April 06 2010 minutes

Vassalboro Planning Board
Minutes of April 6, 2010

Present:
Planning Board: Virginia Bracket, George Gould, Sally Butler
CEO: Paul Mitnik,
Public: Paul Morneau, Donna Wilson, Howard Wilson, Peter Fernald, Paul Fortier, Terry Huffman, Tim Higgins, Debby, Chuck, and Sean Cabaniss, Eric Albee, Randy Bean, Frank Getchell, Holly Weidner, Leah Cook, Mary Grow, Phillip Innes, Dana Albert

The meeting opened at 7:00 PM.

Review of March 2 Minutes: The March 2 Minutes were approved ( Gould / Butler 4-0).

Shoreland Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing
Amendments to Ordinance

A follow-up public hearing to the one held last month on March 2 was the first item on the agenda. Ginny explained that Paul delineated the Shoreland Zones proposed to be upgraded to Resource Protection District for the land along the Kennebec River and China Lake. A re-evaluation of the property by Paul indicated that nine of the properties along the Kennebec River fell out of the greater than 20% slope or floodplain zone and could remain Limited Residential District. The floor was then opened to public comment.

Howard Wilson who owns land abutting the Kennebec River questioned why the proposed zoning upgrade had to be done on his land. He has paid taxes on it for 25 years. Paul explained that his land along the Kennebec has a slope that is greater than 20% and the state mandates this upgrading. Howard indicated that there are fields in the shoreland area and a barn. Paul indicated that the fields could remain as long as they are maintained as fields and the proposal does not affect the barn, which is an accessory structure.

Frank Getchell asked about timber cutting restrictions near the wetland on his land. Paul indicated that the upgrade in mandated by state law along moderate and high value wetlands and the wetlands are mapped as a GIS layer. Paul indicated that this prohibits timber harvesting within 75 feet of the wetland. Later in the hearing Paul corrected this statement. The 75 foot prohibition actually only applies to lakes. Wetland shoreland zones will be regulated the same as Limited Residential Zone being no more than 40% of the volume of trees greater than 4 inches in diameter may be removed in a given 10 year period

Holly Weidner inquired about trails and boat access sites. Would the newly upgraded Resource Protection Zones allow the construction of new trails and boat access? Paul indicated that trails could be built as they are now, but some changes were made to clarify this. The construction of trails and boat access were added as permitted uses and the clearing prohibition of growth less than three feet in height within 100 feet of the high water mark had to be changed to allow the construction of public trails. The ordinance also had to be re-worded to allow roads for boat access within 100 feet of the high water mark.

Eric Albee asked about how a public trail should be defined. He thought that the definition of a public trail should be added to the ordinance. Laura Brown asked if trails to wetlands could be built. Paul indicated that they could so long as the trail did not exceed six feet in width. Eric asked about how the properties falling out of the criteria were determined. Paul explained that the floodplain maps and quadrangle maps were used to determine the boundaries.

Paul Fortier asked about the significance of the re-zoning. Paul Mitnik explained that currently a 100 foot setback for residential structures is required in a Limited Residential Zone and this would change to 250 foot setback in a Resource Protection Zone.

Holly Weidner asked about the consequences of not passing the ordinance. Paul indicated that the state (DEP) would then take over and force the Town to adopt the minimum state guidelines. A similar process will involve the adoption of new mapping for the Floodplain Management ordinance with the consequences for this being a resident not be able to buy flood insurance.

Tim Higgins
Shoreland Zoning Webber Pond
New Residential Home
Tax Map 6, Lot 26B

Tim Higgins is proposing to build a new 32 X 28 foot residence with a 24 X 28 foot attached garage on land along Webber Pond next to the Kennebec Land Trust property. Ginny noted that he is in compliance of structure setback requirements from the lake high water mark (100 feet) and the DOT driveway entrance permit to Webber Pond Rd, a state aid road, has been applied for and is pending at the time of this hearing. A septic system plan has been prepared by a site evaluator and the disposal bed is designed for four bedrooms even though only three are planned. The lot is a conforming lot, having 210 feet of frontage (200 is required) and 3+ acres (40,000 square feet or slightly less than 1 acre is required). The permit was approved (Gould / Butler 3-0)

