8/12-13 /04 draft
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Planning Board Meeting
August 11, 2004
1. Minutes of July 21, 2004
2. Preapplication Discussion, Re-subdivision of Lot 12, Ice Pond Subdivision, Fitts (R9/16-12)
3. Preapplication Discussion of Three-Lot Subdivision, Childers, 1597 Union Rd. (R19/19-2)
4. Preapplication Discussion of Town of Waldoboro Water Supply Site and Access Driveway, 1060 Wagner Bridge Rd. (R16/31A)
5. Review of Evergreen Estates Seven-Lot Subdivision, Broad Cove Builders, 51 Balsam Drive (R18/42)
6. Discussion of Policies and Procedures
The meeting was called to order by chairman Bo Yerxa at 7:02 p.m. in the meeting room at the Town Office. Members present were Carlo Bianchi, Chuck Campbell, Terry Gifford, JoAnn Myers, and Abden Simmons. Code Enforcement Officer John Black was present. Persons in the audience included Nancy Burleson, Margaret Burnham, Mike Colbert, Paul Cote, Doug Fitts, Sarah and Tim Gladu, Drew Greiner, Edward and Kirsty Karkow, Joe LaBranche, Dick Levensaler, Virginia Light, Scott Murray, William Pacy, Martha Ross, Dwayne Severson, and Maynard Tomer.
1. Minutes of July 21, 2004
On motion of Bianchi/ Simmons, the Board voted 6 – 0 to approve the minutes of July 21 as distributed.
2. Preapplication Discussion, Re-subdivision of Lot 12, Ice Pond Subdivision, Fitts (R9/16-12)
Developer Douglas Fitts and surveyor Drew Greiner were in to explain Fitts’s proposed re-subdivision of Lot 12 of Ice Pond Subdivision into revised Lot 12 and new Lot 12A. Part of Lot 11 must be added to revised Lot 12 to give that lot the required 80,000 s.f. of net residential acreage. William Pacy, who owns Lot 12, was present and said he has no objection to the re-subdivision. Pacy said he was informed about the possible re-subdivision of Lot 12 before he bought the lot. Fitts said the Ice Pond subdivision covenants specifically allow future subdivision of Lots 2 and 12. Subdivision of other lots, including Lot 11, is prohibited under the covenants. Fitts said his attorney advised him that changing the size and boundaries of Lot 11 does not constitute re-subdivision of Lot 11. Black said the ordinance definition of “re-subdivision” includes any change of lot size or lot lines in an existing subdivision (p. 12, Land Use Terms and Definitions).
Ice Pond subdivision was approved on July 11, 2001. There is an existing house on Lot 12. Fitts said he has a building permit to build a house on the back part of Lot 12 that would become Lot 12A if re-subdivision is approved. A satisfactory location for a septic system has been found. Greiner said the reconfigured lot lines provide 80,000 s.f. of upland area on both Lot 12 and 12A. Fitts said he would have made Lot 12 into two lots in the original subdivision plan but was unable to get a satisfactory soils test on 12A at the time.
Planning Board members wanted to review the Ice Pond final subdivision plan and the minutes describing the approval process, and asked Code Enforcement Officer Black to get advice from town counsel Peter Lynch as to whether changing the size and boundaries of Lot 11 constitutes re-subdivision of that lot. Gifford asked Black to check that all stipulations on the original subdivision approval have been satisfied.
Fitts was asked to provide a subdivision plan showing the wetland delineation for Lots 12, 12A and 11 and the location of the soil test pit on Lot 12A, a copy of the subdivision covenants, and a letter from his attorney stating why the change in size and boundaries of Lot 11 does not constitute re-subdivision of that lot. These materials should be provided to CEO Black three weeks ahead of the meeting at which the re-subdivision of Lot 12 is to be considered, so that Planning Board members can review the material before the meeting.
3. Preapplication Discussion of Three-Lot Subdivision, Childers, 1597 Union Rd. (R19/19-2)
Joe LaBranche was in representing owner John Childers. On May 9, 2002 Childers bought the remaining land of a one-lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board on Sept. 13, 1989. He has since sold a 2.17-acre lot (Lot 1 on the proposed subdivision plan) and now wants to divide the remaining 6± acres into two lots, if the Board will waive the requirement for 80,000 s.f. of net residential acreage. Wetlands at the rear of the property and steep slopes limit the amount of buildable area. There is an existing house on Lot 2. Vacant Lot 3 is shown as containing 69,300 s.f. or 1.6 acre. It could be increased to 80,000 s.f. by the addition of unbuildable wetland, but the net residential acreage would not increase. LaBranche said both the proposed new lots would be nonconforming, because neither has 80,000 s.f. of buildable land.
