Board. Where such improvements are required, they shall be incorporated in the final plan and executed by the sub divider as construction of the subdivision progresses.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: A public street has been proposed as shown on the plan.
B. The developer or sub divider shall maintain control of open space(s) and be responsible for their maintenance until development sufficient to support a neighborhood association has taken place or, alternatively, the space has been accepted by the town.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale:
The Developer will maintain the roads until street acceptance by the town. This statement shall be added to plan note #30 before planning board signing of Mylar.
§ 181-97. Required improvements
The following are required improvements: monuments, street signs, streets, storm drainage and curbs and sidewalks, where required.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale:
The street, street signs, monuments to be set and storm drainage are detailed on the plans. There will be a stop sign at the intersection of Pond Road and Thomas Road to be set by the Department of Public Works at their discretion. ______________________________________________________________________________
§ 181-97.1. Interior roads. [Added 6-1-1999 by Order No. 43-99]]
A. The Planning Board shall require that any lot in a subdivision have its required frontage and access on an interior road constructed in accordance with applicable standards in Chapter 252.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: _All lots access the interior road and have adequate frontage.
B. One, and only one, access onto an existing town or state maintained way shall be approved or allowed for access for all lots in a subdivision with a dead-end road length less than the maximum allowed as specified in § 181-102 below. The Planning Board shall only approve or allow a maximum of two accesses to an existing town or state maintained way when the proposed newly built street exceeds the maximum allowed for dead-end streets as specified in § 181-102 below.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The subdivision has only one access to Pond Road.
C. The creation of private way(s) to provide frontage and/or access to any lot in a subdivision is expressly prohibited. Driveways of any type or private way(s) providing frontage and/or access to any lot in a subdivision which directly access an existing town or state maintained way are expressly prohibited.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: No private ways have been created within this subdivision.
§ 181-98. Separate sewage disposal sites
Any lot which shall be used as or which shall be available for use as the site of a single or multiple dwelling or as the site of a mobile home shall have two separate sewage disposal sites. If the first soils test reads as a medium-large sewage disposal system or larger, the second soils test pit shall be located a minimum of 120 feet from the first soils test pit.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The applicant has provided soils test data showing two passing test pits on each lot for proposed septic system locations.
§ 181-99. Municipal consultant fees
The applicant will be assessed fees to cover 100% of the costs incurred by the town related to independent geotechnical, hydraulic, engineering, planning, legal and similar professional consulting services. Such consultants shall be limited to reasonable and necessary review and shall be assessed only to recover costs directly associated with the expedient review of the application when the required information exceeds the expertise of the town staff. Such fees must be paid prior to final approval.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The applicant has established a peer review escrow account and agrees to pay any outstanding balances once all reviews are complete. The applicant has agreed to pay $2,500 initial deposit in the road inspection escrow account for inspection and testing during the road construction process.
Article XX Miscellaneous Provisions (applicable only if waivers
§ 181-108. Variances and waivers.
A. Where the Planning Board finds that extraordinary and unnecessary hardships may result from strict compliance with this Part 3 or where there are special circumstances of a particular plan, it may vary these standards so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured, provided that such variations will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the Official Map, the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. This Subsection A shall not apply to the street design standards described in Article XIX, § 181-101, Subsection B; the roadway construction material standards described in § 181-104; and the responsibility of the developer regarding streets described in § 181-105.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: NA
B. Where the Planning Board finds that, due to special circumstances of a particular plan, the provision of certain required improvements is not requisite in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare or is inappropriate because of inadequacy or lack of connecting facilities adjacent or in proximity to the proposed subdivision, it may waive such requirements, subject to appropriate conditions. This Subsection B shall not apply to the street design standards described in Article XIX, § 181-101, Subsection B; the roadway construction material standards described in § 181-104; and the responsibility of the developer regarding streets described in § 181-105.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: None
C. In granting variances and modifications, the Planning Board shall require such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the requirements so varied or modified.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: None
§4404. Review criteria
When adopting any subdivision regulations and when reviewing any subdivision for approval, the municipal reviewing authority shall consider the following criteria and, before granting approval, must determine that:
1. Pollution. The proposed subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this determination, it shall at least consider: A. The elevation of the land above sea level and its relation to the flood plains; B. The nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; C. The slope of the land and its effect on effluents; D. The availability of streams for disposal of effluents; and E. The applicable state and local health and water resource rules and regulations;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: There are no FEMA delineated flood plains within this subdivision. Test pits show that the soils on each lot support waste disposal. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations and prepared an erosion control plan in accordance with accepted standards.
