Print
Share page with AddThis

Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Meeting date: 
Monday, March 4, 2024

                                                Standish Planning Board

                                                        Meeting Minutes

                                                        March 04, 2024

 

 

The meeting of the Standish Planning Board was called to order by Chairman Charles Brown at 6:00pm. Present were Derek Wright, Deb Boxer, Patrick Gere, Andrew Walton, Carolyn Biegel, Town Planner Scott Hastings and Jackie Dyer, Admin. to Town Planner and the Planning Board. Absent was Frank Nappi.

 

Open Meeting

           a.        Call to order by Chairman Brown

           b.       Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman Brown

           c.        Declaration of Quorum-6 members present.

Approval of Meeting Minutes from February 05, 2024

Mr. Walton made a motion seconded by Mr. Wright to approve the minutes as written, with one minor revision. All in favor with Mrs. Boxer abstaining.

Finding of Fact:

  • Bernard & Brenda Lovering, 2 Glidden Road, Map 52, Lot 11A-Shoreland Zoning Application to demolish existing home and build new home.

Mr. Brown made a motion seconded by Mr. Walton to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor with Mrs. Boxer abstaining.

  • Woods Aggregates, LLC, 249 Middle Road, Map 9, Lot 24-Blasting Application

Mr. Wright made a motion seconded by Mr. Walton to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor with Mrs. Boxer abstaining.

Old Business:

  • PATCO Construction, 25 Ossipee Trl E, Map 36, Lot 34-Site Plan Application to build a 7500 square foot building for NAPA Auto Parts

 Greg Patterson from PATCO and Kaleb Bourassa from Gorrill Palmer, Project Manager, were present. Kaleb said that they were here to show the Board what changes they had made and handed some materials out to the Board members. He said the sheets he passed out showing each building plan over the last 4 meetings and the last two sheets are what they have come up with and what the Board can choose from. He said the Town Attorney had come back with the opinion that this is in fact retail use and not wholesale, as had been discussed at the last meeting. He said the first pages of the handouts are of what has been submitted and discussed in the past. He said they are going for the colonial look design and have done many changes such as roof line, windows, dormers, barn doors and other architectural elements.

Kaleb said in the last meeting in September 2023, they had discussed using Port City for an architectural review and they have changed the pitch of the roof, gone with vinyl siding that looks like cedar, added more architectural elements to break up the roof and focused on the main entrance.  He said they are proposing two buildings now for the Board to decide and they like building option #1 over #2. He said there were a lot of things that came up in the architectural review like trim, columns being used, roof lines, fenestrations, etc. He said they have removed some of the things brought up by the review and looking at previous plans. He said they showed the sidewalk being moved up and approaching the building, screening for the abutting property and the road. He said on the newer plans they have added a retaining wall to the lower side of the building that can be masked with some shrubs and plantings.

Kaleb said they are showing the level spreader on the new plan, and he is more than happy to bring the storm drain out further. He said they have been more than happy to address all the Boards concerns and are hoping for final approval tonight. He said the Board would need to decide between the 2 options. Mr. Hastings said they have done a lot of the details that the Board asked for and the architectural review was done as requested. He said he doesn’t have any responses for what was given to the Board tonight. He said they sought legal opinion from the Town Attorney about if this is wholesale or retail and the legal opinion and that of the Code Officer is this is retail. He said the only other significant change is the change of the ownership of the property. Mr. Hastings said the ice cream/candy shop will be on its own parcel and the other building goes with this piece. He said this will be on an 18,000 square foot lot and it’s up to the Code Enforcement Officer to give final approval of the lot size as it’s under 20,000 square feet. He said under state law, commercial use can be placed there.

