7/22/04 draft for review by Yerxa prior to distribution (#4 already reviewed, changes made)
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Planning Board Meeting
July 21, 2004
1. Executive Session
2. Minutes of June 30, 2004
3. Approval of Permit for Mason Moore Auto Body & Collision, 2880 Atlantic Hwy. (R 13/5-1)
4. Wayne Brown Five-Lot Subdivision, Sunset Ridge (R16/54B & 56) - Tabled
5. Review of Seven-Lot Addition to Subdivision, Broad Cove Builders, 51 Balsam Drive (R18/42)
6. Next Regular Planning Board Meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 11, 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by chairman Bo Yerxa at 6:29 p.m. in the conference room at the Town Office. Members present were Carlo Bianchi, Chuck Campbell, Terry Gifford, JoAnn Myers, and Abden Simmons. Code Officer John Black and Town Manager Lee Smith were present, along with attorney Wayne Crandall. Persons in the audience included Wayne Brown, Douglas Fitts, Tim and Sarah Gladu, Tyler Lupien, John Mathieson, Mason and Suzanne Moore, Matthew and Jessica Myers, Martha Ross, Keri Spiliopoulos, Hollis Tedford, and Martyn Vickers.
1. Executive Session
On motion of Gifford/Bianchi, the Board voted 6 – 0 to go into executive session with attorney Wayne Crandall at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the Wayne Brown subdivision. On motion of Gifford/Bianchi, the Board voted 6 – 0 to come out of executive session at 7:15 p.m. and resume the regular session.
2. Minutes of June 30, 2004
On motion of Myers/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 0 – 1, Bianchi abstaining, to approve the June 30 minutes as amended to change references to the July 14 Planning Board meeting to July 21 (Item 10 of Contents, p. 1; two references on p. 5).
3. Approval of Permit for Mason Moore Auto Body & Collision, 2880 Atlantic Hwy. (R 13/5-1)
Mason and Suzanne Moore were in for review of their site plan for a new auto body shop on land to be purchased from Mitchell Ross. The building, which includes a shop and attached living quarters, will be east of the Ross Electronics building. The existing driveway will be used for access. Moore has provided a site plan with contours and a planting plan showing the number, size, and species of foundation plantings and vegetative screening.
Lincoln County planner Bob Faunce gave the Planning Board a memo dated July 20 listing eight items to be discussed with the applicant.
In response to Faunce’s seventh point, Moore said he does not need a contract with Safety-Kleen. They will come to pick up automotive fluids, paint thinners, etc. on request.
Campbell said the number of parking spaces is inadequate for a two-bay garage, according to General Performance Standard K, Offstreet Parking and Loading, 5. i. (p. 23) which requires 5 spaces for each bay or area used for repair work. The Moore garage has two bays, thus requires 10 parking spaces plus 2 for the residence. Moore said he should not be held to the two-bay standard because he works alone and the same vehicles are worked on first in the repair bay and then in the paint area. The Planning Board agreed on a compromise to require 7 parking spaces for vehicles being repaired and customers, plus 2 for the residential use, for a total of 9 parking spaces. Seven parking spaces will be added at the back of the building. The four parking spaces shown on the west side of the building on the Meservey plan being reviewed tonight will be eliminated because of insufficient turning distance between the parking spaces and the lot line. There needs to be 38 feet between the building and the lot line to allow an 18-foot parking space and 20 feet in which to back up and turn. The white pines to be planted as vegetative screening along the west property line with Ross reduce the space available for vehicles to manoeuvre.
Gifford asked for photographs of the site. Moore showed two photos of the Ross driveway and proposed building location, and two photographs of his existing body shop in Washington, Me.