2. Sufficient water. The proposed subdivision has sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Single family homes on 3 acre lots can be supported by private wells.
3. Municipal water supply. The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on an existing water supply, if one is to be used;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Applicant’s project is not proposed to be serve by municipal water supply from Portland Water District.
4. Erosion. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the land's capacity to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The plan includes an erosion control plan and drainage easement provide some protection for wetland and stream area.
5. Traffic. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the highways or public roads existing or proposed and, if the proposed subdivision requires driveways or entrances onto a state or state aid highway located outside the urban compact area of an urban compact municipality as defined by Title 23, section 754, the Department of Transportation has provided documentation indicating that the driveways or entrances conform to Title 23, section 704 and any rules adopted under that section;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: __The Applicant has agreed to pay the Thomas Road impact fee of $8,712. The applicant proposes to construct a new public road off Pond Road serving the 5 new lots.
6. Sewage disposal. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate sewage waste disposal and will not cause an unreasonable burden on municipal services if they are utilized;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: On site soil tests have been provided indicating adequate on-site soils for septic systems.
7. Municipal solid waste disposal. The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on the municipality's ability to dispose of solid waste, if municipal services are to be utilized;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The 5 new lots will not generate significant solid waste. Contractor is responsible for removal of all construction debris to an MDEP approved site.
8. Aesthetic, cultural and natural values. The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, significant wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the municipality, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas or any public rights for physical or visual access to the shoreline;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale:
Storm water runoff from this property are tributary to both Sebago Lake and Nason Brook which support various fisheries. The proposed project doesn’t disturb the stream or the associated wetlands.
9. Conformity with local ordinances and plans. The proposed subdivision conforms with a duly adopted subdivision regulation or ordinance, comprehensive plan, development plan or land use plan, if any. In making this determination, the municipal reviewing authority may interpret these ordinances and plans;
Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The plan conforms to existing ordinances and comprehensive plan.
10. Financial and technical capacity. The sub divider has adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the standards of this section;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The applicant is experienced in subdivision development from the municipal side and has the financial and technical ability to complete the project.
11. Surface waters; outstanding river segments. Whenever situated entirely or partially within the watershed of any pond or lake or within 250 feet of any wetland, great pond or river as defined in Title 38, chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B, the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the quality of that body of water or unreasonably affect the shoreline of that body of water.
A. When lots in a subdivision have frontage on an outstanding river segment, the proposed subdivision plan must require principal structures to have a combined lot shore frontage and setback from the normal high-water mark of 500 feet.
(1) To avoid circumventing the intent of this provision, whenever a proposed subdivision adjoins a shoreland strip narrower than 250 feet which is not lotted, the proposed subdivision shall be reviewed as if lot lines extended to the shore.
(2) The frontage and set-back provisions of this paragraph do not apply either within areas zoned as general development or its equivalent under shoreland zoning, Title 38, chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B, or within areas designated by ordinance as densely developed. The determination of which areas are densely developed must be based on a finding that existing development met the definitional requirements of section 4401, subsection 1, on September 23, 1983;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Subdivision shows no lots within shoreland zone nor does it propose any changes within that zone.
12. Ground water. The proposed subdivision will not, alone or in conjunction with existing activities, adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: A nitrate study has not been completed as part of the application review requirements. Based on the proposed use of single family residential houses with septic systems designed to meet minimum state standards, we do not anticipate adverse effects to the quality or quantity of groundwater.
13. Flood areas. Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and information presented by the applicant whether the subdivision is in a flood-prone area. If the subdivision, or any part of it, is in such an area, the sub divider shall determine the 100-year flood elevation and flood hazard boundaries within the subdivision. The proposed subdivision plan must include a condition of plan approval requiring that principal structures in the subdivision will be constructed with their lowest floor, including the basement, at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The Flood Insurance rate map does not show a 100-year flood zone on this property.
