Vassalboro Planning Board
Minutes of November 11, 2008
Present:
Planning Board: Ginny Brackett, Gary Coull, George Gould, Jay Nutting
CEO: Paul Mitnik,
Public: Davie Coulumbe, Gabrielle Axtell, Frank Axtell, Chuck ONeal, Ben Murray, Nora Murray, Bruce Murray, Mike Farrell, Francis Joseph, Maureen Nadeau, Alexander Joseph, Mary Grow
The meeting opened at 7:00 PM.
Review of October 7 Minutes: George motioned to accept the October 7 Minutes. Gary seconded. All in favor.
Subdivision Standard Conditions
The meeting opened with a discussion of Paul’s proposal to include nine standard conditions on all subdivision plans that Paul drafted as a result of the many problems recently encountered with compliance within recently approved subdivisions. The standard condition proposal is included as part of the Minutes. Gary questioned the five year period in standard condition #2 which included the following language. “The subdivision is limited to _____ dwelling units in the five year period following the approval date unless an amendment to the original subdivision plan is approved by the Planning Board.”
Gary interpreted this as saying the entire subdivision had to be developed in five years which he thought was not reasonable. Paul said this was not his intent. The subdivision could be further divided after five years. Ginny said that the applicant would have to apply for a modification if the lots were changed any time in the future. Paul agreed.
Ginny questioned standard condition #8 which included the following language. “Except in the case of a phased development plan, failure to complete substantial construction of the subdivision within five years of the date of approval shall render the plan null and void.” She thought it would be difficult to determine what substantial construction was, particularly if no roads were constructed. Paul indicated that this language is taken right from the Subdivision Ordinance Section VI E. There was agreement that substantial construction could be difficult to determine.
The Board approved the standard conditions to be included on all subdivision final plans in all future proposals with the change to #2 to remove the language reference to five years by motion of Jay, seconded by George. All in favor.
Ben Murray
Shoreland Zoning Webber Pond
Construction of New Duplex
Tax Map 19, Lot 11
Ben Murray introduced a proposal by his father, Bruce Murray, to build a duplex on Lot 11 located off the Murray Road. An existing residential dwelling and shed currently within 100 feet of the lake would be relocated outside of the Shoreland Zone. The proposed new structure would use a newly created septic field and the relocated structure would use the existing septic field. Both structures would share the same well. 1.6 acres of land would be transferred to Lot 11 from Lot 13 to create a new lot slightly greater than three acres. A new road would be created to access the current structures located on lots 12 and 13. The areas including an existing parking lot and the old building site of the relocated structures would be reclaimed with grass cover.
Paul indicated that the proposal adds an additional dwelling unit on Lot 11 and there is not enough lot frontage on the lake to accommodate an additional dwelling unit. The Shoreland Zoning Ordinance requires 200 feet of frontage for each additional dwelling unit. Only 135 feet of frontage exists on Lot 11.
The section of the Ordinance pertaining to contiguous non-conforming lots (10 E 2) was first consulted. Paul indicated that the abutting lots are not in common ownership since Bruce Murray owns Lot 11 and Bruce and Lenora Murray own Lot 12. MMA legal staff confirmed this interpretation. Section 13 A 5 requires the additional frontage and lot area per dwelling unit.
The Board and Paul discussed other proposals with Ben such as moving the duplex out of the Shoreland Zone or combining Lots 11 and 12 and removing the existing three dwelling units from the Shoreland Zone. Ben indicated that he would consider another proposal.
The permit application was denied due to not meeting the frontage requirement in the Ordinance for the additional dwelling unit by motion of George, seconded by Jay. All in favor.
Peter and Teena French
Shoreland Zoning Outlet Stream
New Residential Structure and Expansion
Tax Map 23, Lot 79
The Frenches did not show again. The application was tabled.
Tim Dutton
Minor Site Review
Central Maine Heating Service
Tax Map 3, Lot 98
Heather Dutton represented the Dutton’s for a proposed business at the former site of Getchell’s store and many other businesses. The application is after the fact, since they have been operating there approximately six weeks. The business was formerly run out of their home and was transferred to this site. Central Maine Heating services and installs heating systems and sells firewood. The business operates with only one truck and there is minimal traffic from the site.
The application includes a copy of the lease agreement with Central Maine Heating and Frank Getchell, which satisfies the Ordinance provision for proof of title, right, and interest. The green card return receipt mail in the file confirms the Ordinance requirement to notify all abutters to the property The HHE-200 form submitted with the application and checked by Paul, Vassalboro’s Local Plumbing Inspector, confirms that the existing subsurface wastewater disposal system is adequate for the business located on the site.
Ginny went through the site plan to determine completeness and Heather answered questions. The sign is not lit, but they have to move it farther away from the road due to a requirement from DOT that it be a minimum of 50 feet from the road centerline. Paul indicated that there is a letter in the file from DOT indicating that the current driveway entrance permit from the site is adequate and the Dutton’s do not need a new entrance permit. The Board determined that the application was complete by motion of George and seconded by Jay. All in favor.
Next the performance standards for a minor site review were considered. These standards have already been approved by the Board for a number of businesses at this site in the past, so approval of the standards did not warrant much discussion. The follow findings of approval were made based upon the application and the comments of the Board.
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading. – The vehicle movement at the site is not significant. DOT letter of November 4 indicates that the current driveway entrance permit is adequate. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Jay. All in favor.