Chairman Yerxa went through the site plan review submission checklist to determine the completeness of the application. The Board found the following items present:
1 owner and developer; 2 name, scale, north arrow, date; 3 lot boundaries; 4 proposed lot lines; 5 temporary markers; 6 location of natural site features and elements to be preserved; 7 location of properties within 300 feet (Ross Electronics); 8 location and size of existing buildings, watercourses, other features; 10 location of existing and proposed utilities; 11 location and name of existing roads, easements; 12 contour lines; 14 soil erosion and sediment control plan;15 soils report for septic system; 17 narrative addressing how application can meet performance standards.
The following were found not applicable: 9 locations of sewers and water mains; 13 cross sections of proposed roads, storm drainage facilities; 16 flood map; 19 hydrogeologic assessment; 20 traffic impact analysis; 21 groundwater extraction impact analysis; 22 visual impact analysis.
Items to be added:
#11 Roads, easements: A statement from Mitchell Ross should be added to the site plan giving the Moores a legal right of way for access to their property across the Ross property and the right to use the existing driveway entrance from Rt. 1. This right-of-way will be referenced in the deed to the property. On motion of Gifford/Campbell, the Board voted 6 – 0 to make a condition of approval that proof of a legal right-of-way over the Ross property be provided to the Code Enforcement Officer prior to granting a building permit.
#14 Erosion control: On the copy of the site plan given out at the meeting a silt fence is shown along the front and east side of the building. Campbell asked the applicant to add to the site plan a statement that he will follow best management practices for erosion control. CEO Black can provide a copy of the BMP’s. Moore does not plan to pave the driveway or parking areas.
#18 Comments from municipal officials: No written comments have been received from the fire chief. Black reported the fire chief’s oral comment that fire protection for this whole area along Rt. 1 should be improved. The fire chief made no specific requirement for the Moore site. Gifford asked Black to show the fire chief the detailed Moore plan including road widths and get written input, because the shop will contain flammable materials. On motion of Gifford/Myers, the Board voted 6 – 0 to ask for a letter from the Fire Chief approving the proposed site plan. Moore said the State Fire Marshal’s Office had no objection to the plan, but Planning Board members agreed the State’s approval concerns fire safety inside the building, while the local fire chief’s review concerns the fire department’s ability to provide fire protection to the site.
Gifford asked where junk fenders, etc., will be stored. Moore agreed to provide an 8’ x 8’ area behind the building enclosed by a 6’ opaque fence for temporary storage of junk items before removal off-site. The location of this storage area should be shown on the site plan.
On motion of Myers/Campbell the Board voted 6 – 0 that the Moore application is complete with the above conditions.
The Board then went through the General Performance Standards checklist, finding the following applicable and conforming:
A access to lots; B. air emissions (applicants provided a letter from a nearby business use, Country Cupboard, 127’ feet from the present body shop, stating no problem with noise or odor); C buffer areas; D construction standards, conditional upon receipt of stamped architect’s plans; E explosive materials; F Glare (conditional upon exterior lighting meeting town specifications, and Moore’s providing specifications for the light fixture satisfactory to the Code Enforcement Officer prior to granting the building permit); G landscaping; J noise; K off-street parking (conditional on receipt of a revised site plan showing nine parking spaces, two in front and seven behind the building); L odor control; M refuse disposal; N sanitary provisions; O setbacks and screening; P signs (applicant proposes an unlighted sign that meets the local sign ordinance); Q soils; R soil erosion control; S storage of materials outdoors (met with condition that an 8’ x 8’ storage area enclosed by an opaque 6’ fence be provided behind the building at a location shown on the final site plan); T stormwater management; U street access, driveways (conditional on providing proof of a legal right of way for access from Rt. 1 across land of Ross).
The following general performance standards were found not applicable: H hydrogeologic assessment; I net residential area; V water quality impacts.
Discussion:
E Explosive materials: The ordinance requires bulk storage of explosive materials to be 75’ from property lines. The Board determined that Moore’s use does not involve bulk storage of explosive materials. CEO Black was asked to notify abutter Ross that potentially explosive materials will be stored less than 75’ from the common lot line. Moore said he cannot move the building further east because of the location of the septic system.