14. Freshwater wetlands. All freshwater wetlands within the proposed subdivision have been identified on any maps submitted as part of the application, regardless of the size of these wetlands. Any mapping of freshwater wetlands may be done with the help of the local soil and water conservation district;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: The wetlands are identified on the plan and are substantially avoided in the construction.
15. River, stream or brook. Any river, stream or brook within or abutting the proposed subdivision has been identified on any maps submitted as part of the application. For purposes of this section, "river, stream or brook" has the same meaning as in Title 38, section 480-B, subsection 9;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Three drainage easements are provided below the proposed road drainage system. The Project has been designed limiting disturbances to these streams.
16. Storm water. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate storm water management;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: _The applicant has provided storm water calculations for the project and provided adequate conveyance methods for the storm water.
17. Spaghetti-lots prohibited. If any lots in the proposed subdivision have shore frontage on a river, stream, brook, great pond or coastal wetland as these features are defined in Title 38, section 480-B, none of the lots created within the subdivision have a lot depth to shore frontage ratio greater than 5 to 1;
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Not applicable
18. Lake phosphorus concentration. The long-term cumulative effects of the proposed subdivision will not unreasonably increase a great pond's phosphorus concentration during the construction phase and life of the proposed subdivision; and
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: A small portion in the North Easterly or Pond Road portion of this subdivision is in Sebago Lake watershed and will have minimal impact.
19. Impact on adjoining municipality. For any proposed subdivision that crosses municipal boundaries, the proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of existing public ways in an adjoining municipality in which part of the subdivision is located.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: Not applicable
20. Lands subject to liquidation harvesting. Timber on the parcel being subdivided has not been harvested in violation of rules adopted pursuant to Title 12, section 8869, subsection 14. If a violation of rules adopted by the Maine Forest Service to substantially eliminate liquidation harvesting has occurred, the municipal reviewing authority must determine prior to granting approval for the subdivision that 5 years have elapsed from the date the landowner under whose ownership the harvest occurred acquired the parcel. A municipal reviewing authority may request technical assistance from the Department of Conservation, Bureau of Forestry to determine whether a rule violation has occurred, or the municipal reviewing authority may accept a determination certified by a forester licensed pursuant to Title 32, chapter 76. If a municipal reviewing authority requests technical assistance from the bureau, the bureau shall respond within 5 working days regarding its ability to provide assistance. If the bureau agrees to provide assistance, it shall make a finding and determination as to whether a rule violation has occurred. The bureau shall provide a written copy of its finding and determination to the municipal reviewing authority within 30 days of receipt of the municipal reviewing authority's request. If the bureau notifies a municipal reviewing authority
that the bureau will not provide assistance, the municipal reviewing authority may require a subdivision applicant to provide a determination certified by a licensed forester.
For the purposes of this subsection, "liquidation harvesting" has the same meaning as in Title 12, section 8868, subsection 6 and "parcel" means a contiguous area within one municipality, township or plantation owned by one person or a group of persons in common or joint ownership. This subsection takes effect on the effective date of rules adopted pursuant to Title 12, section 8869, subsection 14.
*Planning Board Conclusion and Rationale: There has been little to no recent clear cut timber harvesting of any substantial magnitude.
C. Decision: Whereas the Planning Board has completed its Preliminary and Final subdivision review process as set forth in Part II, Chapter 181, Part 3 of the Standish Subdivision Ordinance, and whereas the Planning Board has made the above-listed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Board has decided, by a vote of 6 for and 0 against.
1. Approve the Final subdivision application: _Approve_____________________
2. Deny the Final subdivision application: ________________________________
3. The Planning Board also requires the applicant to comply with the following:
Standard Conditions for subdivision approval
The Following Project-Specific Conditions, if any, as needed to meet the review criteria also cited below and listed above: Recommendation:
Final Plan changes prior to Board signature: Responsible Professional Land Surveyor and Professional Engineer must stamp all Final plans prior to Board signature and recording.
