Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Standish Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 01, 2024
The meeting of the Standish Planning Board was called to order by Chairman Charles Brown at 6:00pm. Present were Frank Nappi, Patrick Gere, Carolyn Biegel, Town Planner Scott Hastings and Jackie Dyer, Admin. to Town Planner and Planning Board. Absent were Deb Boxer, Andrew Walton, and Derek Wright
Open Meeting
a. Call to order. (Chairman Brown)
b. Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman Brown
c. Declaration of a Quorum (4)
Finding of Fact:
- PATCO Construction, 25 Ossipee Trl E, Map 36, Lot 34-Site Plan Application to build a 7500 square foot building for NAPA Auto Parts
Mrs. Biegel said that she is really struggling because the Board has not seen a plan that reviewed the peer review and put everything into context. She said that we have these conditions, but do not know how it will come together. She said if we approve the Finding of Fact with not all the information, she finds this premature. Mr. Brown said that the Finding of Fact must be approved. Mr. Hastings said that the Finding of Fact is just the document showing what the Board approved for conditions. He said the vote has happened on the project and cannot be changed. Mr. Brown said if anything is to be changed after this, they would have to come back before the Board. Mrs. Biegel said that the process is out of context and the Board approving something that isn’t there yet, it might be in the best interest of the developer but not in the best interest of Standish. She said she feels this is a dereliction of the Boards duty to approve sight unseen when there are so many questions. She said she will not vote to approve the Finding of Fact and her signature will not be on any signed plan.
Mr. Brown said she voted against the project anyway and she said she did. Mr. Gere said he is comfortable with the Findings, and they were here for five meetings. He said they had a sight walk, they revised their drawings four times, and he feels that the application met the ordinance requirements, and no waivers were granted. He said that he doesn’t see how they can deny an application that meets everything. Mrs. Biegel said they have not seen a final plan to know what is on there. She said if they hadn’t asked at the last minute about the siding, they would have done something different. She said she finds it very frightening that just because someone comes before the Board a certain number of times does not mean that adequate progress is made every time. She said they asked for a landscaping plan and were told yes it would be provided, they asked for a plan to see how the sidewalk would match up and were told yes, yet none of this has been done and the Board has yet to see what it is on a plan. She said at the last meeting she expected to see a 3-D simulation of the building, how it sits with the slope of the property with the exposed foundation. She said she heard this at a meeting, and she went back to the video to make sure. She said she feels we do not have a plan we reviewed. She said she finds this to be outrageous at all levels.
Mr. Brown made a notion seconded by Mr. Nappi to approve the Finding of Fact as written. All in favor with Mrs. Biegel voting against. (3-1)
- 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
Mr. Brown asked if the Fire Suppression system is functioning, and Mr. Hastings said he was not sure. Mrs. Biegel asked if they could just go ahead and cut trees and Mr. Hastings said that they have the right to cut trees anytime. Mrs. Beigel made the motion seconded by Mr. Gere to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
- Jared & Rebecca Marcinuk, 43 Leisure Point, Map 20, Lot 23A- Shoreland Zoning Application to build a permanent dock.
Mrs. Biegel made a motion to approve the Finding of Fact seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor.
New Business:
- Kristi Dearborn 113 Whites Point Road, Map 57, Lot 27-Shoreland Zoning Application to demolish existing dwelling and construct a single-family home.
Dustin Roma from DM Roma Consulting Engineers was present to represent the applicant. He said they had done a site walk and were here to seek approval for this project. He said the property has an existing cottage and they are looking to demolish this and build a new one. The septic system is existing and functioning and they are on public water, so there is no active well. He said there was a septic tank in the rear that pumps up into the system. He said they can relocate the tank.
Dustin said that there is a 12-foot area located in the front of the property that will be completely revegetated and the new structure would be set back approximately 12 feet. He said there was an area on the plan a second patio going along the entire frontage of the property, and they have pulled that back in the newer plan. He said it’s a square shaped patio in the front, with the rest of it being revegetated. He said they will be going up in height with the elevation with the building be moved back. He said the height will be about 5 feet taller on the front and the other part being at 25 feet.
He said during the site walk they had located a couple of trees that need to be removed with a replanting plan to be submitted. He said there is also a tree over the side of the property that should come down as well as part of the project.
Mr. Roma said no real changes are proposed with the buffer vegetation, the stone wall or anything else. He said he feels they have covered the project and are pulling it back 12 feet from where it currently sits. Mr. Hastings said that he feels they have covered everything with the reduction of the impervious area. He said all the numbers are good and a notable improvement. He said the Board can add a condition about replanting the trees. Mr. Brown said one of the trees, a hemlock, looks to be outside of the hundred-foot setback and doesn’t appear to be healthy. He said there is a paved driveway intact, they intend to leave that intact and add some buffering.
Mrs. Biegel asked if the septic was being relocated and Mr. Roma said they were moving the tank. Mr. Brown said they are gaining 12 feet of frontage by moving this back and everything else seems to be in conformance. Mr. Brown said they have an erosion control plan in place. He said he feels the Board has everything that is needed. He asked if there is a crawl space under it and Mr. Roma said it is. Mrs. Biegel asked about the flood plain and should it be a concern. Mr. Brown said it needs to be one foot above the flood plain and they have met that as it runs just under the retaining wall by the water. The revised plan reflects all the numbers the Board needs. Mr. Brown said the application should be deemed complete and read the following:
“I move to find the application for the reconstruction of a legally non-conforming home at 113 Whites Point Road to be complete.”
A motion was made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mrs. Biegel to find the application complete. All in favor.