K Number of parking spaces required: A motion by Gifford/Campbell to ask the applicant to waive the 30-day time limit for acting on his application, to give him time to come back with more information including a revised site plan showing parking that meets the town ordinance, failed by a vote of 1 – 5, Gifford in favor. The applicant stated that he should not be required to provide 10 parking spaces (5 parking spaces per bay) because only one of the two bays is in use at any time. Myers suggested a compromise at 7 spaces for the body shop. Gifford was not sure the Board can reduce the minimum parking requirement. On motion of Myers/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 1, Gifford opposed, to make it a condition of permit approval that the applicant provide a revised site plan showing two customer parking spaces in front of the building and a total of 9 required parking spaces, 7 of which are to be on the north side of the building. The 9 required parking spaces includes 2 spaces for the residential use and 7 spaces for the business.
Planning Board members voted 5 – 1, Gifford opposed, that all applicable general performance standards are met with the above conditions.
Specific performance standards: According to CEO Black’s analysis of the application, the only applicable specific performance standard is R, Additional improvements and requirements, all of which have been addressed in the general performance standards (erosion control, clean-up, signs and lighting). No formal vote on specific performance standards was taken.
The Board then went through the review standards A – N. The following were found met:
A no undue water or air pollution; B sufficient water available; C no unreasonable burden on existing water supply; D no unreasonable soil erosion; E no unreasonable road congestion or unsafe conditions; F adequate sewage disposal; G no unreasonable burden on ability of municipality to dispose of solid waste or sewage; H no undue adverse effect on scenic or natural beauty; I conforms with all local ordinances, comprehensive plan; J adequate financial and technical capacity (conditional on providing a letter from a financial institution); L will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of groundwater; N will meet all provisions of the land use ordinance, general and specific.
The following review standards were found not applicable: K not within 250 feet of a pond, lake, river or tidal water; M not in a flood-prone area.
On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 1, Gifford opposed, that all applicable review standards are met, conditional upon the applicant providing a satisfactory letter from a financial institution attesting to his financial capacity to complete the project.
On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 1, Gifford opposed, to approve granting a permit for a shop building and attached living quarters for M.E. Moore Auto Body & Collision at 2880 Atlantic Highway, with the following conditions:
a) statement from Mitchell Ross or copy of deed showing a legal right-of-way over Ross driveway for access, and note on final site plan referencing legal right-of-way;
b) statement on site plan that applicant will use best management practices for erosion control;
c) written statement from fire chief approving building and site plan including road widths;
d) providing a 8’ x 8’ site for exterior storage of material, located behind the building and enclosed by a 6’ opaque fence; location to be shown on final site plan;
e) submission of final building plans stamped by a registered architect;
f) providing specifications for shielded exterior lighting satisfactory to Code Enforcement Officer;
g) notice by Code Officer to abutter Ross that explosive materials will be stored within 75’ of the property line;
h) revised site plan showing two customer parking spaces at the front of the building, a minimum of seven parking spaces on the north side of the building, and no head-on parking on west side of building;
i) letter from financial institution attesting to applicant’s financial capability to complete project.
4. Wayne Brown Five-Lot Subdivision, Sunset Ridge (R16/54B & 56) - Tabled
At 8:50 p.m. Wayne Brown and Hollis Tedford appeared before the Board for continued review of Brown’s subdivision plans. At the June 30 meeting Brown was asked to provide a stormwater management plan approved by the Dept. of Environmental Protection and a design and location for a fire pond, as recommended by the fire chief. The Planning Board asked for the fire chief to be present when the subdivision was reviewed or to provide a written statement regarding the proposed fire pond.
Tedford has completed a stormwater management plan and has discussed it with the DEP. He was told that DEP as a matter of policy does not review stormwater management plans for projects that are already under way. A DEP representative made a site visit. He said DEP is willing to send a “letter of opinion” stating that their only substantive concern is what happens to the storm drainage from the Brown subdivisions that runs downhill to the railroad tracks, which are owned by the State.