Following are conditions of final plan approval:
Patriots Place Subdivision final plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds (CCRD) only after the conditions of approval are placed on the subdivision plan, an inspection escrow account established in the amount of $2,500. No lots may be sold until acceptable performance bond of has been submitted and accepted by town staff for construction of the proposed street, utilities and fire tank. Town staff and inspection engineer shall approve details of any phasing and temporary turnaround. A revised cost estimate shall be provided for any phase over one year from final approval. Revised cost estimates to be approved by town staff and Inspection Engineer prior to performance bond acceptance. A street light impact fee will be $1,800 for installation of streetlight at Pond and Patriots Place Road.
The Thomas Road street impact fee of $ 8,712 shall be paid prior to sale of any lot or recording of the subdivision plan whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall maintain the subdivision road until street acceptance by the Town.
As built drawings showing location of all underground utilities should be provided at applicant’s expense prior to acceptance of street.
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.
________________________________________ ___________________
Adam Higgins Date Signed
Planning Board Chairman Town of Standish, Maine
Mr. Higgins had read each item individually and the vote to accept them all was unanimous.
Mr. Higgins asked if any members of the public had any comments at this time regarding this application.
Audrey Robert spoke and said she lives on Glidden Road. Her issue was that where Thomas Road and Pond Road come together. She said with the increased number of homes and cars, there is a concern of safety and speed and there should be a stop sign. She said she is president of a home owners association and they had met and all had the same concern. She said there are a number of small children and also a lot of people that ride bicycles on those roads and she would hate to see anything happen or anyone get hurt.
Mr. Benson said they have a good point and that typically a sign is put up and he feels that this should be a requirement with the Public Works putting up the sign. Ms. Robert said there are 30 year round homes now and a lot of summer homes. She said the corners on the road and seeing around them are a dangerous things. Mr. Benson said he will check into it and see if the Town would pay for the sign. He said they do have money for things that are safety issues. Ms. Robert said there is another corner up further on the road that is also very dangerous and feels that should be looked at also.
Chris Duchaine said that he has been in front of the Board for over a year. He said he has already paid an $8000.00 road impact fee and the stop sign should come from that. He said he paved the road for nothing for the Town and he feels the stop sign is okay but he has paid his fair share.
Mr. Higgins said they need to check with Roger Mosley about the stop sign and move this forward. Mr. Benson will follow up with Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Lonnstrom made a motion to find the application complete and this was seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor. Mr. Lonnstrom made a motion seconded by Mr. Brown to approve the application. All in favor.
Item #2 Acres of Wildlife Campground/Michael Baptista, Acres of Wildlife Rd., Map
Andy Morrill from BH2M was present as well as the applicants, Mike Baptista and Elaine Burnham. He said they were before the Board in June and a lot of work has been done by the applicant since then. He said they have put the structures into four groups on the plan in front of the Board now. Andy said all of the cooking units have been removed from the structures. He said there are some seasonal rentals but in those also the cooking units have been removed. He said they will register the RV’s as that was something they have talked about and he has also added all of the areas of the buildings on the plans. He said there are still some things on the plans that need to be addressed. He said some of the items need to be inspected by the Fire Chief. He said they have added a lot of the areas but these do not match up with the architect’s areas as they were done by an aerial view.
Andy said they need to update their plans so all of the figures match up with the plans done by the architect. He said there was some discussion as to when some of the structures were built and he will work with Bud on that. He said he feels they have come a long way with the plans and are hoping to move forward. Andy said there are still some outstanding items and he hopes the Board would consider a continued meeting as long as we have the plans before the meeting. Andy said the plans will be in Town Hall by July 9th. He said they would be complete plans and are hoping for approval. Bud said they should be accompanied by some architectural drawings of the buildings they are asking for approval on. Bud said that any buildings being approved would need to be inspected by the CEO and the Fire Chief. Bud said the Inn needs to be excluded as that should go with the contract zone.
Bud said that any dwelling unit must have the cooking units removed for the site plan approval. For the contract zone, they could move the cooking units back into the dwelling units. A continued meeting was scheduled for July 16, 2018 at 7:00pm. Mr. Lonnstrom said he would be unable to make that meeting as he is leaving for Sweden that day.
Mike Baptista said all the plans have been updated and Dan Hill has them. They are removing the big stage and also the bathroom in the field. He also said they are looking for their liquor license and Mr. Higgins told him that is the Town Council not the Planning Board. The Town Council meets on July 10, 2017 at 7:00pm. Mike said he would check with the Council and Mary Chapman.