Mr. Brown asked about the school or former Town Office and Mr. Bourassa said that would remain and is part of the site plan. Mrs. Boxer asked about the antique store and what would they do with that? Mr. Bourassa said the new owner will keep what was the ice cream shop/old fire barn. Mrs. Boxer asked about a connection from one lot to the other and he said that it’s all paved right now, and they can keep it open or close it down. Mr. Brown said that connectivity is what is required by the ordinance between the lots. Mr. Bourassa said there is nothing much for changes to the lot other than the lot size. He said they are focused on providing and reestablishing their curb cut and rebuilding it. Mr. Bourassa said they could extend the driveway if required. Mrs. Biegel said that in the past when they had a peer review, they were given everything in the packet. She asked about the new material presented tonight and Mr. Brown said that Mr. Hastings had said he did not have time to go over it. Mrs. Biegel said that back in September, they had asked for certain items on the plan and were told it would be there and isn’t. She said they asked for a landscaping plan and there is none. She said it would have been nice to have this extra information so to look at it and prepare for the meeting. Mr. Bourassa said that they had gone thru many iterations for landscaping, but they were focusing more on the building itself and how they could improve it. He said they would like to come to some agreement in a condition of approval in what they would need for plantings and buffering. He said the Ordinance does not require a stamped plan for landscaping. He said they would be more than happy to provide that. Mrs. Biegel said two months ago they had been told they would have it and now they are asking for approval without anything. Mr. Patterson said that they had lost control of the lot as it had changed ownership, and they were trying to get things back as the new owner wanted a quick decision.

Mr. Patterson said that he feels all of what they have submitted now is what the Board has asked for and he has listened to what the Board has said. Mr. Gere asked about the candy shop and is the septic system going to be impacted? Mr. Bourassa said the existing septic is now located under the parking lot and the new septic would be rerouted to accommodate the new building. Mr. Brown said if they use an algin system, it could handle 15 employees. Mr. Patterson said the former owner will remain there until June. He said they would like to paint the building and fix it up to look nice.

Mrs. Boxer said she likes the building #1 option best. Mr. Patterson said the architect addressed all the issues. Mark from Port City Architecture said that they addressed the peer review and said that they did the two drawings. He said sheet A1 has incorporated changes the peer review asked for like no corporate colors associated with NAPA as that constitutes signage, the trim will not be vinyl but hardy plank, the trim piece under the eaves will be hardy plank as well and will be a 1x6, the corner boards are a bit larger because of the size of the building, they added a window on the east elevation as asked for. He said they added windows to the center as seen in the plan. They provided a floor plan to the extent that they can, and the rest of the floor plan will be up to the tenant where they place their front desk, shelving, etc. He said this is just the interior and they can’t really provide the tenants floor plan. He said the pilasters are at each entry on the front and are a bit reduced in size on the rear.

There is visible light coming thru the windows and no tinted glass. Mark said the two doors are solid panel doors and are not glass. The entrance canopies are on the store front, one on rear and one on the back that will not be jutted out an additional 2 feet as they are decorative canopies. He said they want the snow to slide off and not build up, they will remain at the 16” coming out. The stone base will stay on the foundation as it breaks up the façade of this. He said there are two peer review comments that are not minor comments, and this is why they went to Option #2. The second change was the amount of fenestration on the front and sides. He said per the code the minimum fenestration is 30% so they have added more windows and the elevations have been changed to code as well to the 30% minimum. The increased fenestration as far as the windows go looks better. Mark said there were some here and there and that just didn’t look right.

He said they have their preferred plan and plan 2. Mr. Walton asked about a second story and would the windows be more distributed. Mark said you could put more windows on the second story, but they have the gables to break up the roof line and no second story.

Mrs. Biegel said the windows are a requirement and 30% is the lowest amount, which she said is good to be able to see inside. She said that the previous owner of the fire barn needed new doors and she put in ceiling to floor glass. She said that at a hair salon down the street, they put in large new windows, and she said they did this to draw people in. She said when she looks at the added windows, she is very pleased, and the bump out looks great. She said she likes the A2 plan and is pleased with how it looks. Mark said there were references in the code to New England and Colonial styles with a 30% fenestration requirement. Mrs. Biegel said that the code calls for windows so people can see into the businesses. She said the Board is working for the Code. Mrs. Boxer said she likes the first plan better than the second one.

