Draft 1/20/05 revised 1/25/05 with Yerxa’s input; forwarded to T.O. 1/25/05
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Planning Board Meeting
January 19, 2005
1. Minutes of December 8, 2004
2. Approval of Junkyard Permit Renewal, Orff, 515 Orffs Corner Rd. (R22/34)
3. Approval of Building Addition, First Baptist Church of Waldoboro, 71 Grace Ave. (U6/3)
4. Review of Walton Subdivision, Jackson Road (R20/41); Public Hearing Scheduled Feb. 2
5. Petitioned Warrant Article to Elect Members of Planning Board and Board of Appeals
6. Changes to Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances
The meeting (postponed from January 12 due to snow) was called to order by chairman Bo Yerxa at 7:00 p.m. Other members present were Carlo Bianchi, Abden Simmons, Chuck Campbell and Chuck Flint. Code Enforcement Officer John Black was present. The audience consisted of people on the agenda: Solomon and Corinne Orff, Drew Greiner and Wallace Walton.
1. Minutes of December 8, 2004
On motion of Flint/Simmons, the Board voted 3 – 0 – 2, Bianchi and Campbell abstaining, to approve the Dec. 8 minutes as distributed.
2. Approval
of Junkyard Permit Renewal, Orff,
515 Orffs Corner
Rd. (R22/34)
Solomon and Corinne Orff were in for review of their application for renewal of an annual permit for a junkyard on a portion of their property at 515 Orffs Corner Road. The junkyard occupies less than five acres and is screened from the road by an 8’ opaque fence. The top of a school bus is the only item visible from the road above the top of the fence. The edge of the junkyard is 80 feet from the center of the road. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles has approved Orff’s request for renewal of his motor vehicle recycler license as of Nov. 23, 2004. CEO Black has inspected the property quarterly in 2004. The junkyard is not located on a sand and gravel aquifer. Orff said he continues to keep automotive fluids in watertight covered containers.
The Board reviewed Black’s written checklist of the specific performance standards for automobile graveyards, junkyards and recycling businesses. Black finds the business to be in compliance with all applicable specific performance standards except for two items which have been waived in previous years. On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 0 to waive the requirement for a visual buffer completely screening the junkyard from view from the public road. On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 0 to waive the requirement for a 100’ setback of the junkyard from the road. On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 0 to approve renewal of Orff’s junkyard permit, conditional on supplying satisfactory proof of liability insurance (minimum $300,000) to the Code Enforcement Officer.
3. Approval of Building Addition, First Baptist Church of Waldoboro, 71 Grace Ave. (U6/3)
Surveyor Drew Greiner was in representing the church. As discussed at December’s preapplication meeting, the church proposes to build a two-story 36’ x 39’10½ ” addition on a slab. The first floor of the addition will serve as an entryway and connector to a future sanctuary. The second floor will be used for a Sunday school classroom. A temporary exterior stairway on the north end of the building will provide an emergency exit from the second floor. Plans showing the exterior stairway have been prepared but were not available at tonight’s meeting. A permit has been received from the State Fire Marshal’s Office. The church hopes to build the addition this spring. Funds for construction have already been raised.
The Board went through the site plan review submission checklist. The following items have been received: 1) owner and developer; 2) name, scale, north arrow, date; 3) lot boundaries; 4) location of existing building, proposed addition, well, septic system; 7) location map showing relation to properties within 300 feet; 8) location and size of existing buildings, watercourses, other essential features; 9) location and size of existing culverts and drains (the building is not served by public water or sewer); 12) contour interval of not more than 5 feet; 18) written review comments by municipal officials. The following items were found not applicable: 5) temporary markers in the field; 6) parcels to be dedicated to public use; 10) location, size and elevation of existing and proposed utilities; 11) location, names and widths of existing and proposed roads, easements, parks and open spaces; 13) cross-sections of proposed roads, sidewalks, storm drainage facilities; 14) soil erosion and sediment control plan; 15) soils report, proposed location and design of septic system (the septic system for the building is already in place; the addition has no running water); 16) flood map; 19) hydrogeologic assessment; 20) traffic impact analysis; 21) groundwater extraction impact analysis; 22) visual impact analysis.
17) The applicant has not submitted a written narrative demonstrating that all performance standards can be met. CEO Black told the Board that the ordinance does not require such a narrative; it is requested in order to expedite review of the application. On motion of Campbell/ Bianchi, the Board voted 5 – 0 to waive the narrative.
18) The Fire Chief finds the project acceptable, but suggests that a dry hydrant should be installed in the pond on the adjacent Jones & Moody property (U6/4).