Item #3 Acres of Wildlife Campground/Michael Baptista, Acres of Wildlife Rd., Map 11, Lots 1-4-Contract Zone/Subdivision Application
Andy Morrill was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Benson said he has asked for a review of the road to the campground. He said they are in the process of reviewing the road and the standards. Mr. Benson said if there are no big changes, they will keep this on the agenda until they hear from Acres of Wildlife. There is also an account of $2500.00 or $3500.00 established for an attorney and an engineer (Peter Tubbs) to look at the road as Bud had put together what the road standards are. There were no questions from the Board or the public. A motion was made by Mr. Lonnstrom and seconded by Mr. Cloutier to table this to the August 06, 2018 meeting. All in favor.
Item #4 William Partridge, 5 Harbor View Way, Map 48, Lot 3B-Shoreland Zoning Application for the addition of a new deck on cottage and replacing footings
Mr. Partridge had written a request to have this tabled until the August meeting. Mr. Brown made a motion seconded by Mr. Lonnstrom to table the application. All in favor.
b. New Business:
Item #5 Standish Donuts, Inc., 30 Ossipee Trail East, Map 10, Lot 62- Sketch Plan Application for drive through access driveway
Mr. Brown recused himself from this application as he is still associated with Sebago Technics on the Board of Directors. Sandra Guay was present to represent the applicant. She also introduced Owen McCullum from Sebago Technics, as he will be the architect on the project. George DeGass from Dunkin Donuts was also present. Mrs. Guay said they are looking to have a bypass lane that will have better access to the drive through. She said there is parking on both sides of the store now and a lot of conflicting things happening. She said they are parking in the access and becoming stacked now as there are so many and this hinders the access to Route 25.
She said if they can build this additional lane, this would help to alleviate the cars stacking and make better access to Rt.25 and the business. She said this is also about pedestrian safety as well. She said that the cars are driving through the parking lot now and there are a lot of cars coming in and out. She said she feels as though the ordinances we have right now conflict with this project as they talk mainly about any new development. She said they had ten parking spaces but two had been eliminated. However, she said they would be adding 6 new spaces for employee parking and they would also be adding a connector to the abutting property. She said there are some grading issues and they would take care of those and set aside the connector.
She said by elimination of the cars stacking and adding the bypass, they would become more conforming as the ordinance requires, as it says no stacking allowed. She said the stacking would be eliminated in the access itself. She said in the supplemental review, the sections talk about buildings and occupancy permits, not improvements done to an already existing site plan. She said this is really a minor modification and it leaves the back area free to be used down the road, but the option is there.
Owen McCullum from Sebago Technics spoke. He said he has worked on many Dunkin Donuts projects like this and they work very well. He said the one in Naples has the same issue and they have done a bypass on that one as well and it seems to work much better than what they had. He said cars in Standish are blocked back to the entrance all the way to Rt. 25. He took some photos which he showed with all of the cars stacked up. He said if they had the bypass lane, it would separate things much better and provide for better cueing and traffic flow. He said everyone would enter separately and exit using the same drive.
He said the challenges have been using the Form Based Code, but he said this would help as far as traffic flow and it’s almost a solution to the problem going on there now. He said they met with Bud and they are willing to give an easement for connectivity if they need to down the road. He showed where the septic is and also where the drainage is. He said on the prior approval there was a parking lot, but this is not needed as much as the bypass. He showed where the wetlands are on the plan and how they would be handled. He said the bypass is seriously needed. He said there are no modifications or anything to the building and this is a huge safety issue. They will come back with some grading plans, some landscaping and he said the applicant is very big on landscaping. He said they would like to come back with a site plan showing the detention pond and everything. He said the only added parking spaces are for employees.
Mr. Higgins said that this should go to workshop. A workshop will be held on Monday, July 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm here at Town Hall. Sandra Guay said her understanding was that they are at the workshop tonight. Mr. Benson said he thought he had told them they were coming to a meeting for a sketch plan review and he apologized for the confusion.