Mrs. Biegel asked about vinyl siding and is there any? Mark said no and there would be something more like cedar or hard plank which is more like wood. Mr. Brown said some products are textured and look more like wood, but they are composite. Mr. Brown asked the Board what plan they liked the best moving forward and the Board said they like A2. Mrs. Boxer asked about the awning and Mr. Brown said the roof doesn’t dump on any of the awnings. Mrs. Beigel said the Board should follow the peer review that was done. Mark said the pitches of the roofs will not be dumping any water or snow on anyone and the canopies are more decorative than anything else. Mrs. Biegel said the peer review had a concern about an overhang over the doorways. She asked what the roof material for the canopies would be and Mark said they would be metal. Mr. Brown said he thought it was all shingles. Mrs. Boxer said that things should match. Mrs. Biegel said that the Dollar Store is a very cheap-looking store with the canopies they have. Mrs. Biegel said all of the roofs should be shingles, Mark said the metal is lower maintenance and looks better. Greg Patterson said that all the buildings being built have metal roofs. He said this is a good standard for a metal building and gives more detail.

Greg Patterson said that he is very surprised that the Board will accept this building as he felt it might be too much with all the changes made. He said he feels it doesn’t look colonial. Mrs. Biegel said the shape of the building he has chosen, with the changes made, make this a much more workable solution. Mark said that he thinks it maintains the character and will last for a long time. Mr. Brown asked about the windows in the gable ends and Mark said they will be boxed in to make the light go downwards. Mrs. Biegel said one plan had lights on the front of the building and looked like industrial lights. Mr. Patterson said they can add colonial lights but per the ordinance, the lights need to shine down. He said they can do gooseneck lights and those will shine down instead of out. Mr. Patterson said he can submit whatever the Board wants. Mrs. Biegel said she would like to see the final plan. She said they just brought this final plan forward tonight and the Board hasn’t had much chance to look it over.

Mr. Brown said he feels that the Board is coming up with what they can approve and what they want. Mr. Patterson said he will do what they want. Mr. Brown asked if waivers can be granted, and Mr. Hastings said that the Board can grant waivers if that’s what they want. Mrs. Biegel said that the MMA hounded into Planning Board members that they can’t change what they want in changing standards. She said the Board does not have the power to modify standards. Mr. Hastings told Mrs. Biegel in this case they do have the power as that is how the ordinance is written. He said if the ordinance was written differently, they would not be able to change anything. Mr. Wright said that they do have the jurisdiction to modify things and this falls within the Boards decisions. The hearing was open to the public:

Anthony Folsom- said that he was glad they talked about the septic system and Mr. Patterson said the old Town Office will feed into the new system. He said the rock wall can be seen and will it be removed or moved in any way. Kaleb Bourassa said they are not going to disturb the rock wall in any way and if they must move anything, it will be reset where it was. He asked about the tree line behind the building and how many trees they are planning on removing. He talked about the driveway, said it wasn’t very wide, what would they do about this, as it’s not wide enough for big trucks. He said if that isn’t expanded, he doesn’t see trucks getting in there.

Eleanor Dudek- says this is in her back yard. She said she would like to see a fence there for her privacy and blocking the lights from the trucks when they come in to deliver. She said when they empty the dumpster at Dunkin Donuts she can hear it from her house. She said there was a fence by the furniture store, but no one is taking care of it. She said they like their privacy and just having the lights from vehicles blocked would be a good thing and appreciated by the neighbors as well as she and her husband.

Mrs. Boxer asked if they could see this site from the back of the house and Mrs. Dudek said they can see it very clearly. Mrs. Dudek said there are a lot of residences in that area. Maurie Hill said she wants to know who owns the other property that this was part of. She was told William Lenihan, and he will keep the old fire barn. Pam Thomas asked if this plan had a survey done as to how much business they will do. Mr. Patterson said in his experience they do a feasibility study, but he has nothing to do with that part of it. He said he is contacted when they want something built. The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Brown said do we have enough information that we can consider the application and Mrs. Biegel said no, the landscape plan had still not been addressed. Mr. Brown said we have a landscape plan and Mrs. Biegel said it does not meet the code. She said nothing is included in the plan and Mr. Hastings said this does not apply to the form-based code. She said there are mixed messages. Mr. Hastings said that the part of the code she is referring to does not apply to this application. Mrs. Biegel said she thought it was village center but there is still a problem with what landscaping they have on the plan. She said if a professional landscaper was used, there would not be this problem. She said you do not have a civil engineer doing a survey, there are professional surveyors that do this. She said they were told in September that they would have the landscape plan and now several months later, they still do not have it. She said she heard Mr. Patterson say that several things happened, but the lot has not changed. Mrs. Biegel said she has never heard of a landscape plan being a condition of approval for anything. Kaleb Bourassa said there were some circumstances at the November meeting they didn’t have it. He said they have put a lot of screenings and things on the plan, and they left the meeting with the understanding that the Board was comfortable adding it as a condition of approval and could work on it a bit more. He said this was not strictly required by the code but were not able to provide this right now. Kaleb said they thought they had accomplished a lot of this with trees and different shrubs.