Bianchi pointed out that under the Minimum Lot Size Ordinance, a minimum of 80,000 s.f. of net residential acreage (buildable area) is required for lots not served by municipal water and sewer. Planning Board members did not think the Board has discretion to waive the net residential acreage requirement, thereby approving creation of a new nonconforming lot. LaBranche asked whether the Board is willing to vote on waiving the net residential acreage requirement. Chairman Yerxa ruled that the Board would not vote on this as part of preapplication discussion.
LaBranche said the original one-lot subdivision was in violation of the minimum net residential area requirement due to surveyor error. Childers proposes to deed adjacent land to that lot to bring it up to the required size.
4. Preapplication Discussion of Town of Waldoboro Water Supply Site and Access Driveway, 1060 Wagner Bridge Rd. (R16/31A)
Paul Cote of Earth Tech was in to describe plans for the Town to purchase land on the Medomak River off Wagner Bridge Road on which to develop two gravel wells as part of the municipal water supply. A purchase and sale agreement with the Light family has been drawn up but not yet signed. Purchase was approved by vote at town meeting. Vehicular access to the site would be over a right-of-way over an existing dirt road. The driveway will be paved near Wagner Bridge Road to improve traction and maintenance. The existing water line would be extended ~9,000 feet from Upper Depot St. along Wagner Bridge Road. The pump station will be a masonry building with exterior lighting on a timer, located some 800’ west of Wagner Bridge Road.
Sight distance at the driveway entrance looking south may be a problem. Speed limit is 40 mph. The sight distance looking north is 600-700’. Cote said the access road near the entrance will be regraded within the right-of-way and vegetation will be cleared to improve visibility. Estimated driveway use is one truck three or four times a week. The police chief has inspected the driveway entrance but has not made a written report. Cote will provide details of the proposed regrading when the application is reviewed. Information is needed on the sight distance at the entrance looking south after regarding and removal of vegetation.
5. Review of Phase 2 of Evergreen Estates Subdivision, Broad Cove Builders, 51 Balsam Drive (R18/42)
Owner Martha Ross was in for continued review of a proposed seven-lot addition to an existing subdivision on Balsam Drive. The submission checklist was partly completed at the July 21, 2004 meeting. The Planning Board continued review of the submission checklist starting with item #11. The following elements of the application were found present:
11 locations, names and widths of existing and proposed roads, easements, open spaces. The note “right of way not part of project” should be changed to “30’ right of way to back land”.
12 contours at not more than 5’ interval
13 cross-sections of proposed roads
14. soil erosion and sediment control plan
15 soils report including test pits (one of the test pits needs to be moved because of insufficient setback from the lot boundary)
16 flood map
17 narrative
18 written review comments by municipal officials
The following items were found not applicable:
19 hydrogeologic assessment
20 traffic impact analysis
21 groundwater extraction impact analysis
22 visual impact analysis
On motion of Myers/Bianchi, the Board voted 6 – 0 that the application is complete.
The Board then went through the general performance standards worksheet. They found the following items applicable and conforming: A access to lots (the extension of Balsam Drive should be shown on the final subdivision plan as connected to Balsam Drive); I net residential area (figures for the net residential area of each lot need to be on the final subdivision plan); N sanitary provisions; Q soils; R erosion control (silt fencing on both sides of the new road); U street access. More information on T stormwater management was requested, to show water courses on the property and arrows showing the direction of storm water flow. The following general performance standards were found not applicable: B air emissions; C buffer areas; D construction standards; E explosive materials; F glare; G landscaping; H hydrogeologic assessment; J noise; K off-street parking and loading; L odor control; M refuse disposal; O setbacks and screening; P signs (there will be no subdivision signs); S storage of materials; U driveways; V water quality impacts.
The plan contains a note that Balsam Drive will remain a privately maintained road. Mrs. Ross will provide a copy of the subdivision covenants. If the homeowners’ association decides to ask the Town to take over the road, it will be brought up to Town road standards including paving before being transferred.
On motion of Myers/Campbell the Board voted 6 – 0 that all applicable performance standards are met, with the above-noted requested additions to the subdivision plan: change the label on the right-of-way to “30’ right-of-way to back land”; give net residential area (upland area) for each lot; show the new subdivision road as connecting to Balsam Drive; supply more information on location and direction of surface drainage, and an improved cross-section of the culvert; correct culvert diameter to 18”, not 18’, and specify the culvert material.
