Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Standish Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
May 06, 2019
The Planning Board meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Charles Brown. Present were Pat Frechette, Deb Boxer, Jolene Whittemore, Roland Cloutier, Alberta Byrnes, Zack Mosher, Town Planner and Jackie Dyer, Admin. to the Town Planner and Planning Board. Absent was Adam Higgins.
Open Meeting
a. Call to order
b. Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman
c. Declaration of a Quorum-there are 6 present
Approval of Meeting Minutes from April 01, 2019
Mrs. Whittemore made a motion seconded by Mr. Cloutier to approve the meeting minutes. All in favor.
Approval of Finding of Fact:
Alison Briggs, 49 Hi Vu Drive, Map 25, Lot 53-Shoreland Zoning Application for new foundation and new cottage
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
Acres of Wildlife Campground/Michael Baptista & Elaine Burnham, Acres of Wildlife Rd., Map 11, Lots 1-4 -Site Plan Application for PHASE IV
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to pprove the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
MSAD# 6, 719 Saco Road, Map 3 Lot 58A -Septic System for wastewater disposal improvements at BE School Complex (Saco Road and Rt.35)
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
New Business:
Item #1 Robert Randall-DBA Randall Orchard’s, 16 Randall Road, Map 10, Lot 93-Site Plan Application to build a larger building for retail sales
Robert Randall was present to represent himself. He said he is before the Board because he would like to build a larger building, 28’x36’, for the sales of his apples, cider, honey, vegetables, Christmas trees and other local products. He said he would like to come off Randall Road as they have divided a lot and he would also like to add blueberry bushes. He has put in a new septic and a well to service the building. Also a parking area that would hold up to 25 cars at a time. He said the parking area might be a bit larger than what he has now.
Mr. Brown said the application is a nice one and he asked if any members from the Board had any questions or comments. He said there is one waiver request about contours and Mrs. Whittemore said there is also one on public water and a sidewalk. Mr. Mosher said that it is written into the Ordinance about public water,and it says that if the cost of the public water being run to the property is twice more than what the cost of the well is, they can waive that. Mr. Randall said the cost would be four times the cost of the well. He did contact the water district and they had given him a quote of $32,000.00 to come across Route 25 to his property. This estimate from them was four times the cost of the well.
Mr. Cloutier made a motion to find the application complete and this was seconded by Mrs. Boxer. All in favor. Mr. Cloutier said they are asking to waive four items and Mr. Brown confirmed that. Mr. Mosher said they need to take those waiver items one at a time.
Elements of Preliminary Plan 181-71.1(for requested waivers)
Contours at intervals of not less than two feet. (A waiver is being requested – site is relatively flat). Mr. Brown said that there would be very few contours because of the lay of the land being relatively flat. Mr. Randall said it’s mostly sandy soil and there is an existing culvert to drain the water from the fields. Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to grant the waiver for contours. All in favor.
The proposed development has made adequate provision for water supply, including an adequate supply of water for fire-protection purposes. (The property has an onsite well). Mr. Brown said this waiver would be granted so he can use his own private water supply and not have to run water across the road to his property. Mrs. Boxer made a motion seconded by Mr. Cloutier to grant the waiver. All in favor.
The location and dimension of pedestrian access ways. Within a Form Based Code Village District, show the location of the required reserved right-of-way or proposed driveways or FBCVD Street connecting the project to all adjacent parcels, adjacent parking lots or existing roads. (The applicant will show the pedestrian access way to the structure on the final plan. The entrance to the structure is shown on the plan). Mr. Brown said this comes under the Standish Corner District and the Code Enforcement Officer has looked at it and feels sidewalks are not necessary. Mr. Mosher said that the land is all flat and there is a good shoulder to walk on if needed. Mr. Randall said the end of the road to the farm is a dead end. He said there really aren’t any ditches and foot traffic is safe on the road. Mr. Randall said that what ditch there was, he had filled in years ago. Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to grant the waiver on sidewalks. All in favor.
Mr. Brown asked about the parking lot and Mr. Mosher said it would be back forty feet from the entrance and behind the stone wall. Mr. Brown said that the right of way line is on the edge of the stone wall. Mrs. Boxer asked about handicapped accessibility and Mr. Brown said the CEO would enforce that. Mr. Randall said he would take care of that and also that the concrete slab for the building would be flush with the ground. Mr. Brown asked for public comments and there were none. Mr. Randall said he will use the existing sign he has, but maybe change it sometime down the road.