Mr. Patterson said he has been building for over 35 years. He said when a Planner tells him he needs this and needs that then they provide it. He said they have answered everything asked for and things like the elevations. He said they met the ordinance, and he does not want an ugly looking building and believes he has proved that to the Board. He said the Planner has laid it all out and they are not asking for anything that isn’t part of the ordinance. Mrs. Boxer asked if they could put up a fence for the neighbors and Mr. Patterson said they absolutely could when they have figured out where the lights will be. He said this elevation has too many windows and that’s his opinion. Mrs. Biegel said none of the border trees are listed on the plan. Kaleb said they put them there as an added improvement, but they can supplement for what is needed, move it or add to it. Mr. Gere said a landscape architect can put different trees in, but it is really what is available in the nursery. Mr. Wright said he thinks that a landscape architect is not required.

Mrs. Biegel said there hasn’t been a vote on the parking lot and the added spaces. Mr. Brown and Mr. Walton said they will get to this when they go through each item. Mr. Brown said that now the old Town Hall is added to this plan, that changes things and the number they show is correct. Mr. Brown said the width of the road has been changed to around 24 feet instead of the existing 16. Mrs. Biegel asked about the sidewalk and Kaleb said there is no sidewalk to connect to. He said they tried to design it like Dunkin Donuts sidewalk, and they can extend it as far as the Board wants them to. Mrs. Biegel said its an obstacle if it isn’t extended all the way to the end of the property, and this was pointed out back in September. She said she is not comfortable with Mr. Hastings making all these decisions and what they have been told has not been done. Kaleb said this sidewalk is in the public right of way and connects to nowhere. Greg Patterson said the sidewalk to nowhere is a waste of money and why can’t they put a little money aside for something else. Mr. Hastings said this is not on the property at all. He said it is on Town property.

Mrs. Biegel said she doesn’t understand why we would expect an abutter to build a sidewalk to the edge of the property. Mr. Brown said the Board needs to give the applicant guidance as to what to do. Mrs. Boxer said a condition can be made to extend the sidewalk to both ends of the property line between the two driveways. A motion was made to find the application complete as presented for review purposes by Mr. Gere and seconded by Mr. Brown. Mrs. Biegel said we came here tonight and did not have a final architectural plan and no landscape plan, so how can the Board vote to find it complete. Mr. Brown told her she can vote the way she wants to, and she said she would. All in favor with Mrs. Biegel voting no. Mr. Brown said nothing is needed pertaining use as that has been done through the Town Attorney, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planner. Mr. Hastings asked what the Board wants to do: final approval or what. Mr. Patterson said that he would like to poll the rest of the Board and Mrs. Biegel talking about the landscape plan is personal desire by her. Mrs. Biegel said she is only one vote. Mr. Gere asked how many times they have been before the Board and Mr. Patterson said 5 times. Mr. Walton said everything needed should be gone through. Mr. Brown read the following:

The building form standards are as follows:

[2] The style of a building shall be consistent throughout a single development. There are numerous 19th Century buildings in Standish that provide inspiration for the design of a building that is consistent with the Colonial New England character of the Village.

