Vassalboro Planning Board
July 7th, 2015
Present: Betsy Poulin (Acting Chair), Sally Butler, and Don Robbins
Absent: Ginny Bracket (Chair), Marianne Hubert, Doug Phillips
Staff: Richard Dolby, CEO/LPI
Applicants: Danielle Piecewicz, Steven Inserra and Raymond Breton
Public: Mary Grow, Rev. Barbra J. Pierce and Heather Thomas
1.) Betsy Poulin Acting Chair called the Meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
2.) The Child Care application proposed in the Vassalboro Full Gospel Church, was presented by the Applicant.
The postal receipts for notification of the neighbors was presented and accepted.
A motion was made by Don Robbins to accept the application submitted as complete, 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.The application was reviewed for content and form.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, 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 Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, 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 Sally Butler, 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 Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, 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 Sally Butler, 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 Sally Butler, 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 Sally Butler, 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 Sally Butler, 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 Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, 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 Don Robbins 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 Steven Inserra was presented by the applicant
The application was reviewed for content and form.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.The applicant explained the proposed expansion of the existing structure and its location and dimensions for the Board.
The Board reviewed the submission and concluded the expansion involving a structure located on posts 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.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.
The Board noted that the submitted plan although not to scale was thorough and identified all the criteria required by the ordinance and was sufficient as submitted.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.
The Board found that the project as presented was in compliance with the shoreland zoning provisions and was approved.
A motion was made by Don Robbins and 2nd by Sally Butler, the Board voted unanimously in the affirmative.4.) Raymond Breton presented two plans for Map 22, Lot 63 also identified as 896 Main St.
Mr. Breton has not presented an application for the project at this time.
Mr. Breton outlined the proposal for the Board and asked for guidance.
The residence had a leaking oil tank that D.E.P. has assisted in remediation of the contaminated soils between the home and the stream, his proposal includes removing the home and allowing D.E.P. to return to the site and remediate the soils beneath the home as well.
Upon completion of the cleanup he desires to apply for replacing the existing 24.5’ X 37’ 1 and ½ story structure with a one story structure 26’ X 44’ building. The present garage is potentially to be relocated to the southern portion of the property and sold along with the land beneath it to the adjoining property owner.
The Board requested Mr. Breton preform the following tasks:
a.) Prepare a Shoreland Zoning Application that describes the proposal,
b.) Prepare a scaled, dimensioned plot plan of the proposal,
c.) Special note was taken of the existing size of the present lot (7,000 sq. ft.) and the restriction of reducing an existing non-conforming lot. Should the existing lot be combined with other properties to achieve the minimum 40,000 sq. ft. area a review could be made.
5.) The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.