181-73 Standards and conditions for approval:
No preliminary or final site plan shall be approved unless, in the judgment of the Planning Board, the applicant has proven that the plan meets all of the following standards.
A. The provisions for vehicular loading, unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will not create hazards to safety nor will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. (Applicant has an existing gravel parking area and is proposing to expand that area).
B. The bulk location and height of proposed buildings and structures and the proposed uses thereof will not be detrimental or will impose undue burdens on the public facilities. (Staff finds no issue– building will be serviced by private well and septic.)
C. The provisions of on-site landscaping and screening do provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. (No change is proposed). Mr. Brown said that there will be extra screening with the blueberry bushes. Mrs. Boxer asked about trees being cut and Mr. Randall told her he has cut quite a few already. He has a stone wall and line of trees with one neighbor being an abutter.
D. The site plan adequately provides for the soil and drainage problems that the development will create. (The site is relatively flat with good soils for drainage).
Mr. Brown said there is currently a 12 inch working culvert as shown on the plan.
E. The provisions for exterior lighting will not create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets nor are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site nor will such lighting damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. (There is no change from the existing lighting). Mr. Randall said that a light will be on the building and many lights at Christmas time around where the trees will be located.
F. The applicant has provided reasonable evidence of his financial capabilities to complete the development as planned and approved. (The applicant has provided this evidence).
G. The proposed development will not create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site or the buildings on the site for emergency vehicles or by failure to meet other fire safety ordinances or laws. The Fire Department shall file a written report with the Planning Board prior to the hearing. (The Fire Inspector recommends installing a second door on the facility if the applicant expects more than 49 people to be inside the space. The applicant will also need to put up Exit Signs and make sure a fire extinguisher is on the property – the applicant thinks there will never be more than 49 people in the structure, but intends to have a second means of egress). Mr. Cloutier said the Fire Inspector indicates that a hydrant is near by the property.
H. The proposed development has made adequate provision for sewage disposal. (The proposed projects includes a septic field which has been inspected by the Code Officer). A new septic has already been installed.
I. The proposed site plan will not alter the existing character of the surrounding zoning district or division to the extent that it will become a detriment or potential nuisance to said zoning division or district. (Staff finds no issue).
J. The proposed development has made adequate provision for water supply, including an adequate supply of water for fire-protection purposes. (The property has an onsite well). Mr. Brown said there is also an existing hydrant directly across from this property.
K. No plan shall be approved by the Planning Board as long as the applicant is in default on a previously approved plan. (No issue).
L. Architectural drawings showing exteriors of proposed new nonresidential/commercial buildings in the Form Based Code Village Districts and the Village Center District shall be compatible with a Colonial New England design. Such design can be achieved by incorporating features such as, but not limited to, broken rooflines, clapboard siding, steeply pitched roofs, roof overhangs, small pane windows, dormers, and window shutters. (The applicant has provided architectural drawings – Building height is limited to 35 ft., primary entrance must face street, parking drive width is existing). Mr. Brown said the primary entrance will face Randall Road.
M. Within Form Based Code Village Districts, the plan must meet all of the following additional standards:
The proposed development complies with the regulating plan and the applicable FBCVD street frontage type standards within the Form Based Code Village Districts. (The plan complies with applicable frontage type standards).
The proposed development, both public and/or private buildings and landscaping, contributes to the physical definition of rights-of-way as civic spaces within the Form Based Code Village Districts. Mr. Brown said the setback has been met and there are stonewalls on the property.
The proposed development adequately accommodates automobiles, while respecting the pedestrian and spatial form of public areas within the Form Based Code Village Districts. Mr. Brown said that parking will be expanded and blueberry bushes are going to be planted.
If the lot to be developed shall be divided from a greater parcel, access to the parcel, or the "pioneer lot" (see conceptual Connectivity Master Plan in § 181-7.1), shall be from an allowable FBCVD street frontage type perpendicular to the existing FBCVD street or arterial. Existing curb cuts are allowed to be continued to be used by existing uses. For new use(s) where the closure of the curb cut is triggered by the conditions of approval, standards contained within Chapter 252 (Streets and Sidewalks) or by Planning Board supplemental review, the perpendicular FBCVD street shall be built to the minimum block length and other FBCVD street frontage type standards and serve both as access to the parking area for the development as well as for parking for the development. The applicant shall build the perpendicular FBCVD Street to the required standards and provide for maintenance of the same until such time that the road is accepted by the Town as a street. ****NON APPLICABLE****
Provisions shall be made for phased construction such as conduit extensions and stubs. This information shall be located and noted on the approved site plan recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. (N/A).