“Move that the Board find that the proposed building submitted by Gorrill Palmer on behalf of PATCO Construction for a portion of the property identified as Map 36-34 meets the intentions of the Standish Corner district, Town Main street frontage type and the building form standards of §181-7.1 B)(7)(c) with the following conditions”

  1. The building shall not be painted in a distinctive corporate color scheme.
  2. The window and door materials and the transparency of the windows shall be confirmed with the CEO prior to the issuance of building permits.
  3. Siding will be hardy plank.
  4. Canopy roofs will be shingled like the roof and not metal.
  5. The lights will be colonial style and approved by the Code Enforcement Officer

Mrs. Biegel said that she would like to know about the slope of the lot and Mr. Brown said they have put a small wall in front to cover the part of the foundation that was able to be seen. He said there is very little concrete that will be shown, and the landscaping will be in front of the wall, eliminating the exposure of the foundation. Mr. Brown said the wall is a five feet tall and 5 feet wide wall as drip edge. Mrs. Biegel said that they just don’t know what this will look like. Kaleb Bourassa said this wall would be an interlocking block retaining wall and something that is readily available material wise. Mrs. Biegel said she is not good at visualizing things like this and thinks that this is where a professional eye would be beneficial.

 Mr. Patterson said that she doesn’t trust that he will make a good-looking building by making suggestions that will make it look nice. He said he is trying to work with the Board and will do what is asked. She said she knows he is in a crunch for time, and she can’t picture some things, but she is trying. She said this building is the nicest one they have come forward with. Mr. Patterson said that all these conditions will be in writing and that holds his feet to the fire. Mr. Hastings said the CEO will look at all conditions and make sure they are following everything they were approved for. Mrs. Boxer asked if there would be plantings and Mrs. Biegel said the ones on the plan are not good choices. Mr. Patterson said she keeps trying to put words in his mouth and she said she is just saying what she feels is true. Kaleb said there are some plantings in front but not on the east side. He said they are looking for things that are more natural and will look nice. Kaleb said the wall and the landscaping will look good when they are finished. Mrs. Biegel said the abutter to her knowledge has not come to any meetings and she feels that the edge towards the abutter should be taken care of.

 Mr. Brown asked if the Board is good with the five items discussed and the Board agreed they are. A motion was made by Mr. Brown to find that the building meets the intentions of the SCD, town main street type frontage and building form standards of 181-7.1, this was seconded by Mr. Gere. All in favor

Mr. Hastings said that he proposed a condition for the size of the lot and having the Code Enforcement Officer approve it. He said if approval is granted tonight, a final plan will be brought in and signed at another meeting. He said they also must go over the shared parking as well. Mrs. Biegel said we need more clarification on that. Mr. Hastings told Mrs. Biegel the code recommends 9 spaces for the old Town Hall and there is no reduction for shared parking. He said there are 29 total spaces with what is there now, and this meets the requirements of the ordinance with both buildings together. Mr. Brown said there are 25 shown, so another 4 would need to be added. Mr. Brown said the final plan will show all the parking.

 A motion was made by Mr. Wright and seconded by Mr. Brown that the supplemental review has been met; Mr. Brown read the following:

“Move that the Board find that the proposed building submitted by Gorrill Palmer and Port City Architects on behalf of PATCO Construction for a portion of the property identified as Map 36-34 meets supplemental Planning Board review requirements of §181-7.1 B)(5)(a), §181-7.1 B)(5)(b), §181-7.1 B)(5)(c), and §181-7.1 B)(5)(e):

  1. Code Enforcement Officer approval is needed for the 15,000 square foot lot. The lot cannot be created with CEO review.(Lot 1 Former fire barn lot)
  2. The final updated plan needs to be brought in to be signed by the Planning Board.

The plan will not be signed until the approval for the lot is done by the Code Enforcement Officer.

  1. The shared parking must be shown on the final plan with the number of parking spaces. There are 10 spaces from the Old Town Hall and 15 spaces for the new building, part of this is the 4 additional spaces already there to be shown, totaling 29.

All in favor.