Item #6 Tom Daniels, Village View Rd., Map 10, Lot6A & Map 35, Lot 34-Sketch Plan Application for proposed subdivision
Andy Nadeau was present to represent the applicant and his brothers. He is from a Civil Land surveying firm and the applicants are friends of his. He gave a brief overview of what they would like to do with a subdivision. He said they haven’t done a lot of engineering on this project and he is working with a land design firm from Freeport. He went on to say how they have looked at the parcel in question and the lack of road frontage. They looked at the property access from both Village View Road and Apple Lane, where there is just one parcel on the land. He said it seemed more logical to gain access from Apple Lane. He said they have come to an agreement to buy some land from the Goff’s and Kirsten Goff is present tonight.
Andy went on to say they are looking at the parcels both on Apple Lane and Village View with some road construction and access to a major sub division. He said he is looking at street frontage, density and other requirements they would have to meet with the Town. He said they do not want to maximize this but create something that is saleable. He said it sounds like they are looking at it being a Town road and they wondered if it would be a Town gateway project because of Apple Lane. Bud said they could either have a town residential or town gateway. Bud said this is a sketch plan that would be tabled to a workshop. This will go to workshop on July 23, 2018 at 5:00 for a site walk and then 7:00pm for a workshop. Mr. Nadeau said they have met with the water district so they will be ready to come in with a full plan to the Board.
Stanley Grysk spoke and said he had his subdivision drawn up on Apple Lane in 1972 by surveyor Jeep Flint. He said he was asked how many houses he wanted on Apple Lane and the subdivision was made for four. He says he wants to know how a piece of land can be sold and a subdivision can be put into a subdivision. He said he built the road by hand and it was accepted by the Town. He has sought legal opinion and they wonder if he still owns the road as he never deeded it to the Town. He said if he still owns the road, they can’t put this subdivision in there and have access over his road.
Mr. Grysk said his neighbors are upset as they bought the lots with restrictions and he does not want a right of way through this property. They could build on one lot and that is by the Goff house. He would be okay with that but not the heavy traffic over this road that he hand built and paid for with hard work and his own hands. Mr. Grysk said he understands this is being checked out by an attorney. He said he is speaking about the road, Apple Lane. He showed the Board the road and what exists there now.
Mr. Benson said the Planning Board has no authority on determining land ownership. He said they have tried to find the deed for Apple Lane but have not found anything. He said they have sent this to the Town Attorney and will see what her opinion is. He said she is on vacation so he is waiting to hear from her probably sometime next week. Mr. Benson said the note on the plan does not say one dwelling per lot, and he is not sure what this means. He said until the ownership of the road is determined, they cannot do anything. Mr. Nadeau read what was on the plan sounds just like you can’t put a mobile home on the property. He said it really comes down to a legal opinion about the road and the Town has been spending money all these years, since 1983, maintaining the road.
Lynn Brown spoke and said she is a neighbor and asked about the memo. Mr. Benson said it tells the details and what is expected. He told her she could get a copy of it at any time. He said it does explain that the Planning Board has no authority over the roads. Mr. Nadeau said that this memo has to do with the form based code and street types. He said it was really a zoning issue. Mrs. Dyer gave one to Ms. Brown. She said if anyone else wants one they can contact her and she will get it out to whomever requests it. Mr. Higgins said in order for the Planning Board to move forward they need a complete application and all of the abutters would be notified. Mr. Benson said this is just a preliminary discussion and not up for an approval.
Kirsten Goff from 6 Apple Lane spoke and said they never signed or received any sort of document that said they have any restrictions or limitations on their property. She said they purchased this from Brad and Nancy Perkins. She said they bought this 16 years ago and she feels that the Grysk’s are hindering their sale of their property. She said they want to sell as they have found a new home and would like to sell to the Daniel’s.
Mr. Higgins said they need to settle the road issue before they can move forward. He said the public and abutters are welcome to come to the July 23, 2018 workshop. He said all parties need to remain civil and he will enforce anything he has to.
Item #7 St. Joseph’s College, White’s Bridge Road, Map 20, Lot 30-Site Plan Appl.