Chuck Cabaniss
Minor Site Review
Firearms Course and Range
Tax Map 6, Lot 16

A firearms instruction and training business are planned for Chuck’s property located at 546 Webber Pond Rd. Chuck has been operating a photography business out of his home the last six years. He is planning on using a portion of his 53 acres as a firing range. Chuck is planning on using the upstairs of his garage for the class on firearms instruction. The parking area will be his driveway and the runway of his aircraft, if necessary, up to his hanger. The target area will be about 2000 feet from Webber Pond Rd where trainees can shoot into a berm. The shooting will be toward Lewis Rd, an abandoned road, which contains no homes.

Ginny commented that the large area of the site plan made following the ordinance requirements of scale (not less than 1 inch = 50 feet) to the plan impossible without having an enormous drawing. Paul indicated that section 12A of the Site Review Ordinance allows the Board to waive certain criteria due to special circumstances or creating an unnecessary burden to the applicant. It was decided that the large size of the site (53 acres) allowed waiving the scale requirements. The site plan was presented on an aerial photograph and two other drawings of the property and buildings. The site plan was determined to be complete conditional to the waiving of the scale requirements as not practicable (Gould / Butler 3-0).

A discussion ensued about the noise from the shooting by neighboring property owners. Dana Albert had concerns about the noise from the shooting. Chuck mentioned that Dana is not an abutter to the property. When asked about the hours of the shooting, Chuck indicated that it will largely be by appointment rather than set hours. He expects that night shooting should not be frequent, but did not want to rule this out. Phillip Innes asked about the transfer of ownership. Would this mean that the permit is also transferable? Ginny said that the new owner would have to re-apply for a permit.

Chuck indicated that this will not be a shooting range open to the general public, but will be strictly supervised shooting. At this time he is unsure of the market but the shooting would probably not be daily. It was noted that noise levels in the ordinance require measurement in decibels to determine compliance with #10 performance criteria regarding noise. The Town does not own a decibel meter and Paul did not know of anyplace to borrow one and indicated that enforcement of noise would be difficult.

The permit application was then checked for compliance with the ordinance performance standards.

Performance Standards – Findings of Fact and Conclusions for Permit Approval

Standard
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and adjacent public streets.
Findings –The existing driveway and runway will be used for parking. The site has an existing driveway entrance permit from DOT.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – Parking and traffic circulation is adequate for twelve customers. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
2. Location or height of proposed structures and uses will not be detrimental to other public or private development in the neighborhood.
Findings – No new structures are proposed.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, provides adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the neighborhood.
Findings – An existing berm that is six to seven feet high will be used to intercept stray firearm shots. This berm will be built higher.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler 3-0

Standard
4. The proposed use will not impose undue burdens so as to exceed the capacity of the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water, solid waste, fire protection, and other public facilities.
Findings – The limited size of the class will generate a small amount of waste and not require much public facilities.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
5. The Site Plan provides sufficient information to show that storm water will be adequately drained from the site with no adverse impact on other property or publicly owned drainage systems.
Findings – The storm water patterns of the site will not be changed.
Discussion – None.
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
6. Soil erosion and other adverse impacts on the soil ground water and surface water shall be prevented. Ground water will not be adversely impacted in quality or quantity.
Findings – No soil is being disturbed by the project.
Discussion – None.
Conclusions – There should be no impact to ground and surface water. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
7. The provisions for exterior lighting do not create hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets and are adequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site and such provisions will not damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Findings – No additional lighting is proposed for the business.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
8. An applicant for Site Plan approval has provided evidence of his financial capability to complete the development as planned.
Findings – The buildings needed for the business are already completed.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
9. The proposed development will not create safety hazards and will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles to the site, and to all buildings on the site.
Findings – The property for the business is 53 acres and has a driveway and runway.
Discussion – None
Conclusions: The driveway and parking areas are large enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
10. The proposed development will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of abutting property as a result of noise, vibrations, fumes, odor, dust, glare, or other cause.
Findings – The noise generated from the firing of weapons will be infrequent and be highly restricted by owner who is highly experience in this area. The shooting will take place more than ½ mile from abutters.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

The application as a whole was approved Gould / Butler (3-0).