Four copies of the stormwater management plan were provided at tonight’s meeting. They were not available for review by Planning Board members in advance of the meeting.
The Brown land is in the watershed of Duckpuddle Pond, a sub-watershed within the Pemaquid River watershed. The DEP representative told Tedford that the Duckpuddle Pond watershed is a “watershed of special concern”, the subject of a DEP study starting this summer. Tedford said the DEP would like to see runoff calculations for the whole sub-watershed. Tedford did not determine hydrological information for any lots except the six lots Brown hired him to study.
If DEP will not review and approve the stormwater management plan for the Brown land,
Yerxa asked how the Planning Board can evaluate the adequacy of the plan, since it lacks in-house expertise. In the past the Board has relied on DEP review of stormwater management plans. Myers suggested hiring an outside engineering firm to review the plan.
Tedford said the stormwater management plan for the Brown subdivision refers only to the area affected by road construction. The impervious area of the road is only .72 acre. The stormwater calculations do not include the effect of future site development on individual lots.
Myers recalled that during the site walk of the Brown land the Planning Board was considering the cumulative impact of development on the whole road loop, including Stagecoach Road, Whitcomb Drive and Controversy Lane in addition to Sunset Ridge Road. Yerxa agreed that a consideration of cumulative impact of all the Brown lots should include lots on all these roads.
The design and location of the fire pond remain unresolved. Brown said he has not consulted the fire chief about the fire pond. The fire chief was not present, and there was no written statement on whether a proposed fire pond on North Nobleboro Road would satisfy his concern for fire protection for the proposed subdivision. Brown met with Town Manager Lee Smith and offered to give the Town a piece of land on North Nobleboro Road on which the Town could develop a fire pond at municipal expense to use for fire protection in the North Nobleboro Road area. Smith said it is up to the developer, not the Town, to pay for construction of a fire pond required for fire protection in a private subdivision. Smith proposed tapping into Tobias Pond with a dry hydrant. Brown questioned whether this is practical, since the pond water level is some 25’ or 30’ lower than the road. Brown approached Glenn Barbour about access to Tobias Pond over his property at 820 North Nobleboro Rd. (R17/59A).
Gifford and Bianchi asserted that the Planning Board had insufficient time to adequately review the stormwater management plan submitted tonight, and both noted that the design and location of the fire pond have not been submitted. Yerxa suggested that the Planning Board can choose either to act on the Brown application using the information that has been submitted, or postpone the matter to a special session at a later time.
Yerxa raised the issue of what road standards should apply to the Brown subdivision, considered together with other nearby Brown subdivisions. Brown said eight current lots are served by Sunset Ridge Road. The ordinance Section II General Performance Standards A Access to Lots states (p. 15), “Any access road serving between three and eight dwelling units shall meet the road design and construction standards of the Waldoboro Planning Board Standards for Reviewing Land Subdivisions and Site Review Plans but need not be paved. Any access road serving more than eight dwelling units shall meet the road design and construction standards of the Waldoboro Site Plan Review and Subdivision Ordinance.”
Myers made and Bianchi seconded a motion to table the Brown subdivision until more information is available about the stormwater management plan, the fire pond, and applicable road standards. Gifford said the Planning Board needs information about how many lots the road will serve and advice about how many lots to consider in determining what road standards apply. The motion was withdrawn before being voted on.
Attorney Crandall advised that the Board should address specifically whether the Brown application is a complete application. This determination needs to be made before the Board votes to table the application, he said. Myers and Bianchi thereupon withdrew their motion to table the application. A second motion by Bianchi/Myers to find the application incomplete and ask for further information about design and location of the fire pond, the stormwater management plan, and road standards, was also withdrawn.
Code Officer Black pointed out that the application has already been voted complete at the May 12 Planning Board meeting, meaning that review of the submission checklist showed that enough elements of the subdivision plan are present to enable the Board to evaluate the subdivision according to the performance standards and review standards contained in the ordinance. The incomplete items discussed tonight pertain to questions raised concerning performance standards and review standards. The Planning Board is requesting additional information needed in order to determine whether the proposed subdivision meets ordinance standards.
