Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Standish Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
June 03, 2019
The Standish Planning Board meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Charles Brown. Present were Pat Frechette, Jolene Whittemore, Roland Cloutier, Zach Mosher, Town Planner and Jackie Dyer Admin to the Town Planner and Planning Board. Absent was Deb Boxer and Alberta Byrnes.
Open Meeting
a. Call to order
b. Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman
c. Declaration of a Quorum (4)
Approval of Meeting Minutes from May 06, 2017
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to approve the meeting minutes. (Mr. Brown said that there was one spelling error and Mrs. Dyer will correct it.) All in favor.
Approval of Finding of Fact:
Robert Randall-DBA Randall Orchard’s, 16 Randall Road, Map 10, Lot 93-Site Plan Application to build a larger building for retail sales
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Frechette to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor. Mr. Cloutier read the following Conditions of Approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
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.
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.
The applicant shall provide the PWD plans and materials associated with the proposed development.
Old Business:
Item #1 Brian Fitzpatrick, 30 Binford Road, Map 49, Lot 44-Shoreland Zoning Application-Addition to existing cottage
Brian Fitzpatrick was present to represent himself. Mr. Brown said that there was a site walk on May 13, 2019. Brian said that he felt the site walk was good and he wants to pull away from the water and improve his home. There was no public comment. Mr. Mosher said he felt the site walk was good and pretty self-explanatory at this point.
Mr. Brown said that they needed to read and go through the following:
(3) Reconstruction or replacement.
Any nonconforming structure which is located less than the required setback from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland and which is removed, or damaged or destroyed by more than 50% of the market value of the structure before such damage, destruction or removal, may be reconstructed or replaced, provided that a permit is obtained within one year of the date of said damage, destruction, or removal, and provided that such reconstruction or replacement is in compliance with the water setback requirement to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board in accordance with the purposes of this chapter. In no case shall a structure be reconstructed or replaced so as to increase its nonconformity.
Mr. Brown said the structure they are replacing is being pulled back further from the water and that makes the lot less non-conforming.
(b) Any nonconforming structure which is located less than the required setback from a water body, tributary stream, or wetland and which is removed by 50% or less of the market value, or damaged or destroyed by 50% or less of the market value of the structure, excluding normal maintenance and repair, may be reconstructed in place if a permit is obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer within one year of such damage, destruction, or removal.
Mrs. Whittemore asked about B as it was not on the original memo and was asked to be inserted when the minutes were done. Mr. Mosher read through it and said it was pretty much the same as A. He was not sure why it had been omitted. Mr. Cloutier felt it should be added to the minutes also and he made a proposal to add B as a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore. All in favor.
(c) In determining whether the building reconstruction or replacement meets the water setback to the greatest practical extent, the Planning Board shall consider, in addition to the criteria in Subsection C (2) above, the physical condition and type of foundation present, if any. (While this project includes moving the garage, and building an addition the overall footprint is proposed to be the same as the existing structure. The Board has used only the items listed in C2 above to determine if the building is setback to the maximum practical extent. There is also a requirement for a re-vegetation plan.)
Mr. Brown said they are improving the foundation from converting to a slab to a slab with frost protection. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the garage is in bad shape. Mr. Brown said the erosion and revegetation plan would include loam, seed and whatever the CEO tells him. It would need erosion control so things don’t go into the water while they are under construction.
Mr. Brown read the following:
237-16 D. Procedure for administering permits.
(3) After the submission of a complete application to the Planning Board, the Board shall approve an application or approve it with conditions if it makes a positive finding based on the information presented that the proposed use:
a. Will maintain safe and healthful conditions; (Staff finds no issue)
b. Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters; (Erosion controls will be provided to the CEO).
c. Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater; (The structure will provide adequate wastewater disposal.) They are not adding bedrooms and using existing septic.
d. Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat; (No adverse impact is anticipated).
e. Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access to inland waters; (The proposal will conserve shore and visual points of access).
f. Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; (The proposal will protect archaeological and historical resources).
g. Will avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use; and (The applicant has provided an elevation certificate specifying the elevation at which any construction must account for).
h. Is in conformance with the provisions of § 237-15, Land use standards. (Staff finds no issue as long as the conditions are approval are met.)
Mr. Brown read the following:
IV. PLANNING BOARD VOTE – The Board may discuss the possibility of a site walk to deem any improvements meet the standards. However, provided that this new application increases conformity to what was approved by the Planning Board in November 2014 proposal, it may not deem a site walk to be needed. If the Planning Board finds the application for a tear down and rebuild within the Shoreland Zoning district meets Chapter 237 of the Standish Land Use code and is based on the conditions of approval outlined below, then a suggested motion:
“Move that the Board grant approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the application submitted by Kevin Nickerson on behalf of applicant Brian Fitzpatrick for the tear down and rebuild for a structure to be located at 30 Binford Rd with the finding that it meets:
The application meets the requirements in Sec 237-12, 237-15 and Sec 237-16.
V. CONDITIONS –
All work shall be in conformance will plans and supporting materials submitted by Kevin Nickerson of Drafting & Design, ME LLC entitled “Fitzpatrick Elevations” which consists of 4 sheets and is dated as received as 4/16/2019.
This approval and any permits issued under this approval shall lapse and become void unless the start of construction or operation as defined in Sec. 237-16. Administration. F “Expiration of permit.” A permit of the Zoning Ordinance begins within one year from the date of this approval.
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 structure, with scaled setback from apparent normal high water line of approx. 38 ft, to be demolished and a replacement structure with proposed structure scaled setback of approx. 40 ft. built on a new foundation.
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.
The following plans and calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the CEO prior to the start of construction:
Percent impervious lot coverage (standards located in Sec. 237-15 B (4).
A Stormwater Infiltration plan to reduce runoff (standards found in Sec. 237-15 J).
Erosion & Sediment control plan (standards found in Sec. 237-15 Q
A clearing and re-vegetation plan (including plantings on the lake side of the property).
An elevation certificate - 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. (A new elevation certificate will need to be filed with the CEO)
A motion was made by Mr. Cloutier and seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to find the application complete and also to approve this application. All in favor.
There was no other business. Meeting was adjourned at 7:28pm.