On motion of Bianchi/Campbell, the Board voted 5 – 0 that the site plan application is complete.
The Board then went through the site plan review worksheet. CEO Black said the church may be in violation of the sign ordinance because there are two signs on the property. He will check this and obtain compliance.
General performance standards:
The following general performance standards were found to be applicable but not conforming:
D construction standards (stamped plans are available, but the drawing showing the exterior stairway has not been submitted); P signs.
The following general performance standards were found applicable and conforming:
G landscaping; K off-street parking and loading; M refuse disposal; O setbacks and screening;
R erosion control (will be handled by contractor, with a note on the plans); T stormwater management; U street access and driveways; V water quality impacts.
The following general performance standards were found not applicable: A access to lots; B air emissions; C buffer areas; E explosive materials; F glare; H hydrogeologic assessment; I net residential area; J noise; L odor control; N sanitary provisions (there are no bathrooms in the addition); Q soils; S storage of materials.
Regarding G landscaping, the Board noted that there is not much landscaping around the building, but the building is not very visible from the highway. Greiner said landscaping will be added after construction of the sanctuary.
Specific performance standards: Chairman Yerxa reviewed the list of specific performance standards and found none applicable. Stormwater management is shown on the site plan, utilizing three detention ponds to retard runoff.
Review standards: The following review standards were found to be met: A no undue water or air pollution; B sufficient water available for drinking and fire control (the Fire Chief recommends, but does not require, that a dry hydrant be installed at the pond on the adjacent Jones & Moody property); C no unreasonable burden on existing water supply; D no unreasonable soil erosion; E no unreasonable highway or public road congestion; F adequate sewage disposal; G no unreasonable burden on ability of municipality to dispose of solid waste and sewage; H no undue adverse effect on scenic or natural beauty; K not within 250 feet of a pond, lake, river, tidal water; L will not adversely affect quality or quantity of groundwater; M not in a flood-prone area.
The following review standards were found not met: I, conformance with all local ordinances (the Code Enforcement Officer will investigate the apparent violation of the local sign ordinance), and J adequate financial capacity (a letter from a certified public accountant or financial institution is required, stating that the church has funds sufficient to complete the proposed addition). When these two conditions are satisfied, the project will meet the review standards.
Flint’s motion to table the application until the missing material is available failed for lack of a second. On motion of Bianchi/Simmons, the Board voted 3 – 2, Yerxa and Flint opposed, to find all application requirements met subject to three conditions, and authorized a permit to be granted once the conditions are satisfied. The conditions are: submission of stamped building plans showing the exterior stairway from the second floor; a satisfactory letter attesting to financial capability; and compliance with the sign ordinance.
4. Review of Walton Subdivision, Jackson Road (R20/41); Scheduling Public Hearing Feb. 2
Owner Wallace Walton and surveyor Drew Greiner were in for review of Walton’s request to place two more mobile homes on his property at 214 Jackson Road. There are already four two-bedroom mobile homes on the parcel. Walton said he believed that the four mobile homes were on two separate parcels at two dwelling units per parcel, but the Town of Waldoboro considers that the land is a single parcel because it is in the same ownership. Walton’s current application is to place two additional mobile homes, a 14’ x 56’ single-wide and a double-wide, on the parcel, with a separate road and a new well and septic system serving the two new units.
A note on surveyor Drew Greiner’s preliminary site plan dated December 27, 2004, says that the plan is not a boundary survey, and that the boundary lines shown are approximate. Greiner said he found survey pins on the northeast boundary with Stephen Estey’s land (Lot 41A) and he surveyed the southeastern boundary line with Lots 41B and 41C, but did not survey the back part of the property.
Chairman Yerxa asked CEO Black whether Black has determined that Walton is currently in violation of the subdivision ordinance because the parcel already contains three or more mobile homes. Black confirmed that Walton was told that part of the land was a separate lot and he could put two mobile homes on it. Black believes that Walton is currently in violation of the subdivision ordinance because he has placed three or more dwelling units on a piece of land without going through subdivision review.
