Print
Share page with AddThis

Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Meeting date: 
Monday, February 1, 2021

Standish Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

February 01, 2021

 

 

The Standish Planning Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Charles Brown at 6:00pm. Mr. Brown welcomed new Planning Board member Erika Ewers. Present were Cheryl Kimball. Jolene Whittemore, Phil Pomerleau, Frank Nappi, Erika Ewers, Deb Boxer, Town Planner Zach Mosher, and Jackie Dyer, admin.to Town Planner and Planning Board.

 

Open Meeting

           a.        Call to order.

           b.       Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman

           c.        Declaration of a Quorum (7)

 

Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 02, 2020

 

Mrs. Whittemore made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nappi, to approve the meeting minutes as written. All in favor.

 

Approval of Finding of Fact:

 

  • Grondin Aggregates, LLC, Middle Road- Map 9, Lots 15 and 28-Site Plan Application for gravel pit expansion to already approved and working gravel pit.

 

Mrs. Boxer made a motion to approve the Finding of Fact, seconded by Mr. Nappi. All in favor. Mrs. Boxer asked about adding something to the Finding of Fact and Mr. Brown told her that you cannot just add something to it. Mr. Brown and Mr. Mosher said that it had to be stipulated in the previous meeting along with the Conditions of Approval.

 

New Business:

 

  • Lynn Larsen 698 Whites Bridge Road, Map 58, Lot 11-Shoreland Zoning Application to demolish and rebuild a single-family dwelling.

 

Sean Pierce from Northern Survey Engineering was present to represent the applicant, Lynn Larsen. Also present was Ms. Larsen and her builder. Mr. Pierce gave an overview of the project and what they would like to do. Sean said they would tear the existing house down and build a new one with an expansion with an additional 644 square feet. Sean said that the existing leach field restricts them from moving the building back any further than it is. He said he feels the soil impact with this project will be very minimal. He said they have submitted a new septic design and might need a permit by rule. Sean said he has also submitted an erosion and sedimentation control plan.

 

Sean said there are several structures on the property that are being removed. They are also removing a deck along with a shed and a lean to. There is also a dormer area which will be removed. Sean said even though they are creating more square footage, but there will be less impervious area on the site. He said he tried to make the shoreland calculations on the plan and hope they are correct as in how he arrived at them.

 

Mrs. Boxer asked about the 20% coverage and why can’t they get down to it, she said it is a state law. She asked if they need a waiver and Sean told her they have reduced it and are under it, where they are removing the lean to and the shed. Mrs. Whittemore asked about the measurement on the new addition on the southerly side. Sean said it is 14 feet and 4 inches, going away from the water. Sean said there are a couple of jogs or jet outs in the building. Mrs. Whittemore said she is looking at the whole 14 feet 4 inches and said there is nothing there today and adding something would be bringing it closer to the water. Sean said the closest point to the water would be at the peak of the house as the shoreline wraps around the sides and this would not be closer to the water at all.

 

Sean said the new addition would be more conforming than it is today. He said they are expanding away from the water, not towards it. Sean said they are coming away from the setback. He said the entire property is within the shoreland zone. He said it is within the allowable expansion within that zone. Mr. Mosher said the explosion is a lateral expansion and does not increase the nonconformity of the structure and is allowed. The height is 24feet and the garage is limited to that as well. Mr. Mosher said the garage will be attached.

 

Mr. Brown asked about the driveway and was it going to be relatively level. He asked about the grade and the timber retaining wall. Mr. Pierce said the retaining wall was going to be replaced and there is a cross section for the leach field. Mr. Brown said Bud Harris added an insulation board to the HHE200 and he asked if the grade was going to be as smooth as it looked and coming right into the garage on an even grade? Charlie said the current contour is at 278 ½ and said the retaining wall may have to disappear. Sean said they feel they have enough swing to improve the driveway, maybe with a little shoulder because of the leach field. Charlie said it looks like the new chambers are coming in two feet above grade. Sean said its not a typical driveway nor garage and will be more of a storage for the lake stuff and such. Sean said that it probably should not have been labeled a driveway but an access.

 

There were no public comments. Mr. Mosher asked if Mr. Brown would read through the conditions so the applicant is aware of them. Mr. Brown asked if the application was complete and is there a motion. The motion to find the application complete was made by Mr. Pomerleau and seconded by Mrs. Kimball. All in favor.