Brown said he was willing to have the application tabled, but asked for a list of what further material the Planning Board wants him to provide. Crandall agreed that if the Board tables the application it must give Brown a written list of the additional material wanted.
On motion of Myers/Campbell, the Board voted 6 – 0 to table the Brown subdivision pending development of a letter in consultation with counsel that outlines three areas of concern with enough specificity to be helpful to the applicant. Black, Yerxa, attorney Crandall and planner Bob Faunce will confer on a written response to Brown.
5. Review of Seven-Lot Addition to Subdivision, Broad Cove Builders, 51 Balsam Drive (R18/42)
Martha Ross and surveyor John Mathieson came before the Board at 9:50 p.m. for review of plans for a seven-lot addition to a 1987 subdivision on Balsam Drive off Washington Road. At 10:00 p.m. chairman Yerxa told the four remaining applicants that their pre-application discussions would not be heard tonight due to the lateness of the hour. The pre-application discussions will be first on the agenda of the August Planning Board meeting, followed by continued review of the Broad Cove Builders subdivision.
Ross said after these seven lots there will be no further subdivision of the parcel, as the back land will be donated to a conservation organization (Medomak Valley Land Trust or the Audubon Society). Subdivision covenants will prohibit re-subdivision of any existing lot. Deeded access to the back land will be via a right-of-way along an old tote road that crosses Lot 42-6. Two new houses were built in the last year on lots 42-4 and 42-B and Balsam Drive was upgraded at that time. The seven proposed lots are all over 100,000 s.f. Three new utility poles will provide power. A wetland delineation has been done. Mathieson said there is no evidence of channel flow on the seven proposed lots; runoff is all by sheet flow until below the cul-de-sac. An area zoned Resource Protection is 780’ downslope in the area to be donated to the conservation organization. The wetland drains to the Medomak River 2.5 to 3 miles away.
The Board went through the submission checklist items 1 - 10. The following items were found present: 1 owner and developer; 2 name, scale, north arrow, date; 3 number of lots and lot boundaries; 4 proposed lots lines, location of septic systems (The Board noted that the septic site on Lot 42-8 needs to be moved to 30’ from the property line.); 5 temporary markers; 6 parcels to be dedicated to public use and conditions of such dedication, location of natural site features to be preserved (secretary Alexander questioned whether land donated to a private conservation organization is “public use” land, unless public access is a condition of the gift) ; 7 location map showing relation of development to properties within 300 feet; 8 location of watercourses, other essential features; 9 location of existing culverts, drains; 10 location of existing and proposed utilities. Review of the submission checklist stopped at #10.
The addition of seven lots to the three lots already served by Balsam Drive means the road will serve ten lots. The subdivision road must meet town road design and construction standards, even if it is to remain a private way. Mathieson said the road is 20’ wide with 2’ shoulders, for a total width of 24’. CEO Black said the road volume is calculated at 10 trips per day per lot, or 100 vehicle trips per day for 10 lots. This makes the road a medium volume driveway. Bianchi and Campbell suggested that the street construction standards on p. 52 of the ordinance under O. Road Standards do not require hot bituminous paving for a road that is to remain a private right-of-way. Ross said the private road will be maintained by a road association of homeowners. The road will be paved at the expense of the road association if and when the road becomes a town road and is required to be paved. Board members agreed that sidewalks are not required because the subdivision is not within the urban compact area.
On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 6 – 0 to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. without completing the submission checklist for the Balsam Drive subdivision. The Board did not determine whether the application is complete. Ross was told that the subdivision will be placed on the August 11 agenda immediately following the preapplications deferred from tonight’s meeting.
6. Next Regular Planning Board Meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 11, 7:00 p.m.
A special Planning Board meeting may be scheduled to review the Wayne Brown subdivision.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.