(6) Underground utilities. ****NON APPLICABLE****
(a) On new frontage type FBCVD streets, utilities shall be buried.
(b) All developments shall be served by public water. –Waiver granted
(c) The requirements for buried utilities and the provision for a project to be served by public water can be waived by the Planning Board pursuant to the standards set forth in § 181-35.9. [Amended 1-12-2016 by Order No. 109-15] (d) When a waiver for requirements of buried utilities is granted by the Planning Board, the following additional standards shall be met:
[1] All new lots shall be greater than 60,000 square feet per dwelling unit without public water and contain a minimum of 175 feet of street frontage; and [Amended 1-12-2016 by Order No. 109-15]
[2] The aboveground utilities shall be placed behind buildings facing the FBCVD street minimizing visual impacts and interference with FBCVD streetscapes.
(e) Provisions shall be made for phased construction such as conduit extensions and stubs. This information will be located and noted on an approved site plan and recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. (No new utilities are proposed here).
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore that all the Standards of Approval have been met. All in favor.
Approval is with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
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 (either orally or in writing) and that any variation from the plans, proposals, and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Code Enforcement Officer may approve. The work shall be in conformance will plans and supporting materials submitted by Robert Randall and Steve Martin, PLS which consists of architectural drawings and an Existing Conditions and Proposed Building Plan, dated as received on 4/11/2019.
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 applicant shall provide the Portland Water District plans and materials associated with the proposed development.
Mr. Cloutier made a motion to approve the application and grant site plan approval, seconded by Mrs. Whittemore. All in favor.
Item #2 Brian Fitzpatrick, 30 Binford Road, Map 49, Lot 44-Shoreland Zoning Application-Addition to existing cottage
Brian Fitzpatrick was present to represent himself. He said they would like to expand the house they have now, take the existing garage down and build a new garage on a different location closer to the house in part of the driveway. He said that is pretty much all he is asking approval for.
Mr. Mosher asked Brian if he had seen the former plans approved for Scott Efron a few years ago and he said he had not. He said there is a space between the house and garage and he said the garage would be further away from the canal. Mr. Mosher said he went to the site and also had taken some pictures of what was existing. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that part of the cobblestone wall would be taken down and then put back up when the new part was built. Mr. Cloutier asked if the garage had a concrete slab and Brian said it did but it had heaved very badly. He said the new one would be laid down with frost protection and be on flatter ground.
Brian said that a lot of work was done inside the home that needed to be fixed and those corrections have been done. Mr. Cloutier asked why the garage was not being pulled forward more toward the entrance and Brian said he didn’t want to pull it past the front door. Mr. Cloutier said that if it was pulled forward more, it would be better. Mrs. Whittemore said that she felt he didn’t want to block his front entrance and Brian said that was right. He said they had thought about rebuilding where it was, but decided a new location was a bit better and more convenient. Mr. Brown said it is a unique house and Mr. Fitzpatrick said the cobble stones come from the Old Port area in Portland.
Mr. Brown said the key role of the Board is to make sure the structures are moved back from the water as far as they can be and this is a reconstruction of the garage moved to a different spot. Mrs. Byrnes asked if this was before the Board earlier and Mr. Fitzpatrick said it was before he bought the property. He said they would like to have a recreation flex room and then another room added onto the end. Mr. Brown asked about the measurements from the canal and the boundary line. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the house was on the previous plans and he that the garage they want would be a separate building from the house, and it’s further away from the water. Mr. Brown asked if the forty feet two inches is from the boundary line to the canal. Mr. Mosher said the 74 foot one inch is from the canal to the boundary line.
Mr. Cloutier said that Mr. Mosher had done a great job outlining the project in the memo and is the building being relocated to the greatest practical extent of the setbacks. He said by replacing the building they are not encroaching further or increasing anything and he said he feels they don’t really have any questions on the set back and he feels that they are all struggling with that right now. Mr. Brown said the proposed new foot print is basically the existing garage in a different place. Mrs. Boxer said she didn’t see anything wrong with this plan and it makes things more conforming. Mr. Brown said then existing garage is 24’x21’.Mrs. Boxer asked if there will be toilet facilities and Mr. Fitzpatrick said in the flex room but they are not increasing any additional bedrooms, so the septic should be fine.