Mr. Brown said he is recusing himself from this project also, as he is on the Board of Director’s for Sebago Technics and is also an abutter to the project. Jim Dlugos was present to represent the college. He is the President of the College and he said they are asking for approval to do a food innovation project as well as a barn and several greenhouses. He said they approved this plan in 2014 and will develop these programs for students and the area. This is one area they are working on that falls under sustainable agriculture. He said the farm plot has 28 acres and they are in hopes of developing this to add to the College. This was previously the Gowen property. They came before the Board 3 years ago to renovate the Stone Barn which was the Gowen’s, into a special events center. They would like to farm with hydroponic greenhouses and expand their outreach to other students, both on campus students and ones that travel to the campus. They do have a cap on students at 1200. He said they are not looking to have more than that. He said they are looking at food security as well as helping local farmers and people. He said this included Cumberland County as well.
Peter Nielsen spoke and said he is the executive director for this project. He said a few years ago, they had a strategic plan to benefit everyone and the region. They have been heavily looking at the Gowen Farm and now they would like to have a more important impact using the farm. He said they are trying to have an impact on New England as well as we only produce 10% of food in New England. He said they would like to produce 50% and have food to distribute year round. He said there isn’t enough education both business wise and skill wise. He said there is lack of infrastructure and they would like the greenhouses to distribute food year round. He said in Cumberland County we have lost jobs in the paper and logging industry and that has also made a significant impact on other things as well. The loss of the paper and pulp industries have been huge and also the loss of Barber Foods has been substantial to Maine.
He said they are trying to move forward with the growth of the food and beverage industry. He went on to say that earlier the economic development was led by GPCOG and has not been transferred. He said they want to build 3 more entities on the farm so they can teach agriculture. This would increase the awareness of the importance of farming and its future. It would teach people to produce things off sight and also give them hands on experience. He said there is a lot of agriculture that isn’t producing what is needed and with this they could teach how to turn it into increased revenue. The kitchen would have state of the art cooking facilities and let people come into it, rent a space and see if they can produce some sort of product that would sell well. He said there will be three kitchens accessible all of the time. He went on to say they could rent the space and then bake or do what they would like to try.
Peter went on to say they would like to have a hydroponic greenhouses and there are five of them. They are 96 feet long and would be able to grow food year round. They would be able to produce a half million heads of lettuce and 40,000 pounds of tomatoes. He said this is a small drop in the bucket for Maine, but allows them to be productive. He said this seems to be huge all around and Hannaford brought this to them. There will be a lot less pesticide. Hannaford would be one contributor as well and they have also gathered with Farm Tech. He said they would also like to build a livestock barn and pasture with goats and sheep. He said all of the entities put together would add to a local food system within itself. The College and faculty would like to grow the industry and be a contributor as well throughout all of New England.
Jim Seymour from Sebago Technics spoke and said he is the engineer for the project. He said that they have three new structures. They would also be providing some new parking by the greenhouse and they also have the objective to hide the greenhouses from the public as they look like commercial buildings. The barn would be seen from the road as it will sit up on a little hill. They intend to file with DEP in the next ten days or so. They did receive a special exception from the Appeals Board to have a food institute. They have met with the Fire Chief and they would be improving the access into this so they can be firetruck friendly. This will be serviced by a private well and septic with the barn having a meeting room and will have their own. On the end of the road to the barn they have provided a hammerhead turn around and have made that fire truck and emergency vehicle friendly as well. He said that Hearthside is well over 1200 feet to the development and at least 250 feet from the nearest residence. DEP’s main concern is the phosphorus runoff. This project will exceed the limitations from the DEP and then so much money will be charged per pound over the limit. They would probably end up paying around $15,000.00. The greenhouse would have wood pellet boilers and would also create steam as well. The barn will be heated with propane. The septic’s would be upgraded if needed. He said this project will not have much solid waste from it.
They have a letter from the Water District saying the 20” water main is sufficient for what they are proposing to do. Mr. Higgins asked for public comment. Phyllis Payne is a resident on Stone Ridge Circle and is an immediate abutter. She said one of the reasons they moved to the area was because of the College and its beauty. She said she can hear the animals when they are in the field. She likes that the field is vacant and the wildlife they see. She likes flying kites there. She said the lights that will come from the barn and the smells, plus hearing the animals, will be awful and she didn’t move here to live next to a farm. She has a neighbor that has a rooster and now what? She said this is not educational, and the area this is going to be built on is not acceptable, as it would be in their back yard. She said she doesn’t want a barn, animals or lights. She is concerned about her septic and the fence the college has to hold them. She also asked about the access road and the parking lot.