Mr. Brown said the site plan would not change if they decided to go with what’s on the plan, along with lights, landscaping and the sidewalk being extended. This would also include a fence along the back of the property to shield the abutter from any lights from vehicles.  Mr. Patterson said it would be a 6-foot fence.  Mrs. Biegel said that curb appeal is everything and she personally is very uncomfortable with the landscape plan, and that is what is holding her up on this application. Mr. Patterson said they will submit one and Mrs. Biegel said the Board will never see it. Mr. Brown said that it can be made as a condition of approval that the Board does see it. She said once it’s approved, it’s approved, and we are done. Mr. Gere said that would fall under Code Enforcement and Mrs. Biegel said that landscaping is not the Code Enforcement’s professional niche. She said this is on the street scape and a major visual attraction and feels this plan is being shortchanged and it doesn’t make sense to her, why wouldn’t we want to finish the project properly: she said that this should have been presented in the packets.

Mr. Patterson said he understands, and they have met the ordinance. He said they have done 60 projects like this and when he tells them he will do something, he will. He told Mrs. Biegel when he started this project, she wanted him to make this NAPA better than their ordinance. He said he feels he has done more than what he needs to be approved. Mr. Walton asked about the landscape plan and Mr. Brown said that they can make it a condition of approval. Mr. Hastings said the ordinance says a landscape plan will be provided, but what exactly are they asking for that will satisfy them? Mr. Hastings said this is the level of review that the Board has done in the past. Mr. Brown said everyone wants landscaping that will enhance the look of the building and the streetscape, plus landscaping that goes along the property lines to the residential abutters. Mrs. Biegel said there was a discussion some time ago about the trees out front. She said that she doesn’t want to accept this plan as what is on it isn’t what is included in the final plan. She said she is trying to protect the interest of the citizens of Standish. She said the Dollar Store has terrible landscaping in the front. Mr. Patterson said that he is following the ordinance. Mrs. Biegel said this is the first thing she has seen them come in with that follows the ordinance and she wanted to be clear on that.

Mrs. Biegel said this plan wasn’t even in their packets and here they are just talking about this tonight. Mr. Patterson said he does not want another meeting. Mr. Brown said he has a condition of approval (#9) that would be about the landscaping and putting a fence up. Mrs. Boxer told Mrs. Biegel that they do not have to put a fence in, did she understand that? She said they offered to do this but don’t have to. Mr. Hastings told Mrs. Biegel that there are some things on the plan that are to be determined and some elements of uncertainty have been removed. He said there is a plan and if it’s insufficient, they need to let the applicant know what is needed. The trees that are there by the stonewall will be left as is. Mr. Brown said they need to know what will be around the foundation for riprap. Mrs. Biegel asked about the stone wall and Mr. Patterson said the stone wall is not on this property. She said in the back there is absolutely nothing, but tar and Mr. Patterson said it’s in the back. Mrs. Biegel said you never see a parking lot all tar and they are being asked to agree to something that they don’t know what is there. Mrs. Boxer asked if she wanted the fence taken out of the plan. Mrs. Biegel said she doesn’t know the right solution to this, but she thinks for the Board to stipulate what needs to go there is not the solution. Mr. Wright said that if this is within ordinance and if the applicant is committing to things, that is a plus. He said it’s not on the street frontage and he doesn’t know what the alternative would be other than the fence to block the light. Mrs. Biegel said she is the only one that has issues with this, so let’s go ahead and vote. Mr. Brown said for the building skirt, would they want block or riprap. Mrs. Biegel said they need to hire a landscaper and let them figure it out rather than the Board. Mr. Brown said if the block were over 5 feet, they would have a safety issue. Mr. Patterson said they can hire a landscape architect and Mrs. Biegel said she would be on board with that. Mr. Hastings said there are some hard areas there and would like to give them some leeway on things.

Mr. Wright said his wife does landscaping and said that concrete does look nice with veneer. Mr. Patterson said either one would work and just tell him what the Board wants. He said stone around the foundation would work for him or natural stone. Mr. Brown said for the retaining wall, it could be added to the conditions of approval that it look like natural stone. Mrs. Biegel said she can’t be quiet about this. Mrs. Boxer asked if the sidewalk was in the condition of approval as being between the two driveways and being extended to the easterly boundary of the property. Mrs. Biegel said some of the things being brought up do not matter like the dumpsters and little details that are minor but would make a big difference esthetically.  Mr. Brown asked if the Board wants to move forward to the final approval and read the following:

“Move that the Board grant approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the site plan application submitted by Gorrill Palmer on behalf of PATCO Construction for a portion of the property identified as Map 36-34 in Standish, having found it to meet the site plan review criteria of §181-73, the performance standards of §181-7.1, and all other relevant standards of the zoning ordinance, with the following conditions:

V. CONDITIONS –

  1. All work shall be in conformance with materials and plan submitted by Gorrill Palmer which consists of a site plan and supporting application materials.
  2. Full septic design for lot 2 must be approved by the CEO prior to the issuance of any permits for this lot.
  3. Door and window materials and window transparency must be approved by the CEO prior to the issuance of any building permits.
  4. This approval shall lapse and become void unless the start of construction or operation as defined in §181-70.1.A is not started within three years from the original date of approval.
  5. 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.
  6. This approval is not final until such time as the board has signed the final site plan.  A lot size reduction permit must be issued by the CEO for lot 1 prior to the signing of the final plan.
  7. Shared parking to be shown on the site plan prior to the Planning Board signing the final plan.
  8. A landscape plan is to be prepared that will enhance the building and the street scape along the front of the building for buffering. For the abutting residence, a fence will be erected along the rear of the property to shield the residence from truck traffic and lights. Plantings will be placed along the existing sideline of the property that is adjoining the residence.
  9. A sidewalk will be added between the existing driveways and extended to the easterly boundary of the property.

      10.    The building will have a retaining wall with a natural stone appearance or a   sloped stone skirt along the easterly sides of the foundation.

Mr. Gere made a motion to approve the application seconded by Mr. Wright.

Six in favor with Mrs. Biegel voting no.

  • Leavitt Development, LLC (191 Ossipee Trail Self Storage) Map 10, Lot 11A-Site Plan Application for final approval for construction of 10 self-storage buildings

Griffin Wood, PE from Terradyn Consultants was present to represent Brian Leavitt. He gave a brief presentation of what they have done already and where this is located. He said they are here tonight to seek final approval of this project. Griffin said that they have the DEP approval and are ready to move forward with construction of the self-storage units. He said there will be some climate-controlled self-storage for some of the units. They have provided a landscape plan with natural plantings, trees and vegetations to provide a natural buffer where needed.

Griffin said that almost all the buildings will be shielded with natural buffers, they have stormwater run off systems in place and they have been approved by the DEP. He said in the DEP permitting process, nothing had really changed since they were here before. He said they will use the access drive off from Rt.25 onto Kayli Drive. The first access they were going to use will be left alone as the abutter has an easement over it. That will be revegetated and grassed over.

Mr. Hastings said the only things the Board was concerned about were DEP approval and the abutter’s access. He said the existing building has a sprinkler already but is not functioning. Brian Leavitt said they would be connecting to the water main tomorrow and the water district would be coming to run it and clean out the system. He said the abutters applied to DOT for their own entrance and he was told they had their permit from them to have their own access.  He said they are using it now; this is the shared driveway they are using for both businesses.

Mr. Brown said he read the DEP approval and there is nothing that really stands out. He said all of the wildlife issues are worked out, as well as the sprinkler and the entrance. Mr. Hastings said the sprinkler system will be resolved before the Finding of Fact is signed, they have the landscaping plan as asked for. Mrs. Boxer asked about replanting trees as some die and do they have to be retold about planting if this happens. Griffin said he assumes they will be upkept and maintained as needed. Mr. Hastings said in the notes there is usually something about the trees or plantings for the first couple of years. Griffin said this is standard maintenance and a buffer.

Mr. Brown said there is really nothing for concerns. Mrs. Boxer asked about the roofs and Griffin said they have a slight pitch to them. Mr. Brown said he thinks the roofs have a one-foot drop. Mrs. Biegel asked about the first building by the road and was it just a blank wall. Mr. Leavitt said it is and there is a door and a window where the office will be. Mr. Leavitt said that solar panels will be on the roof. Mr. Brown read the following:

“I move to the find the application for 191 Ossipee Trail West, Map 10 Lot 11A to be complete as presented.”

Mr. Walton made a motion to find the application complete seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor.