Mr. Brown said because the new flex room and workout room are going where the garage is, the space doesn’t increase. He asked if there were going to be any trees removed and Mr. Fitzpatrick said no. Mr. Fitzpatrick had originally turned in a plan with a tree to be removed, but had changed that. There is an elevation certificate on file, but Mr. Mosher said that needed to be updated. Nothing on that elevation certificate will change and the base flood elevation will be the same.
Mrs. Byrnes said that she would like a site walk. Mrs. Boxer said she would do that. Mr.Brown said they can schedule it and Mr. Cloutier agreed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the contractor will have things staked out, he believes that some of it has already been done, like where the new garage will go. A site walk was scheduled for Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:00pm. Mr. Brown asked for public comment and there was none. He said the erosion and sedimentation plan goes to the CEO. They have a boundary survey already and it’s very flat where this property is. This is tabled to the June meeting.
Item #3 Howard & Natalie Leighton, 9 Pond View Road, Map 18, Lot 6-F-Site Plan Application for an in home daycare
Natalie Leighton and her husband were both present. She said they are looking for approval for an in home daycare at their home on 9 Pond View Road. She said she already has an existing daycare since 2004 at 300 Northeast Road. She said the maximum capacity would be 12 children and they all are not there full time with school being in session. They don’t all arrive at the same time either so there may be 6 cars coming down at once. Natalie said they arrive mostly between 6:30-8:00am. Mrs. Whittemore asked about the 2.5 parking spaces needed and Mr. Mosher said they would have a turnaround space in the lawn. Mr. Cloutier said a small section of the lawn looked to be a proposed turnaround in front of the house.
Mr. Brown said the 2 spaces would be for the daycare only and the turnaround as well. Mrs. Leighton said on the left hand side of the house are spaces as well. Mr. Brown asked how many people working and Natalie said it would be herself and her step daughter that lives there. Natalie said they come and leave quickly, with 5:30 being the latest in the afternoon for pickup. Gravel would need to be put in to designate the turnaround and Mr. Brown thought it was 12 inches. Mrs. Byrnes asked about the daycare on Northeast Road and how much parking there was. Natalie said it was 9 and this was based on the whole square footage of the house. Mr. Brown asked about the width of the paved driveway and Natalie thought it was 33 feet. Mr. Leighton said he had not measured the width. Mr. Brown said a parking space is 9’x18’, so that gives them about five cars deep.
Mrs. Frechette asked about a concern in the letter about children running around and would they have a fenced in area for them. Mrs. Leighton said that the Fire Marshal didn’t think it was needed as the kids are supervised by adults at all times. Mr. Leighton said the kids would not be out front at all. Mr. Brown said they are asking for six waivers.
§ 181-71.1 Elements of preliminary plan.
The preliminary site plan and associated plans detailing all on-site and off-site improvements made necessary by the project shall be drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals 50 feet and shall contain the following:
A. The name and address of owner and applicant. (Shown on the survey plan)
B. The scale and North arrow. (The north arrow and scale are shown on the site plan)
C. The exact dimensions and acreage of parcel to be built upon. (A waiver is being requested). Mr. Brown said this is a 3.3 acre plot built by Gilbert Homes and there is a survey with bearing and distances
D. Contours at intervals of not less than two feet. (A waiver is being requested – N/A). Mr. Brown asked about a set back from the street and Mr. Mosher said the set back is 50 feet but not sure about how that is with the cul de sac.
E. Building envelopes. (Shown on plan).
F. The size, shape and location of existing and proposed buildings. Architectural drawings of proposed buildings shall be attached to the site plan. (Applicant has provided a floor plan). Mrs. Dyer told the Board that this is the existing floor plan that was in the code folder and that there was an in home business at one time, a photography studio. This day care would be in that same space, the 460 square feet.
G. The location and dimensions of parking areas, loading and unloading facilities and points of ingress and egress of vehicles to and from the site to public streets. (Approximate parking is shown).
H. The location of all existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way. (N/A – a waiver is being requested).
I. The location and dimension of pedestrian access ways. Within a Form Based Code Village District, show the location of the required reserved right-of-way or proposed driveways or FBCVD Street connecting the project to all adjacent parcels, adjacent parking lots or existing roads. (N/A).