Terry Huffman
Minor Site Review
Motorcycle Apparel Business
Tax Map 6, Lot 31

A business involving the sale of apparel and accessories of motorcycles and ATV’s is planned for a property located at 1611 Riverside Dr. The business will be a small retail shop operating out of a 12 x 25 foot back portion of the garage. The driveway will be used for parking. A large volume of customers at a single time is not expected. Terry will also do traveling shows. The site plan was determined to be complete (Gould / Butler 3-0)

The permit application was then checked for compliance with the ordinance performance standards.

Performance Standards – Findings of Fact and Conclusions for Permit Approval

Standard
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and adjacent public streets.
Findings –The existing driveway of dimensions 12 X 150 feet will be used for parking parking. Large volumes of customers are not expected.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – Parking and traffic circulation is adequate for low volume of customers. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, provides adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the neighborhood.
Findings – No new landscaping is proposed. The small volume of customers will blend in harmoniously to a residential neighborhood.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler 3-0

Standard
4. The proposed use will not impose undue burdens so as to exceed the capacity of the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water, solid waste, fire protection, and other public facilities.
Findings – The limited size of the business will not result in any public burdens.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
5.The Site Plan provides sufficient information to show that storm water will be adequately drained from the site with no adverse impact on other property or publicly owned drainage systems.
Findings – The storm water patterns of the site will not be changed, since no clearing of land or new structures are proposed.
Discussion – None.
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
7. The provisions for exterior lighting do not create hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets and are adequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site and such provisions will not damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Findings – No additional lighting is proposed for the business other than a motion activated light.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
8.An applicant for Site Plan approval has provided evidence of his financial capability to complete the development as planned.
Findings – The buildings needed for the business are already completed.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
9. The proposed development will not create safety hazards and will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles to the site, and to all buildings on the site.
Findings – The driveway is 150 feet long and is adequate for emergency vehicles..
Discussion – None
Conclusions: The driveway is large enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
10. The proposed development will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of abutting property as a result of noise, vibrations, fumes, odor, dust, glare, or other cause.
Findings – The business will be a low volume type and should not interfere with the peace of the neighborhood.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

The application as a whole was approved Gould / Butler (3-0).

Leah Cook
Crown O’ Maine Organic Cooperative
After - the- Fact Permit
Major Site Review Pre-Application Meeting
Shoreland Zoning Commercial Use
Tax Map 23, Lot 85-1

Leah Cook is operating an organic food co-op, Crown of Maine Organic Cooperative (COMOC), to distribute foods at the former location of the Kennebec Bean Co. in North Vassalboro. It is a building owned by the Marcoux’s who obtained permitting at this site last year. Leah is leasing a portion of the building that was permitted under the Marcoux’s site plan as cold storage and three stories. Leah indicated at last month’s meeting that they have been in operation for about six weeks that makes this an after-the-fact permit. She was not aware that permitting from the Town was necessary.

COMOC uses the bean factory building as a base of operations to receive produce and goods, stage orders, and ship and distribute them throughout the region. They have two refrigerated trucks that run when needed and regularly use another carrier to make large shipments when needed. The business is strictly wholesale with no plans to go retail.

Compliance of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance was checked for the commercial use of the business. This area is zoned as Limited Residential / Commercial which authorizes light commercial use. The Shoreland Zoning application was approved by the Board (Gould / Butler 3-0).

The site plan was checked for completeness. The building is on public sewer and water, the lighting will not be changed, and a sign will eventually be put out near Main St. The Site Plan was determined to be complete by the Board (Gould / Butler 3-0).

The permit application was then checked for compliance with the ordinance performance standards.

