Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Standish Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 07, 2019
The meeting of the Standish Planning Board was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Charles Brown. Present were Cheryl Kimball, Roland Cloutier, Jolene Whittemore, Pat Frechette, Deb Boxer, Town Planner Zach Mosher and Jackie Dyer, Admin to the Town Planner and Planning Board.
Open Meeting
a. Call to order
b. Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman
c. Declaration of a Quorum-there are 6 members present
Approval of Meeting Minutes from September 09, 2019
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to approve the meeting minutes. All in favor.
Approval of Finding of Fact:
Thomas Daniels, Apple Lane/Village View, Map 35, Lot 34/Map 10, Lot 6A- Subdivision Amendment to Brookstone Subdivision
Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
Old Business: There is none
New Business:
Item #1 John Moon/Gina Pressey, 129 Hi Vu Drive, Map 25, Lot 22-Shoreland Zoning Application to expand existing cottage
John Moon and Gina Pressey were both present to represent themselves. They gave a brief overview of what they would like to do as an expansion to an existing cottage on Watchic Lake. John said they have submitted everything needed to the Planner and the Code Enforcement Officer. Mrs. Boxer asked about the expansion and how big it is. She said it’s not clear on the plans. Gina said they had wanted to do a bigger expansion but have scaled it back because the lot is so narrow. Mr. Moon said it’s not a thousand-foot total footprint, it’s a 1000-foot expansion. Mrs. Boxer said the Ordinance says that the total maximum footprint of all combined structures is that they can expand to is 1000 square feet total and no more or 30%, whichever is greater. Mr. Mosher said that is not how he interprets the Ordinance.
Mr. Cloutier said he read the Ordinance and he feels it means the expansion cannot be greater than 1000 square feet or 30%, whichever is greater. Mr. Cloutier asked about the current cottage and they said it’s around 454 square feet. Gina said they would remove the new shed if they need to and be able to add more footprint to the cottage. Mr. Brown asked about the shed and Mr. Moon said they can move it if needed. Mr. Cloutier asked if they would add the extra six feet to the back and they said yes, but the shed would take away 160 square feet. Mr. Cloutier said they would have a total of 1179 square feet as the new building envelope. Mr. Brown said they have 704 square feet existing already and with this addition, it would bring them to 1179, minus the shed.
Mrs. Boxer asked what the height of the structure is, and Gina said it’s around 22 and a half feet. She said they know they can’t go up as they already have the maximum. Mr. Cloutier said the expansion is still under 1000, he said 704 feet combined with the shed and it comes to 1179 square feet. Mr. Brown said the addition is 575 square feet and the total would be the 1179. Mr. Brown said the proposed increase is 635 square feet with removing the shed. Gina said they would like to keep the shed, but it might not be possible. Mr. Moon said it was also the two parking spaces they had to add, changed the footprint. Mr. Brown said to clarify the interpretation of the Ordinance, should they vote how they are interpreting the Ordinance? Mr. Cloutier said his interpretation is that they can add an additional 1000 square feet. Mrs. Boxer and Mrs. Frechette said they do not agree as they read the Ordinance and they can’t go more than 30% of a total footprint or 1000 total feet in the footprint, not add another 1000 square feet. Mrs. Boxer said she would not vote for this.
Mrs. Whittemore said that Mrs. Boxer’s interpretation seems more logical. Mrs. Kimball read the Ordinance also. Mrs. Boxer said she read through the State Shoreland Zoning rules and regulations. Mr. Mosher said that he read through it again and still sees it the same as he has. Mr. Brown said they would need to decrease by 179 square feet if the Ordinance is at 1000 square feet. Mr. Cloutier asked how much off the back was the original proposal and it was 25 square feet, but they have since revised the plan. Mr. Moon said he is a bit confused with this. Mr. Brown said the shed is back over 100 feet from the water, so that doesn’t count in the footprint, as the shed is not part of the expansion.