2. Location of height and location of proposed structures and uses not detrimental. The structure and appearance of the existing building is not changing. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, screening, and buffering from adjoining neighborhood. - No changes are being made to the property Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Jay. All in favor.
4. The proposed use will not impact public facilities and storage of material will be adequate. - No public facilities are needed for this proposal. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
5. Adequate provisions for stormwater – Stormwater drainage is minimal due to the lack of slope and small amount of impervious area of the site. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Jay. All in favor.
6. Adequate provisions to prevent soil erosion and impacts to ground and surface water. - No new developed area is being proposed. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
7. Adequate provisions that exterior lighting to not provide hazards to motorists. – The sign is not lit and there will be no changes to existing exterior lighting. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
8. Evidence for financial capacity. - This is not applicable, since the structure and exterior work are already developed and the business was already established prior to moving to this site. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
9. The proposed development will not create safety hazards and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. – The existing parking lot is adequately sized for emergency vehicles. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
10. Adequate provisions to insure noise, vibrations, fumes, odor, dust, and glare are not detrimental to neighborhood. – The applicant has indicated that business hours will be 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM. The neighbors have not objected to the business. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Jay. All in favor.
The site review permit as a whole was approved by motion of George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
Francis Joseph
Minor Site Review
Antique Automobile Business
Tax Map 8, Lot 158
Francis Joseph is proposing a business for recycling antique automobiles and parts. His property has been involved in an enforcement action by the Code Officer to remove unregistered and un-inspected motor vehicle that once numbered 85 and is now down to 12. The remaining vehicles are antiques that Francis wants to keep. He does not anticipate selling many automobiles or parts or taking in new vehicles. Paul explained that Francis has an Automobile Graveyard Permit approved by the Selectmen in September conditional to obtaining Planning Board approval for a business and the Recycler License from the State. Vassalboro’s Automobile Graveyard Ordinance and State law require all automobile graveyards to be businesses. The graveyard permit also limits the amount of unregistered or un-inspected vehicles that Francis can have on his property at any given time to twelve (12).
Frank and Gabriel Axtell, abutters to the Joseph property indicated that they had concerns for the business. They want assurance that Francis would not increase the amount of vehicles to what formerly existed and had concerns for their groundwater being protected from contamination. Paul indicated that the automobile graveyard permit limits the number of un-inspected or unregistered vehicles to twelve and he inspected the property as a requirement to the graveyard permit to assurance compliance of all state and local laws which address the protection of groundwater.
Francis indicated that he was being licensed as a business reluctantly, since he only wanted to keep the vehicles, but permitting through the Planning Board was necessary to do this. Ginny replied that the Board still had to go through all the application material and Ordinance requirements for a business regardless of his intentions. Ginny asked a number of questions. Where would automobiles would be dismantled for removal of vehicular fluids? Francis indicated he had a garage. He was unable to confirm its size when asked, but Paul had a copy of the building permit which indicated that it was 30 X 30 feet. Were only cars we being recycled? and Paul confirmed that was the case. What was the size of the automobile storage area? Paul estimated about two acres. The length of the driveway? About 500 feet. Will there be a sign? The recycler license requires a sign of a minimum of 12 square feet or 4 X 3 feet. The site plan was determined to be complete by motion of George, and seconded by Jay. All in favor.
The application included a copy of the deed which confirmed title right and interest to the property. A copy of the letter to abutters and green card return receipt mail indicated that the required notification of abutters had been done.
Next the performance standards for a minor site review were considered. The follow findings of approval were made based upon the application and the comments of the Board.
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading. – The vehicle movement at the site is not significant. The number of unregistered and un-inspected vehicles is limited to twelve. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
2. Location of height and location of proposed structures and uses not detrimental. The structure and appearance of the existing building is not changing. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, screening, and buffering from adjoining neighborhood. - No changes are being made to the property. The natural screening for the property was determined to be adequate through an inspection made by the CEO as a requirement of the automobile graveyard permitting. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Jay. All in favor.
4. The proposed use will not impact public facilities and storage of material will be adequate. - No public facilities are needed for this proposal. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
5. Adequate provisions for stormwater – Stormwater drainage is minimal off the property due to the small amount of impervious area of the site. There are adequate vegetative buffers to abutting properties. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
6. Adequate provisions to prevent soil erosion and impacts to ground and surface water. - No new developed area is being proposed. Permit made conditional to limiting the amount of stored waste oil to fifteen (15) gallons, .the number of stored batteries to three (3) and the number of unregistered and un-inspected vehicles to twelve (12). Motion to approve by George and seconded by Gary. All in favor.
7. Adequate provisions that exterior lighting does not provide hazards to motorists. – There will be no exterior lighting. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
8. Evidence for financial capacity. - This is not applicable since no new structures or inventory is needed. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Jay. All in favor.
9. The proposed development will not create safety hazards and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. – The existing vehicle storage area is adequately sized for emergency vehicles. Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
10. Adequate provisions to insure noise, vibrations, fumes, odor, dust, and glare are not detrimental to neighborhood. – An inspection by the CEO has indicated that the natural screening is adequate to buffer neighboring properties. The condition to limit vehicles to twelve should alleviate concerns from the Axtell’s that the property will not be expanded to large amounts of vehicles as had occurred in the past. Motion for approval by George and seconded by Jay. All in favor.
The Site Review Permit as a whole was approved conditionally by motion of George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor. The conditions are limiting the amount of stored waste oil to fifteen (15) gallons, .the number of stored batteries to three (3) and the number of unregistered and un-inspected vehicles to twelve (12).
The meeting adjourned at 900 PM.