Vassalboro Planning Board
Minutes of January 8, 2008

Present:
Planning Board: George Gould, Gary Coull, Sally Butler, Doug Phillips
CEO: Paul Mitnik,
Public: Greg O Halloran, Norm Grant, Tom Fullam, Stephanie Fullam

The meeting opened at 7:00 PM. George agreed to serve as Board Chair in Ginny’s absence.

Review of December 4 Minutes: Gary motioned to accept the December 4 Minutes. Sally seconded. All in favor.

Norm Grant
Shoreland Zoning – Reconstruction of Evans Lister Home
China Lake Outlet Stream
Tax Map 22, Lot 59

Norm Grant represented Evans Lister whose home at 884 Main St was destroyed recently by a fire. George went through the application to assure that it was complete. Paul explained the contents of the application. The original home contained a full cellar plus two floors. The total floor area was 3834 square feet and the total volume 30,672 cubic feet. The home is served by both town sewer and water. The closest part of the structure before being destroyed by fire was about 78 feet to the high water mark of the Outlet Stream. A garage that was also destroyed had an area of 192 square feet.

The proposal is to rebuild a new home and utilize the 15% expansion allowance authorized by Vassalboro’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. This would allow up to 4409 square feet of floor area. The proposed home will use 4368 square feet of floor area and be within the 15% allowance. There will be a 28 X 40 home with a full basement and two stories and an attached 28 x 36 garage with one story. The new home will be 85 feet from the high water mark at its closest point.

The written erosion and sediment control plan proposes to install silt fence down gradient to Outlet Stream prior to starting excavation and to seed and mulch exposed land areas after exterior work is completed. Two trees need to be removed. The applicant is proposing to replant the two tree removed with native species.

Doug asked if the original measurements could be confirmed by tax cards for the property and Paul indicated that they could. Doug indicated that the Ordinance requires rebuilding of a non-conforming structure within one year.

The application was determined to be complete by motion of Doug; seconded by Gary; All in favor. Next the performance standards of the ordinance were considered.

1.Will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions.
No significant issues. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Sally. All in favor.
2.Will not result in erosion or sedimentation
The applicant has obtained an NRPA permit from DEP and will follow DEP protocols. Motion to approve by Sally, seconded by Gary. All in favor.
3.Will not result in water pollution.
No significant issues. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Sally. All in favor.
4.Will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, and other wildlife habitat.
No significant issues. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Gary. All in favor.
5.Will conserve shoreland vegetation.
Proposal calls for replanting trees to be removed. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Sally. All in favor.
6.Will conserve visual access to water view from public facilities.
No significant issues. Motion to approve by Sally, seconded by Gary. All in favor.
7.Will conserve actual points of public access to water.
Not applicable and therefore meets the standard. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Sally. All in favor.
8.Will conserve natural beauty.
No significant issues. Motion to approve by Gary, seconded by Sally. All in favor.
9.Will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use.
Not applicable and therefore meets the standard. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Gary. All in favor.
10.Be in conformance with the provisions of Section 13 Land Use Standards
Paul indicated the structure footprint is 17% of the total land area and therefore meet the 20% criteria. Also meets the other criteria indicated in Section 13B. Motion to approve by Doug, seconded by Sally. All in favor.

Doug made a motion to approve the permit as a whole subjected to the following conditions.

1.Standard conditions.
2.The exterior shell and seeding and mulching shall be complete by September 30, 2008.

This was seconded by Gary. All in favor.

Greg O Halloran
Major Subdivision Final Plan
Tax Map 9, Lot 31

Greg O Halloran represented Peter Bragdon for a proposed twelve lot subdivision at the intersection of Stone and Mudgett Hill Rd. The preliminary plan was determined to be complete at the last Planning Board meeting.

The final plan was first checked for completeness. To save time, Paul had prepared of list of seven additional items to check that were additional requirements when comparing preliminary and final plan requirements. First sight distances and the removal of a poultry barn on the property were discussed. The sight distance required for a driveway entering a road is 350 feet for a road posted at 35 mph. Paul explained there is some ambiguity in the Road Ordinance whether or not this actually applies to an existing Town road. The Road Ordinance is more applicable to new road construction. Most of the lots could meet the 350 foot sight distances with the exception of two lots, as indicated by a spreadsheet that Greg prepared. The two lots were within 30 feet of the 350 feet. This was deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Board.

The building to be removed was discussed next. Part of the submission of materials for the preliminary plan indicated what were to be done with demolition debris, but did not indicate when the demolition of the barn was to occur. Doug indicated that the subdivision approval could be made conditional to removal of the barn within six months from the approval date and the rest of the Board agreed.

Next the requirement of preparing a phosphorus control plan was discussed. Paul indicated that a phosphorus control plan was required due to the fact that the proposed subdivision is in the direct watershed of a great pond. This was confirmed by a telephone conversation that he had with Jeff Dennis of DEP that morning. Greg indicated that the subdivision drains to a wetland first and therefore is not in the direct watershed of a great pond and the P-Control plan is not required. There is some ambiguity in the definition of the direct watershed of a great pond, since the town is suppose to have watershed delineations included in their shoreland zoning map but there are no such delineations. Paul offered to obtain water delineations from DEP for future applications. The Board considered that no land is being cleared; the far distance to the lakes (the subdivision is located on the watershed divides); and the wetland does provide some buffering capacity for phosphorus before entering lakes. There was a consensus not to require the P-Control Plan.

The other items considered were the list of construction items and evidence of financial commitments, location and methods, for disposal for land clearing and construction debris, a letter from the Town Manager and Fire Chief supporting the proposal, and adequate evidence of financial capacity. These were determined to already be included within the packet for the preliminary plan approval.

Gary made a motion to approve the final plan as complete. This was seconded by Sally. All in favor.

Next the performance standards of the Subdivision Ordinance were review for compliance.
A. Pollution – No significant issues. Motion for approval by Doug. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
B. Sufficient Water – Covered by a letter from a well driller familiar with the area. Motion for approval by Gary. Seconded by Doug. All in favor.
C. Soil erosion – Submission of material contains adequate erosion control measures. Motion for approval by Sally. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
D. Traffic Conditions –No significant issues. Motion for approval by Doug. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
E. Sewage Disposal – Submittal of lot test pits and HHE-200 of lot with the most limiting soil is sufficient. Motion for approval by Doug. Seconded by Sally. All in favor.
F. Solid Waste - No issues identified. Motion for approval by Gary Seconded by Sally. All in favor.
G. Impact of Natural Beauty - No issues identified. Motion for approval by Gary. Seconded by Doug. All in favor.
H. Financial and Technical Capacity – No significant issues. Motion for approval by Gary. Seconded by Sally. All in favor.
I. Impact on groundwater quality or quantity. No issues identified. Motion for approval by Gary. Seconded by Doug. All in favor.
J. Flood Plain Management – Not in a flood plain. Not applicable. Motion for approval by Sally. Seconded by Doug. All in favor.
K. Freshwater Wetlands – No issues identified. Motion for approval by Sally. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
L. Storm Water Management – The material supplied in the engineering report is sufficient. Motion for approval by Gary. Seconded by Doug. All in favor.
Doug made a motion to approve the subdivision application in its entirety subjected to the following conditions

1.Removal of the poultry barn within six months time from the approval date
2.Disclosure of where debris material will be buried.

This was seconded by Gary. All in favor.

It was decided that the Planning Board will meet next Tuesday as planned to start the revision process to the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.

The meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.