Mrs. Biegel said there is a lot of room, and she knows they are putting the tank back further, but how much is enough to go back. She said she has no problem with it and Mr. Brown said we need to analyze it and look at it. Mr. Roma said if the lot was bigger, then it would be different and there are several things you have to look at to move the building back further. He said this is a 50-foot-wide lot and very tight.
Mr. Brown read the following:
§237-16 D. Shoreland Review Criteria.
Shoreland application review criteria are found in §237-16 D.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 healthy conditions; (With the conditions of approval listed below, no issue.)
(b) Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters; (Proper erosion control measures are proposed.)
(c) Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater; (We have not been provided with any information on the septic but it is my understanding that the existing system will be retained and that it is adequately sized.)
(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; (This point is met.)
(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 (The structure is not in a flood plain).
(h) Is in conformance with the provisions of § 237-15, Land use standards. (The proposal is legally non-conforming as covered above. The current proposal shows 120sqft more structure footprint within 100’ than is allowed. A minor adjustment in the area of the patio could fix this.
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 DM Roma Consulting Engineers, on behalf of Kristi Dearborn, for the removal and replacement of a legally non-conforming home at 113 Whites Point Road in Standish. Having found the application to meet the requirements of §237-12, §237-15, §237-16, and all other applicable sections of the Standish Code of Ordinances with the following conditions:
V. CONDITIONS –
- All work shall be in conformance with materials and plans submitted by DM Roma Consulting Engineers which consists of site plans, building elevations, and supporting application materials.
- This approval shall lapse and become void in one year as laid out in §237-16 F.
- 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. The new structure’s location represents a practical relocation as allowed under the ordinance.
- 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.
- Any trees that need to be replanted will have to be approved by the Code Enforcement Officer prior to any building permits being issued.
A motion was made by Mr. Nappi and seconded by Mr. Brown to approve the application. All in favor.
- Hannah Gaudreau,149 Chicopee Road, Map 6, Lot 104-1-Site Plan Application for an in-home daycare (Country Kids Day School)
Hannah Gaudreau was present to represent herself. She said that she would like to open in own in-home day care at her home. She said the daycare would be in the basement as half is finished and there is a bathroom in the basement. She said there is an attached doghouse to enter and exit the daycare on the left side. Mr. Nappi asked if there is a requirement for fire suppression in a daycare and Mr. Hastings said the State Fire Marshall will do an inspection. He said there are no local requirements for a sprinkler system. Mr. Hastings said this is just establishing an in-home day care and the lot is in conformance. He said the change of use on this property is not as detailed as the house is already there and no site work to be done.
Mr. Brown said there is an actual survey of the lot with the house drawn on it. Mr. Gere asked about the driveway and is there enough room for drop-off and pick up of the children. Hannah said the driveway is large enough with a paved section for parents to turn around in. Mr. Gere asked if they had public water and Hannah said they have a well and have had it tested. She said they have a generator and a snowplow to keep the driveway cleared. Mrs. Biegel asked if it is the responsibility of the Board to talk about the generator, clearing the driveway, etc. Mr. Hastings said it’s up to the Board to make sure the application meets the needs for a change of use. Mr. Brown said it’s unusual for the Board to review something like this and some things don’t match up.
Mr. Nappi said he doesn’t know much about daycares, and he feels there are other entities that do the inspections and oversee other things. Mr. Hastings said this must be reviewed just like any other application. Mr. Brown asked if DHHS comes out after approval and Hannah said they do after approval. She said the Fire Marshall also comes out and they tell you how many you can have by what square footage she has. She said she is a 7-1 ration and ages 2 and up. Mrs. Biegel asked what the hours would be, and Hannah said 7:00am-4:30pm. Mr. Gere asked about a kitchen and Hannah said she will prepare food with the children going upstairs with her or preparing before the day starts.
Mr. Hastings said a lot of the approval doesn’t apply to her day care. Mr. Brown read through the following:
§181-73 Site Plan Criteria
- Vehicular and pedestrian safety: The proposal will not create safety hazards or impose a burden upon public facilities.
- Impact of building and use: The proposal will not impose a significant burden on public facilities
- Landscaping and screening: No screening is required per the ordinance.
- Soil and drainage: The proposal involves minimal site work and existing conditions are stable.
- Exterior lighting: No new exterior lighting is proposed at this time.
- Financial capabilities: The applicant has already built the facility and is familiar with the operation of such facilities. There is minimal sitework proposed.
- Fire safety: The fire inspector has reviewed the plan and sees no issues. The facility will be inspected by the state fire marshal.
- Sewage disposal: The septic system is newly installed and sized with this use in mind.
- Character of the district: The proposal is in keeping with the character of the rural district.
- Water Supply: The property is served by a well.
- Applicant’s standing on previous approvals: The applicant is not in default on any previous approvals.
- Architectural design (FBCVD): N/A.
FBCVD additional Standards: N/A
Mr. Brown said all the items have been addressed and they already have occupancy.
Tony Folsom asked about the septic and Hannah said there is a full bathroom downstairs, and the septic can accommodate this, Mr. Hastings said.
Mr. Brown made a motion to find the application complete as presented and approve a waiver for the site plan to show 2-foot contours, seconded by Mr. Gere. All in favor.
Mr. Brown 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 Hannah Gaudreau for the property at 149 Chicopee Road in Standish (Map 6 Lot 104-1),having found it to meet the site plan review criteria of §181-73, the performance standards of §181-5, and all other relevant standards of the zoning ordinance to the greatest extent practical. With the following conditions: “
V. CONDITIONS –
- 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.
A motion was made by Mr. Nappi to approve the application seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10pm.