Vassalboro Planning Board
Aug 4th, 2015
Minutes
Present: Betsy Poulin (Acting Chair), Don Robbins, Doug Phillips, Marianne Hubert and Sally Butler
Absent: Ginny Bracket (Chair)
Staff: Richard Dolby, CEO/LPI
Applicants: Dan Charest, Robert Rosso, Charles Backenstose and Raymond Breton
Public: Mary Grow
1.) Betsy Poulin Acting Chair called the Meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
2.) The application proposed by Dan Charest, for his property at 8 Cushnoc Rd. for an indoor agricultural growing operation to be operated by Kennebec Holistic Healing LLC. was presented by the Owner.
The postal receipts for notification of the neighbors was presented and accepted.
The application was reviewed for content and form.
A motion was made by Marianne Hubert and 2nd by Doug Phillips, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.
Finding of Facts:
1. The provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking, and circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways eliminate any safety hazards are met.
A motion was made by Marianne Hubert and 2nd by Doug Phillips, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.2. What steps will be taken to insure that use, location or height of existing and proposed structures will not be detrimental to other public or private development in the neighborhood?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed exterior modifications this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.3. How will any on-site landscaping and buffer strips provide adequate protection to neighboring properties?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed exterior modifications this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Doug Phillips, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.4. How will the proposed project, so far as can be determined, not impose undue burdens so as to exceed the capacity of sanitary and storm drains, solid waste, fire protection and other resources?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed modifications effecting these items this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Doug Phillips and 2nd by Don Robbins, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.5. How does the site plan provide sufficient information to show storm water will be adequately drained from the site with no adverse impact on other property or publicly-owned drainage systems?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed modifications effecting these items this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Marianne Hubert, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.6. How will soil erosion and other impacts on surface and ground water be prevented?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed modifications effecting these items this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Marianne Hubert, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.7. How will the provisions for exterior lighting not create hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets and provide for the safety of the building’s occupants? How will such provisions not diminish the value or usability of adjacent properties?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed modifications effecting these items this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Doug Phillips, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.8. What evidence of financial capability has been provided so as to complete the development as planned? This evidence could include a letter of support from an accredited financial institution or some other means of documenting financial solvency.
Because the cost of the project is less than $ 1,000 no requirement for a surety was set.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Doug Phillips, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.9. What provisions have been made to insure that the proposed development not create safety hazards and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles to the site and to all buildings on the site?
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed modifications effecting these items this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Marianne Hubert and 2nd by Don Robbins, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.10. What provisions have been made to insure that 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.
Because this is an existing structure with no proposed modifications effecting these items this provision is not applicable and does not need to be addressed.
A motion was made by Marianne Hubert and 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.The applicant was informed the site review process was complete and that the project was approved.
3.) The Shoreland Zoning Application submitted by was not presented by the Applicant or Agent.
The application was reviewed for content and form.
A motion was made by Doug Phillips and 2nd by Don Robins, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.The Board noted there was no proposed expansion of the existing structure and its location and dimensions.
The Board reviewed the submission and concluded the installation involving a concrete foundation would not create soil disturbance to such a degree that it would be necessary to require an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and that no further permits were required or applicable from other regulatory bodies prior to review. It was noted that the contractor should use and follow D.E.P. “Best Management Practices”.
The Board noted that the submitted plan was to scale was thorough and identified all the criteria required by the ordinance and was sufficient as submitted.
The Board found that the project as presented was in compliance with the shoreland zoning provisions and was approved. The Board noted the maximum available square footage available to the applicant using the 15% expansion rule was 96 square feet. Should the enclosed porch be removed the footage represented by that area could be added to the 15%.
A motion was made by Doug Phillips and 2nd by Don Robbins, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.
4.) The CEO shared with the Board that the D.E.P. has posted suggested updates to the shoreland zoning regulations on their web site. They have been conducting training session regarding the proposal across the state for CEO’s and interested parties for several months. It was suggested that the materials be shared electronically with the Board so they could begin review of the materials and engage in discussions at following Board meetings as to the extent of modifications to the adopted Vassalboro Shoreland Zoning Ordinance found to be appropriate.
5.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.