The Planning Board went through the subdivision submission checklist in order to determine whether the application is complete. The following items have been received: 1 owner and developer; 2 name, scale, north arrow, date; 3 number of lots and lot boundaries; 4 proposed dimensions and locations of buildings, wells and septic system; 5 temporary markers in the field; 7 location map showing relation of development to properties within 300 feet; 8 location and size of existing buildings, watercourses, other essential features; 9 location (but not size) of existing culverts; 10 location and elevation of existing and proposed utilities; 12 two-foot contours; 15 soils report including test pits, proposed location and design of septic system; 17 narrative (Walton has submitted an annotated copy of the subdivision review worksheet to serve as the written narrative);18 written review comments of municipal officials. The following items were found not applicable: 6 parcels to be dedicated to public use; 16 flood map; 19 hydrogeologic assessment; 20 traffic impact analysis; 21 groundwater extraction impact analysis; 22 visual impact analysis. The following items were found to be lacking: 11 width of existing and proposed roads (Walton said the new road will be 16 feet wide); 13 typical cross-sections of proposed roads, storm drain facilities; 14 soil erosion and sediment control plan, both for the proposed road and the proposed mobile home sites.
Additions to the site plan: Greiner will specify the width of the proposed road on the site plan, add a road cross-section and information about erosion and sedimentation control. Silt fencing or other appropriate erosion control measures should be used at the home sites. The proposed access road abuts a wetland at Jackson Road. Sedimentation control measures should be specified on the plan, to prevent siltation into the wetland.
The Board discussed whether a hydrogeologic assessment is required. At 90 gallons per day per bedroom, for six two-bedroom mobile homes, the subdivision will not remove much over 1,000 gallons per day of groundwater. [6 mobile homes at 2 bedrooms each = 12 bedrooms x 90 gpd = 1080 gpd.] Page 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that “All subdivisions with more than five dwelling units, lots or rental units…which will generate more than a daily average of 500 gallons of waste water of any type, or when determined by the Planning Board to be required because of the unique characteristics of the plans and/or site, shall submit a hydrogeologic assessment prepared by a Certified Geologist with demonstrated groundwater hydrology impact assessment experience and training when the site is not served by public sewer and
(1) any part of the subdivision is located over or within 300 feet of a sand and gravel aquifer, as shown on a map entitled “Hydrogeologic Data for Significant Sand and Gravel Aquifers” by the Maine Geological Survey;
(2) The subdivision contains lots less than 100,000 square feet in total area; or
(3) The subdivision has an average density of less than 100,000 square feet per dwelling unit.”
Planning Board members interpreted the ordinance language to mean that if any one of the three numbered criteria applies, a hydrogeologic assessment will be required.
1) within 300 feet of a sand and gravel aquifer: Board members consulted a 2000 Maine Geological Survey map of sand and gravel aquifers for the Union quadrangle and determined that the Walton property is not within 300 feet of the surface outcrop of a mapped sand and gravel aquifer.
2) Contains lots less than 100,000 s.f. in total area: The Board determined that #2 does not apply because the Walton building subdivision does not contain individual lots.
3) Walton said his lot is 12 acres. The Board concluded that the average density per dwelling unit for six dwelling units on 12 acres is over 100,000 square feet per dwelling unit.[1] On the basis of this, the Board determined that the requirement for a hydrogeologic assessment is inapplicable.
On motion of Campbell/Bianchi, the Board voted 4 – 0 – 1, Yerxa abstaining, that although the application is incomplete, the content of the site plan is complete with the exception of road width, road cross-section, and soil erosion and sedimentation control plan. Yerxa said the sense of the Board was to accept the new road built to the standards of a driveway serving two dwellings, rather than built to subdivision road standards. Board members felt the application was complete enough to review, and complete enough to go to public hearing. Yerxa has received five requests for a public hearing. The Board decided to schedule a public hearing for 7 p.m. on Wednesday, February 2, and continue with review of the application the same night after adjourning the public hearing.
5. Petitioned Warrant Article to Elect Members of Planning Board and Board of Appeals
Black gave out copies of a petitioned article which will be on the June 2005 warrant for town vote, to have Planning Board members and Board of Appeals members elected rather than appointed. If the article passes, all seven members of the Planning Board would be elected at a special election held within 90 days. This means that the whole Planning Board could consist of new members lacking experience.
6. Changes to Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances
Black gave out copies of the fall 2004 “Shoreland Zoning News” from the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection. The newsletter content was not discussed at the meeting. The shoreland zoning guidelines are being revised. The Legislature has amended the clearing/buffer standards, and the revised standards have been adopted by the Land Use Regulation Commission for its unorganized territories. The DEP plans to amend its clearing standards for organized municipalities, for uniformity. The changes would result in a modified “point system” for tree cutting in the shoreland zone, would limit footpaths to six feet in width, and would require vegetation less than three feet high to be maintained in all shoreland setback/buffer areas. The setback distance of structures from the water is measured from the upland edge of the coastal wetland, not from mean high water.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.