Performance Standards – Findings of Fact and Conclusions for Permit Approval

Standard
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and adjacent public streets.
Findings – Points of egress and access are not changing from historical use. The driveway is over 150 feet in length. Three loading docks provide access to the building for trucks. Parking for employees and business associates is kept separate from the loading areas.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – Parking and traffic circulation is adequate for low volume of customers. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
2 .Location or height of proposed structures and uses will not be detrimental to other public or private development in the neighborhood.
Findings – No new structures are proposed.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, provides adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the neighborhood.
Findings – No new landscaping is proposed. The site has an existing riparian tree line which buffers exposure to neighbors. The loading docks are located to the rear of the building and do not face and abutting residence.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler 3-0

Standard
4. The proposed use will not impose undue burdens so as to exceed the capacity of the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water, solid waste, fire protection, and other public facilities.
Findings – The limited size of the business will not result in any public burdens. The five employees are considerably less than the historic use of the building. No water is used for industrial production.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
7.The provisions for exterior lighting do not create hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets and are adequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site and such provisions will not damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Findings – The exterior lighting is in one loading zone to the rear of the lot away from Main St. The spot lighting on the loading decks is obscured from view by the trucks.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
8. An applicant for Site Plan approval has provided evidence of his financial capability to complete the development as planned.
Findings – No initial capital investments are needed other than the cost to lease part of the building.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
9.The proposed development will not create safety hazards and will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles to the site, and to all buildings on the site.
Findings – The driveway is more than 150 feet in length.
Discussion – None
Conclusions: The driveway is large enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
10.The proposed development will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of abutting property as a result of noise, vibrations, fumes, odor, dust, glare, or other cause.
Findings – There are no residences nearby. The only noise is refrigeration trucks which may run all night.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

The application as a whole was approved Gould / Butler (3-0).

Randy Bean
Major Site Review
Transfer of Ownership
Tax Map 3, Lot 26-1

The biodiesel plant located at 2232 Riverside Dr is transferring ownership from Bean’s Commercial Grease to Clean Fuels of Maine LLC. The operation of the plant is not changing significantly. Randy has been hired by the new owner to help run the operation. The site plan was checked for completeness by Ginny and determined to be complete by the Board (Gould / Butler 3-0)

The permit application was then checked for compliance with the ordinance performance standards.

Performance Standards – Findings of Fact and Conclusions for Permit Approval

Standard
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and adjacent public streets.
Findings – Loading and unloading of vehicles will be done within the building. Paved parking is provided on both end of the building. The business has a driveway entrance permit from DOT.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
2. Location or height of proposed structures and uses will not be detrimental to other public or private development in the neighborhood.
Findings – No new structures are proposed.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, provides adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the neighborhood.
Findings – No new landscaping is proposed. There are not many residences near the business.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler 3-0

Standard
4.The proposed use will not impose undue burdens so as to exceed the capacity of the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water, solid waste, fire protection, and other public facilities.
Findings – Internal containment drains and floor drains are connected to an underground holding tank which are pumped periodically and disposed at treatment plant. A small dumpster screen from view is used to dispose of trash.
Discussion – None
Conclusions - The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
6.Soil erosion and other adverse impacts on the soil ground water and surface water shall be prevented. Ground water will not be adversely impacted in quality or quantity.
Findings – No soil is being disturbed by the project.
Discussion – None.
Conclusions – There should be no impact to ground and surface water. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
7.The provisions for exterior lighting do not create hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets and are adequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site and such provisions will not damage the alue and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Findings – No additional lighting is proposed.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
8.An applicant for Site Plan approval has provided evidence of his financial capability to complete the development as planned.
Findings – A statement has been provided from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts indicating that the business is in good financial standing.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
9. The proposed development will not create safety hazards and will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles to the site, and to all buildings on the site.
Findings – The paved parking areas on either side of the building are approximately 100 X 100 feet.
Discussion – None
Conclusions: The driveway is large enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

Standard
10.The proposed development will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of abutting property as a result of noise, vibrations, fumes, odor, dust, glare, or other cause.
Findings – The nearest residences are more than 100 yards away. The business does not generate much noise and fumes.
Discussion – None
Conclusions – The standard is met. Gould / Butler (3-0)

The application as a whole was approved Gould / Butler (3-0).

Paul Morneau
Expiration of Subdivision Permit
Mystic Ridge Subdivision
Tax Map 12, Lot 16

Paul Morneau was on the agenda for consideration of revocation of his subdivision permit which was permitted on March 15, 2005. Section VI (E) of Vassalboro’s Subdivision Ordinance states that “failure to complete substantial construction of the subdivision within five years of the date of approval shall render the plan null and void.”
Paul appeared at the meeting and indicated that he plans to re-apply for the subdivision permit.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00.