J. The location and size of existing and proposed water and sewer mains, culverts and storm drains. (A waiver is being requested) There is a private well and septic on the property. A new septic will be installed with a new system on file, being expanded for the proposed use.
K. The location of outdoor lighting. (Any outdoor lighting will be shown on final plan). They will be updating the outdoor lighting with newer lights. There will not be any floodlights.
L. The location of natural features such as watercourses, marshes, rock outcroppings and stands of trees. (A waiver is being requested). Mr. Brown said there are trees and outcroppings on the plan and the only change on the plan is the parking turnaround to be put in. No trees are being disturbed. Mrs. Leighton said there are a line of trees separating them from the neighbor.
M. The landscape plan showing the location and types of plantings and screenings. (A waiver is being requested.) Mr. Cloutier said they should accept the photo they have as a means to waive this requirement. They will go with what is on the plan.
N. The location and size of signs and advertising features. (Shown on plan.)
O. Any other provisions contained in the Town of Standish Subdivision Regulations and that the Planning Board deems appropriate or any other ordinances of the Town of Standish or statutes of the State of Maine or federal government.
Mrs. Boxer asked about a waiver for the sign and Mrs. Leighton said they are not asking for that. She said they have a sign at the present day care and any sign they might propose would be smaller. Mr. Brown asked for public comment and Peter Sturdivant spoke and said there are several people that would like to speak. He said he lives at 7 Pond View next to the Leightons. He said he wrote a letter and said he has a series of questions:
Number of staff and staff cars parked in the driveway? He said there is a small daycare on Ossipee Trail, and they have 6-7 cars there all at once and would they have this many?
Mr. Leighton said this is not a day care center, it’s a home daycare and will have two staff, her and his daughter. Natalie said they sometimes have a high school girl that helps part time. Mrs. Byrnes asked about staff and how many are required. Natalie said two is all they need by state statutes, it depends on the age of the children. She said infants require more help and the ages are constantly changing. She said the most infants she has is 3 or 4 at a time. She would have to have more staff if she had any more than 4 infants at one time.
Natalie said they would live on the property and had spoken to Mr. Sturdivant in detail, back in December about this. She said they are doing some renovations right now and will move there relatively soon.
The children will be dropped off on their property in the driveway.
The Leightons said they do know where the septic is located. It is to the far right of the house. It is far from the driveway and comes off the south side of the house.
The Leighton’s do own and operate another daycare at 300 Northeast Road.
John Sargent from Hannarin Drive spoke and said they should do a site walk and look at the cul de sac. He said he goes down there in the winter to visit a friend and can barely get into the driveway because of the snow and the road being so narrow. He said there is nowhere to turn around. He says that he knows how busy a daycare is and how people come and go, and get jammed up into the cul de sac.
Mr. Brown asked for other comments. Mr. Leighton said he plows snow for South Portland and he feels that whoever does the plowing here in the cul de sac does a great job. He said his neighbor to the right plows and removes his snow into the cul de sac and he saw him do that this past winter. Snow being plowed into the road said Mr. Leighton is not legal. He said he has seen a cul de sac that’s much smaller than this. The width of the cul de sac is roughly 130 feet to the outside. Mr. Brown said the pavement is roughly 15-16 feet. Mr. Sturdivant said the plow does have trouble with plowing the cul de sac and he said especially this year as we had more snow than normal and after a couple of storms, the lane is down to one. He said this is a public road. Another neighbor, Bernie Dubendras, said the Leighton’s land was not part of the development and anything built there was done through the subdivision. He said this was a dirt road and then after 10 years or so, it was paved. He said that having a daycare during the winter, it’s hard to get there whether or not they have four wheeled drive vehicles and people will have trouble getting there when it snows and they try to get up the hill .
Steve Bradley said he had concerns also until he spoke with the Leightons and he has no concerns what so ever with the daycare being there. Mr. Leighton said it does take more time to plow a cul de sac no matter where it is. He said that the plow person this year did a great job and it does take time to clear it out .He said that it shows that there are experienced people that do it and it’s what he does for a living.
Mr. Brown asked if the Board would like a site walk and Mrs. Boxer said she would either way. Mrs. Whittemore said with the neighbors’ concerns, she feels they need to do a site walk. The site walk was scheduled for Monday, May 13, 2019 at 6:00pm. Mr. Brown asked for the Leighton’s to have everything staked out and they said they would.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40pm.