Jim Seymour asked where she was located and she showed him on the plan. There will be a few parking spaces at the barn and behind it. He told her this is SJC property and they wouldn’t be on hers. Mr. Nielsen said they have had animals there for the last ten years or more. He said the design of the new barn is not large and approximately 30 animals can be housed in it. She asked if the farm impacted her property value and she said when she bought the property it was not a farm. Mr. Dlugos said the animals are sheep and goats. He said they have drawings of the barn and feel it’s beautiful. Mrs. Payne asked about the barn and can they have animals in their neighborhood. Mr. Benson said the stone barn has been there since pre zoning and has had animals there since pre zoning. He said when zoning came along it limited things but did not extinguish the rights to have animals. He said the site has been a farm for a very long time.
Mr. Benson said that this is what the college is zoned at. Mrs. Payne said she loved the animals keeping the grass down but a formal barn isn’t acceptable to her. Mr. Higgins said SJC has always tried to keep good neighbor relations with its abutters. Mrs. Payne said she would be calling her neighbors and what could she do next? Mr. Higgins said they would probably do a site walk and a workshop next. Mr. Benson told her she is welcome to attend. A date will be set tonight for those. Mr. Dlugos said they sent out abutter notices back in February and Mrs. Payne said they were in Florida. He said they had two Council workshop dates and this notice was sent to her address in Florida. Mr. Dlugos said in the Board of Appeals meeting the Board felt that this wouldn’t influence the value of the abutter’s property. She asked about the map sent to her and why didn’t it have everything that was on the site plan? Mr. Deluges said they will show the barn design and layout as to what it looks like. Gilbert Van Eisen is the architect for the barn project and he showed the design. He showed the barn and the attached conference center, the hayloft and the barn itself with a connecting walk way. The barn has a metal roof on it and cupolas that match the stone barn. The siding is reverse wood board and batten that wraps the building.
Mr. Van Eisen showed the floor plan for the food venture building and all of the spaces like kitchens, freezers, coolers, restrooms, etc. There is a break room area and kitchen areas have many windows. The design is tied to the stone barn but is rectangular in shape. It will have an asphalt shingled roof and siding with windows wrapping around it. There will be a very natural looking loading dock and little entrances into the buildings. The greenhouse structures are attached to support buildings that house the pellet boilers. There are areas where the food is brought in, washed and packaged up for distribution. There are also restrooms and a break room area. Farm Tech is designing the greenhouses themselves as they are in partnership with them. There is a pellet silo for the pellets and he said this is an exciting project as normally architects don’t get to work on more than one structure at a time.
Mr. Higgins asked for other public comment and Linda Maguire, a resident of the area spoke. She considers SJC to be a fabulous neighbor. She said they are very welcome in the neighborhood and she loves them. She is a CEO of a marketing company and said she was inspired by Peter Nielsen’s presentation. She said this program will be accessible to students across the country and she feels it will be beneficial to many. She said she understands the neighbors’ concerns and hopes they can get straightened out. She hopes the College and the strategic plan will move forward and also she feels they will be known worldwide with this food innovation project. She hopes the neighbors will not lose sight of what this could turn out to be.
Cheryl Munn-Whatley spoke and said she is also an abutter. She said she has attended quite a few meetings about SJC. Her objection is not what they are doing but what they are doing behind her property. She said they have dogs and children in the neighborhood and she objects where the road to the barn is located because of safety. She said their dogs can go over the fence and the road concerns her as it’s so close to their properties. She said she feels they can relocate the road and make it better. She said they need to take into account the safety of the neighborhood and its occupants.
Doug Bois spoke and said he is not an abutter. He has no concerns about this project and lives away from it. He said SJC is a great neighbor. He asked about the curb cut on the barn road. He said the two entrances don’t match up but look to be staggered. He feels this should be looked at when the site walk is done.
Cheryl Munn-Whatley said the sharp right hand turn is a concern with pedestrians crossing when they have functions. She said the barn would be a blind drive way and a very dangerous place to come out onto the road.
There were no further comments and a site walk was scheduled for Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:00pm. This will also follow in the workshop scheduled at 7:00pm.
*Other Business:
a. Public Hearings: There are none
*Announcements: There are none
* Adjournment: 9:45pm