Draft 2/3/05 revised with Black’s and Yerxa’s input 2/7/05
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Special Planning Board Meeting
February 2, 2005
1. Public Hearing on Wallace Walton’s Proposal to add Three Dwellings at 214 Jackson Rd. (R20/41)
2. Vote to Table Walton Project Proposal
3. Planning Board Policy Discussion
The meeting was called to order by chairman Bo Yerxa at 7:00 p.m. Other members present were Carlo Bianchi, Chuck Campbell, Chuck Flint, Terry Gifford, JoAnn Myers and Abden Simmons. Code Enforcement Officer John Black was present. Attenders at the public hearing included Stephen Estey, William Hinkley, Lewis Hitzrot, John Morris, Susan Morris, and Nathan Packard, as well as applicant Wallace Walton and his attorney Samuel Cohen.
1. Public Hearing on Wallace Walton’s Proposal to add Three Dwellings at 214 Jackson Rd. (R20/41)
Chairman Yerxa opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. by describing the procedure that will be used in conducting the hearing. Copies of the written guidelines were distributed.
1) The applicant and his attorney make an uninterrupted presentation describing Walton’s existing development and his proposed plans for the property.
2) Board members and people directly affected by the project may ask questions through the chairman and request further information.
3) Abutters and others directly affected by the project may make presentations.
4) The applicant and Board members may ask questions of people directly affected by the project and those who made presentations.
5) Previous speakers may make rebuttal statements.
6) Other interested people in the audience may ask questions or make comments.
Yerxa asked Wallace Walton to explain what it was he was proposing, for the benefit of those in the audience gathered for a public hearing. Attorney Cohen said that Walton currently has four dwelling units, including Walton’s own residence, on an 8.6 acre lot on Jackson Road, and is applying to add two more units. Walton has a letter from abutter Richard Devries agreeing to sell 3.5 acres of the Devries property at 500 Jackson Road (R20/41D) to Walton. This would increase the size of the Walton lot to over 12 acres. A letter from Hatch Well Drillers states that no problem will be created by placing two more dwelling units on the property. Walton said he previously submitted an application and a site plan and received a building permit from Code Enforcement Officer John Black. Later, following disclosure about several land transfers, Walton was told that he needs to go through site plan review or subdivision review in front of the Planning Board, and that the building permit was granted in error. Cohen asked that the Board postpone the hearing until the additional 3.5 acres could be incorporated into the proposal, and a complete survey and wetland delineation done. Yerxa indicated that such action was not in order, insofar as the Board was in session for a public hearing, but that it could be addressed at a later point when the Board went into its regular business, which had this project first on the agenda.
Providing background at Yerxa’s request, CEO Black said that the first two dwelling units have been on the site more than five years. In the spring of 2003 Walton applied for permits to add two more units on a separate piece of land split off from the original parcel. Black issued the permits. Then Walton wanted to split off another piece of land. However, during the interaction between Black and Walton it became apparent that, despite land transfers of a parcel from Walton and back to Walton, the land on which the third and fourth units were placed was not a separate lot but part of the lot containing the first two units. Black then realized that Walton had created a “building subdivision” by placing more than three dwelling units on the same piece of land, and that this required Planning Board review. Black told Walton that one of the last two building permits had been issued in error. Now Walton is applying to place two more units on the same piece of land (Map R20 Lot 41) and to remedy the violation created by placing the third dwelling unit on the land without Planning Board review.
Abutter Lewis Hitzrot asked for clarification whether Black said that three building permits were issued in error. Black said he believes that only one of the three permits was issued in error.
Yerxa said a mobile home park is defined under the current ordinance as “a plot of land designed or used to accommodate three or more mobile home units”. He said the current ordinance has no separate guidelines or special regulations regarding mobile home parks.
John Morris made a presentation using a sketch plan based on the Greiner site plan of the Walton land. He said the Board’s consideration should be on the parcel at its present size, not including the proposed addition of ~3.5 acres from Devries. Town records give 7.6 acres or 331, 056 s.f. for Walton’s lot 41. The existing unapproved four-unit subdivision requires 80,000 s.f. for the initial dwelling and one rental residence, and 80,000 s.f. each for the next two units, or 240,000 s.f. total. Roads in a subdivision are required to be 15 feet wide and must include a turn-around at the end (a cul-de-sac or T turnaround) sized to accommodate emergency vehicles. Morris estimates the area occupied by the three driveways (two existing, one proposed) plus the required turn-arounds is a total of 10,500 s.f. Only one wetland is delineated on the site plan. He estimates the area of this wetland at 3900 s.f. He estimated the dimensions of the drainage channel or swale that extends back from the road in a northwesterly direction as 450 feet long by 25 feet wide, occupying 11,250 s.f. of undevelopable area. These areas total 265,650 s.f., leaving only 65,406 s.f. of developable land on which to place another dwelling unit or units. The required minimum net developable area is 80,000 s.f. Morris concluded that the site as originally proposed is inadequate to accommodate any further dwelling units. His computation is given below.
Walton Lot 41 (7.6 ac) 331,056 s.f.
Net developable acreage, first two dwelling units 80,000 s.f.
Net developable acreage, next 2 units @ 80,000 s.f./unit 160,000
Roads, 2 existing + 1 proposed, including turnarounds 10,500
Wetland 3900
Drainage swale, est. 450’ x 25’ 11,250
- 265,650 s.f.
area remaining on 7.6-acre lot for additional dwelling units: 65,406 s.f.
Morris said that in considering the Walton subdivision the Planning Board must require adequate roads and consider requiring visual screening to buffer adjacent properties from adverse aesthetic impacts and help to preserve property values.