 

Mr. Brown said that Mr. Mosher made a comment and read the following:

(This is a proposed tear down and rebuild nearly completely within 75 ft of the high-water mark of Sebago Lake. The Board should consider relocation prior to expansion. The Board has used only the items listed in 237-12C (2) above to determine if the building is setback to the maximum practical extent.)

Mr. Brown said they were talking about this earlier and with his perspective, he feels that the proposal before the Board, would have the least impact on any soil disturbance and erosion. Mr. Brown asked the Board if he should read through the permit process and Mrs. Boxer said through the Conditions of Approval.

IV. PLANNING BOARD VOTE – If the Planning Board finds the application for a tear down and rebuild of residence and garage located at 36 Great Bay Rd within the Shoreland Zoning district and meets the requirements of 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 Sean Pierce of Northern Survey Engineering, on behalf of Lynn Larsen, for the tear down and rebuild of the residence at 698 Whites Bridge Rd with the finding that it meets:

  1. The application meets the requirements in Sec 237-12, 237-15 and Sec 237-16 of the Standish Code of Ordinances.

 

V. Conditions of Approval:

  1. All work shall be in conformance with materials and plans submitted by Sean Pierce of Northern Survey Engineering which consists of 1 plan titled Existing Conditions Survey & Site Plan and is revised through 1/25/2021. 

 

  1. This approval shall lapse and become void unless the start of construction or operation as defined in Sec. 237-16, subsection F which reads: “Permits shall expire one year from the date of issuance if a substantial start is not made in construction or in the use of the property during that period. If a substantial start is made within one year of the issuance of the permit, the applicant shall have one additional year to complete the project, at which time the permit shall expire.”

 

  1. The following plans and calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Code Enforcement Officer before permits are issued:
    1. Structure expansion is permitted per § 237-12 C. (1) (a), reconstruction.
    2. Maximum percent impervious lot coverage not to exceed existing per standards found in § 237-15 B. (4).
    3. Erosion & sediment control plan per standards found in § 237-15 Q.
    4. Clearing and a re-vegetation plan (include plantings on the lake side of the property) per § 237-15 P. (2) (a)

 

  1. Any exposed ground area shall be temporarily or permanently stabilized within one (1) week from the time it was last actively worked, by use of riprap, sod, seed, an mulch, or other effective measures and permanent stabilization will occur within nine (9) months of the initial date of exposure. Erosion of soil and sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies will be minimized by employing "best management" practices.

 

  1. Per standards found in 237-12 C (1) b the Planning Board approval of this site plan is limited to structure setbacks to the maximum practical extent. Existing structure, with scaled setback from apparent normal high-water line of approx. 15.4 ft, to be demolished and a replacement structure with proposed structure scaled setback of approx. 17.4 ft and built on the existing foundation.

 

  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 or applicant’s agent (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.

 

  1. Trees removed in order to complete additions/renovations of a structure must be replanted with at least one native tree, three feet in height, for every tree removed. If more than five trees are planted, no one species of tree shall make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. Replaced trees must be planted no further from the water or wetland than the trees that were removed. Other woody and herbaceous vegetation, and ground cover, that is removed or destroyed in order to complete work must be reestablished.

 

Ms. Larsen asked if they could remove invasive species of vegetation. Mrs. Boxer said that maybe the lady from Portland Water District could help her out with this. Mr. Mosher told Ms. Larsen that he would give her contact information for Kirsten Ness from the Water District. Mrs. Boxer asked her about removing things and Mrs. Dyer told them, it would be up to the Water District as they are strict on what can be removed and what can’t and also planting different species. The applicant also asked about removing trees and Mrs. Dyer told them they needed permission from the Code Enforcement Officer. If it is permitted, she said they could not remove the stumps and roots but grind the stumps.

 

Mrs. Boxer asked the applicant that when they start to excavate, could she be there? She said she works for a university with an archeologist doing some archaeological excavations and if they found anything, she could scoop it up and leave it undisturbed. The builder said he had no issues, and the applicant said that she was okay with it.

Mr. Brown made the motion to grant approval and this was seconded by Mrs. Boxer. All in favor.

Meeting was adjourned at 6:35pm.