The Board then went through the specific performance standards checklist, finding the following items applicable and conforming, with additional material requested as noted:
O road standards (Myers suggested attaching to the final subdivision plan a note that lot owners are required to join the homeowners’ association and are responsible for maintenance of the private road, and that if the road is offered to the Town it must first be brought up to Town road standards including paving, before being accepted by the Town); P stormwater management (more information on location and direction of surface drainage); Q storm drainage construction standards (more detail on culvert, stonework, swale); R additional requirements (the plan should state that stumps will be removed from the property).
On motion of Bianchi/Gifford, the Board voted 6 – 0 that all applicable specific performance standards are met, with addition of the above-specified material regarding stormwater management, storm drainage and stump disposal.
The Board then went through the review standards checklist. The following standards were found to be met: A no undue water or air pollution; C no undue burden on water supply; D no unreasonable soil erosion; E no unreasonable public road congestion; F adequate sewage disposal; G no unreasonable burden on municipal solid waste disposal; H no unreasonable burden on municipal services; I no undue adverse effect on scenic beauty or significant wildlife habitat, in light of intent to convey back lot to a conservation organization; J conforms with subdivision ordinance, comprehensive plan; K adequate financial and technical capacity; L will not adversely affect water quality of a wetland or river; M will not adversely affect quality or quantity of groundwater; N not in flood-prone area, all building lots above 100-year flood elevation; O all freshwater wetlands shown on subdivision plan; P river, stream or brook shown on subdivision plan; Q provides adequate storm water management. The following review standards were found not applicable: R lots with shore frontage; S will not unreasonably increase phosphorus concentration in a great pond; T does not cross municipal boundaries.
Review standard B, sufficient water available for fire protection, was found not met. The fire chief’s letter recommends either adding a dry hydrant to the pond at Louie’s Cycle Shop, if that pond is deep enough to provide an adequate water source for fire trucks, or installing an underground water tank at the subdivision. CEO Black will ask Chief Maxcy to call Broad Cove Builders.
The Board determined that the application is incomplete because further information is needed, including information on a water supply for firefighting. Mrs. Ross indicated that she is willing to waive the requirement that the Board act on her application within 30 days of receipt of a complete application. The Board asked her to provide a letter stating her willingness to waive the 30-day time frame.
6. Discussion of Policies and Procedures
At 8:45 p.m.Board members began a discussion of policies and procedures.
· Gifford asked for blank copies of all current checklists to be distributed to all Board members.
· It was suggested that Black make out a checklist for each application under review, instead of the current paragraph-style summary, placing his checkmarks to the left of the line for the Board’s checkmark. Black can annotate his checklist with information for Board members on specific items.
· The first column in the submission checklist should be changed to “present” rather than “satisfactory”. The intent of the submission checklist is to determine whether all elements of the application have been submitted, not whether they are satisfactory.
· A Finding of Fact will be written up after the Board’s decision on an application, setting forth the basis of the Board’s decision in more detail than the minutes. This is especially important for waivers and disapprovals. Myers asked to see sample Findings of Fact to serve as a model. The written Finding of Fact will be useful to the Board of Appeals in hearing an appeal from a Planning Board decision. It was not stated who will do the write-up.
· Campbell suggested that all Board members bring a written list of items of concern for each project being reviewed.
· Black recommended obtaining legal advice on what items the Board can and cannot waive. He believes the Board can waive performance standards for cause. Example: minimum net residential acreage: is this a performance standard, or an ordinance requirement?
· Gifford said the Board can ask an applicant for any further information relevant to making its decision. Yerxa recalled attorney Wayne Crandall’s advice that the Board has the right to ask for further information, but noted that it would be imprudent for the Board to link provision or non-provision thereof to any subsequent negative determination.
· Black said a decision needs to be made before the next Planning Board meeting: when only part of a parcel is proposed as a subdivision for Planning Board review, is the remaining land part of the subdivision, and do any later changes to the back land require Planning Board approval? Town attorney Peter Lynch holds that the remainder of the parcel is not part of the subdivision. Lincoln County planner Bob Faunce believes it is.
· Black recommended that the Board set up its own set of rules based on the ordinance and be consistent. The Board as a whole, or a subcommittee, would draft the rules, which would then be reviewed by an attorney familiar with subdivision law and by the Lincoln County planner. New members of the Planning Board would receive these new rules along with the 2002 Planning Board Rules.
· Yerxa asked Board members to bring a list of questions to the next meeting. He and Black will try to find time on the agenda for procedural discussion at least every other month. A special meeting with Bob Faunce was also suggested.
· Black said the Board should try to keep to the timing shown on the meeting agenda. If an item needs more time for discussion, it may be necessary to continue review of that item at the next meeting in order to hear other agenda items at or near the times indicated.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Board development was not discussed, for lack of time.