Mr. Brown read the following:

“Move that the Board grant final approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the site plan application submitted by Terradyn Consultants on behalf of Leavitt Earthworks for the property at 191 Ossipee Trail West in Standish (Map 10 Lot 11A), having found it to meet the site plan review criteria of §181-73, the performance standards of §181-7.1, and all other relevant standards of the zoning ordinance to the greatest extent practical, with the following conditions:

V. CONDITIONS –

  1. All work shall be in conformance with materials and plan submitted by Terradyn Consultants LLC which consists of a site plan and supporting application materials.
  2. 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. The existing building on site must have a functional automatic sprinkler system installed, tested, and approved by the State Fire Marshals office prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project.
  2. This approval shall lapse and become void unless the start of construction or operation as defined in §181-70.1. A is not started within three years from the original date of approval.

Mr. Brown made a motion to approve the application seconded by Mr. Gere. All in favor.

New Business:

  • Jared & Rebecca Marcinuk, 43 Leisure Point, Map 20, Lot 23A- Shoreland Zoning Application to build a permanent dock.

Michael Slonik from Archipelago in Portland was present to represent the applicants. He said the existing dock there now is a permanent dock and has been there for over 20 years. He said it is in poor condition and in need of repairs. He said the replacement would be in the same footprint, using similar materials and reduces the impact to the lake. He said there would be 12 timbers and horizontal anchors for support and stability. He said they are reducing the impact to the lake by 70%. Michael said they need Army Corp permit, and the DEP has already issued their permit by rule. He said this is just a reconstruction and in the same footprint.

Mr. Wright said they would be taking something dilapidated and replacing it with a new structure. Mr. Hastings said this has been there since before 1986. He said they have gone through all permitting and is a huge improvement, has DEP approval and have given the Army Corp a chance to chime in, but haven’t heard anything. Mr. Gere asked how the anchors are put in and Mr. Slonik said they have a drill to place them. He said it’s a very old-fashioned way to build with concrete cribs and almost like a log cabin style. Mr. Gere asked if they used some sort of barge to build this and Mr. Slonik said he believes they do. Mr. Hastings said they must use erosion and sedimentation control for this, and the biggest concern is the equipment coming in and out of the lake if they are not using a barge. Mr. Brown said when they dredge, they use a water sock.

Mr. Brown said it is very shallow in this area. A motion was made by Mrs. Biegel and seconded by Mr. Wright to find the application complete. All in favor.

Mr. Slonik said the Army Corp might never get back to them but if they do he will send a copy of it to the Town. Mr. Brown read the following:

“Move that the Board grant approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the application submitted by Michael Morse on behalf of Jared and Rebecca Marcinuk, for the reconstruction of a permanent dock at 43 Leisure Point Road in Standish. Having found the application to meet the requirements of §237-15, §237-16, and all other applicable sections of the Standish Code of Ordinances with the following conditions:

V. CONDITIONS –

“Move that the Board grant approval under the provisions of the Standish Land Use code for the application submitted by Michael Morse on behalf of Jared and Rebecca Marcinuk, for the reconstruction of a permanent dock at 43 Leisure Point Road in Standish. Having found the application to meet the requirements of §237-15, §237-16, and all other applicable sections of the Standish Code of Ordinances with the following conditions:

  1. All work shall be in conformance with materials and plans submitted by Michael Morse which consists of site plan, building elevations, and supporting application materials.
  2. This approval shall lapse and become void after one year if a substantial start is not made as laid out in §237-16.
  3. 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.
  4. Contractor to check with Code Enforcement Officer concerning erosion and sedimentation control prior to construction.
  5. If the applicant receives an Army Corp of Engineers permit, they will send a copy of that permit to the Town.

A motion was made by Mr. Gere and seconded by Mrs. Biegel to approve the application. All in favor.

Public Hearing:

  • 19-24 Amendments to the Standish Town Code, Chapter 146, Floodplain Management (Introduction)[Deakin]

Mr. Hastings said FEMA has gotten revised flood plain maps approved and will take effect this summer. They just want people to know what is being mandated by the Federal Government and what the changes are. He said they have been working on these maps for over 10 years. The maps can be seen at Town Hall.

Meeting adjourned at 9:40pm