Mr. Brown said he hears the consensus amongst the Board, is that they need to limit the building expansion to one thousand feet. Mr. Cloutier said he wonders if the wording is for a non-conforming lot. Mrs. Boxer said they can do the total footprint to 1000 feet. She said that is how she interprets the ordinance and she said they can move back to the maximum extent and do what they want, she said she didn’t write the laws. Mr. Brown said that was not practical because of the septic and the parking. Mrs. Whittemore said it looks like they have about 456 square feet they can add on to make the 1000 square feet. Mr. Brown asked if they can limit the building to 1000 square feet and have this go to the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Cloutier read some of the Ordinance and it said that the building could not be expanded to more than 1000 square feet total. Mr. Brown said the shed footprint is not part of their overall calculation.
Mrs. Whittemore asked if the shed could be made into a bunkhouse and Mr. Brown said they will leave it as a shed for now. Mr. Cloutier said their building issue is that they can’t expand to more than the total footprint of 1000 square feet. He said they can’t exceed more than 20% of impervious area on the property and the shed needs to be at least 75 feet away from the water. Mrs. Whittemore said that they might not be able to go as wide toward the neighbors. Mrs. Boxer said if they were further away, they could expand more, but they are only 25 feet away and can only expand to 1000 square feet. Mr. Brown said anything between 50-75 feet can only expand to a footprint of 1000 square feet and no more. Mr. Cloutier said the only way they could get a much larger building would be to tear down what they have now and move back 75 feet from the high-water mark. Mrs. Boxer said they would have to go back 100 feet. Mr. Brown said they would have to maintain the rear set back and Mrs. Pressey said they would not have room for anything.
Gina said she doesn’t understand how this was missed as she has been in the Planner’s office and Code Enforcement a lot. She said they have a large family and would need the expansion. Mrs. Boxer said if this doesn’t pass tonight, they could file an appeal and see if they have a different opinion. Mr. Brown suggested the Board go through the rest of the application. He said that they would have to lose 29 square feet to meet the 1000 square feet. Gina said it would still be small at 1000 square feet and they would have to go out to do this. Mr. Brown said they need to go through the waivers the applicant is requesting.
From the shoreland zoning checklist the applicant is requesting the following waivers:
Contours at not less than 2 ft. intervals.
Elevation of lowest floor relative to the 100-year flood elevation.
Mr. Mosher said an elevation certificate is not needed as they are not in a flood plain. Mr. Brown said there is a substantial drop in elevation going to the lake from the back of the property. He said he looked at the Erosion and Sedimentation Plan and sees the silk fence and staking of the property. He said it shows all the downhill locations and the land on the east is about 5-6 feet higher. He said they do have alternatives what they can place for erosion control: i.e.: haybales, silk fencing, etc. Mr. Brown said this is just the waivers they are requesting. He said he agrees with these. Mr. Mosher said he would like to get an opinion from DEP as to the interpretation of the Ordinance and the 1000 square feet.
Mr. Brown asked if there was a motion to table this until the DEP’s interpretation and Mr. Moon asked if they can go over the entire application, so if there is anything else, they can have it taken care of now. Mr. Brown started going through all the requirements for this application. Mr. Cloutier asked if we can move forward with approval with conditions contingent on Mr. Mosher’s findings with DEP and have the condition say it will be based on DEP and either the expansion will be 1000 square feet or 1179 square feet. There would be two added conditions depending on DEP’s interpretation as the maximum square footage would either be 1000 square feet or 1179 and up to the Code Enforcement Officer for the impervious area.
Mr. Cloutier said the shed would have to come off with this, but Mr. Brown said its more than the 75 feet away from the water. Mr. Brown said it would still count as impervious area. Mr. Cloutier said based on the findings, we should be able to move forward with the application, conditions of approval and not hold the applicant up. Zach said he would probably have an answer from DEP in a few weeks or so. The other condition would be that the Code Enforcement Officer receives all notifications about setback variances and that they been granted from DHHS, if needed, prior to issuance of any building permits.