Chairman Yerxa said the Planning Board will require a complete boundary survey of the lot so that acreage can be computed accurately. Attorney Cohen asked that Planning Board review of the Walton application be continued until a survey plan can be prepared including the 3.5 additional acres, with a wetland delineation and subtracting the area occupied by subdivision roads and wetlands to give a figure for net developable area. Morris noted that it may be difficult to determine the extent of anaerobic soils and wetland vegetation during winter conditions.
Myers said another issue is the number of curb cuts or driveways that can enter Jackson Road from the subdivision. She cited General Performance Standards Section U Street Access and Driveways Subsection 13 Number of Driveways (p. 36). Subsection 13. a reads, “No low-volume traffic generator shall have more than one two-way driveway onto a single roadway”. The existing and proposed roads in the Walton development are all low-volume, with fewer than 25 vehicle trips per day, calculated at 10 vehicle trips per day per home (five round trips).
Morris asked about the threshold for requiring a hydrogeologic assessment of groundwater impacts. The local Site Review and Subdivision Ordinance (p. 6) and State subdivision law call for a minimum density of 100,000 s.f. per dwelling unit in order to be exempt from the requirement to submit a hydrogeologic assessment. Morris asked if this threshold is net developable area or total area; Black thought the latter.
Myers said that regardless of the 3.5-acre addition, it is clear that the Walton development constitutes an existing subdivision. She asked whether the existing subdivision should be dealt with before considering the additional units and acreage proposed.
Hitzrot asked whether there will be another public hearing when the revised application is complete. Morris noted that it is customary not to schedule a public hearing until an application is complete. Black said it is up to the Planning Board whether to hold a public hearing, but all Planning Board meetings are open to the public, and abutters are notified of agenda items in advance. Interested parties are usually allowed to speak and ask questions during Planning Board meetings. Hitzrot was told he can also submit a written statement to be read aloud at the meeting.
There being no further questions or comments, chairman Yerxa adjourned the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. The Board then went into regular session.
2. Vote to Table Walton Project Proposal
Bianchi made a motion, seconded by Myers, to require Walton to submit a complete wetland delineation, an accurate survey plan giving net developable acreage, a hydrogeologic assessment, and deferring the decision whether to hold a second public hearing. Attorney Cohen objected that until the lot size is known the Board has no basis for requiring a hydrogeologic assessment. Myers asked again whether the existing four-unit subdivision should be dealt with before considering the proposed addition. Bianchi then withdrew his motion, and Myers withdrew her second.
On motion of Gifford/Campbell, the Board voted 7 – 0 to table the Walton proposal for a 7.6 acre – 8.6 acre project until the application is complete.
CEO Black gave out copies of six written statements by abutters and interested parties and his notes on two phone calls received about the Walton application. These were not read or discussed at tonight’s meeting.
3. Planning Board Policy Discussion
Attorney Cohen and John Morris remained for the rest of the meeting. Cohen warned the Board that if there is any further discussion of the Walton project, his client has a right to be present.
Streets, driveways: Planning Board members held a general discussion of road, street and driveway requirements. Myers wanted guidance on how the Board should decide when to apply road standards as opposed to driveway standards. Yerxa suggested that it would be helpful to schedule a workshop session with Lincoln County planner Bob Faunce, with roads as one of the topics. The secretary was asked to review minutes for the past year to find previous suggestions for workshop topics.
The Board discussed under what circumstances a private driveway is required to end in a cul-de-sac or T turnaround for emergency vehicles. Flint wanted this clarified before the Board considers the Walton development. Morris suggested that it makes a difference how many homes are served by the driveway. If only one property is served, it is up to the owner whether or not to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles. If the driveway serves more than one family or owner, the decision should be made on grounds of safety. The lack of an adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles is a liability for the second owner. Morris said some town get input from their fire chiefs, who review even driveways serving one house in terms of how far a hose can be run without losing pressure. Gifford commented that the Planning Board and the Fire Chief have a joint responsibility to consider safety. She would like more input from the Fire Chief.
Myers asked again about the number of allowed curb cuts from a subdivision onto a public road, with reference to p. 36 under U Street Access and Driveways in the General Performance Standards. Morris said a subdivision where all lots have frontage on a public road will have multiple curb cuts, while a narrow deep subdivision could be served by a single subdivision road. The Planning Board has generally adopted the posture that if it is possible for a development to have only one curb cut onto a public road, the developer should be encouraged (but not required) to do that.
Illegal subdivisions: Yerxa asked for clarification of how to start to deal with an illegal subdivision. Is this a matter for the Planning Board or the Code Enforcement Officer? Black said the procedure is for the Code Enforcement Officer to notify the owner of the subdivision that the Town considers it an illegal subdivision. The owner may address the illegality by removing the excess dwelling units or lots, or by entering into a consent agreement with the Town.
Review by Lincoln County Planner: Yerxa said it would be very helpful to have specific comments from Bob Faunce on all subdivision applications. He asked Black to arrange for Faunce to review the Walton application when complete. Black said that Faunce receives copies of all materials sent to Planning Board members in advance of meetings.
Code Enforcement Officer’s Narrative: Myers said the application summaries formerly prepared by Black and sent to Board members with the agenda and meeting materials were very helpful in giving a status summary and providing background information for decisions. Other Board members agreed to ask Black to resume preparing application summaries, but not to call them “Findings of Fact”, because they represent his opinion, not necessarily that of the Board. Gifford recalled that the Planning Board was criticized if its decision differed from the Code Enforcement Officer’s “finding of fact”.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.