Mr. Cloutier said the erosion control indicates where the water will run from and it is all going downhill. Mr. Cloutier made a motion seconded by Mrs. Whittemore to grant the waivers. All in favor.
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 control plan has been provided)
(c) Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater; (The structure will provide adequate wastewater disposal; the new system is further away than the existing system. It is designed based on a 5 bedroom for 90 gallons a day
(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 property is not located within a FEMA designated floodplain.)
(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.)
Gina said they have one tree that will need to be replanted and she is waiting for the Code Enforcement Officer to tell her what this needs to be and the size. They are also planning on putting in some blueberry bushes.
V. CONDITIONS of Approval:
All work shall be in conformance will plans and supporting materials submitted by Steve Martin entitled “Existing Conditions Plan”, dated July 1, 2019 and revised October 2, 2019. All work shall be in conformance with the septic design and soil and erosion control plan submitted by Bud Harris. This plan may be amended.
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.
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, Erosion & Sediment control plan and a re-vegetation plan (including plantings on the lake side of the property).
Plans approved by the Town for expansions under this 237-15 B must be filed in the Registry of Deeds of the county in which the property is located within 90 days of approval.
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.
Depending on the DEP interpretation of the Shoreland Zoning expansion rule, within 75 of the shoreline, the applicant cannot either exceed the maximum total footprint of 1000 square feet or the structure cannot be expanded to more than 1179 square feet and 20% of lot coverage cannot be exceeded.
The Code Enforcement Officer will receive all notification of approval of any set back variances, for the septic system, from DHHS prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Mr. Cloutier made a motion to find the application complete and approve it with the conditions as read, seconded by Mrs. Whittemore. All in favor. Mr. Brown said the approval was granted subject to the 1000 square feet interpretation by DEP.
Item #2 Thompson Development, 83 Woodrow Dr., Map 19, Lot 34-218-Subdivision Amendment
Mr. Brown said he is still associated with Sebago Technics and will abstain from any vote on this project. He said he can go through the application or go into the audience. The Board chose for him to remain where he is and the applicant did as well. Jamie Thompson was present to represent himself. He said that he had a foundation put in and part of it touched onto a wetland that was filled. He said he contacted DEP and then Army Core of Engineers and they came out and did the assessment. Jamie said they did all that was asked, but needed to amend the Subdivision. Mr. Cloutier asked if the house was complete and were there people living there? Mr. Thompson told him yes on both. Mr. Cloutier asked him if this was done by design or error? Jamie said it was an oversight and he thought they were further away than they were. Mr. Brown said these are wooded wetlands and not swamps or anything.
Jamie said there was not any damage done and this is what they consider a Tier 1 wetland. Mr. Mosher said this was approved it 2006 and Mr. Thompson said there is one lot left. Mr. Brown said the only wetlands are on the southerly side and you can see it on the plans in the shaded area where the stormwater buffer is.
Mr. Brown asked for public comment and comments from the Board.Mr. Cloutier made a motion to approve the amendment, seconded by Mrs. Whittemore. All in favor with Mr. Brown abstaining from the vote. Mr. Brown read the following:
Conditions of Approval:
All work shall be in conformance with the submitted plans and other materials prepared by Shawn Frank of Sebago Technics. Those plans consist of 3 sheets and are entitled “ATF Wetland Impact” dated 5/16/19, “First Amended Subdivision Plan” dated 9/23/19 which consists of 2 sheets. The First Amended Subdivision Plan amends sheets 2 and 3 of 16 of the Final Shadow Woods originally approved in December 2006 and then re-approved in February 2010.
After the fact project infrastructure results in 11,315 sf square feet of wetland fills. No additional filling or alteration of wetlands on individual lots shall be done without the appropriate state or local approvals.
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.
All conditions of approval from the June and amended December 2006 Shadow Woods Subdivision approval are still in effect.
Zach said that it looks like the 5 lot Subdivision on Middle Jam Road is coming to the Board and asked if the Board would like to do a site walk. It was scheduled on October 21, 2019 at 4:45pm.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:32pm.