Vassalboro Planning Board
Minutes of May 5, 2009
Present:
Planning Board: Virginia Bracket, George Gould, Gary Coull
CEO: Paul Mitnik,
Public: Edward and Joanne Marcoux, Patrice Lessard, Adam B. Ellis, Linette Gamache, Richard Bradstreet, Raymond and Lois Dyer, Michael Dyer
The meeting opened at 7:05 PM.
Review of April 7 Minutes: George motioned to accept the April 7 Minutes. Gary seconded. All in favor.
Linette Gamache
Minor Site Review
Beauty Salon
Tax Map 3, Lot 69
Linette Gamache is proposing to convert garage space into a two chair beauty salon. Ginny asked if this required expansion of the septic system and Linette said that this process is already underway, since Tom Jones, a licensed site evaluator, has designed the expansion. Ginny started to go through the checklist that was provided checking completeness of the application. The business will not be incorporated. A deed was provided to verify title, right and interest to the property. The location map (aerial photo), list of abutters and green card certified and return receipt mail was included in the application. A scaled drawing of the site as it exists was provided. Since no changes are being made to the site, a site plan with proposed changes was not needed. Ginny asked about the size of the business sign and Linette indicated 3 X 6 feet which is within the Ordinance criteria of not exceeding 4 X 8 feet. The sign will not be lit.
The HHE-200 form for the septic expansion was not provided, but the permit application is seeking conditional approval subject to septic plan approval by Vassalboro’s Plumbing Inspector, Paul. Paul indicated that the Plumbing Code requires 100 gallons per day (gpd) per seat. Their home is 2 bedrooms which requires a 180 gpd septic system. The two seats from the beauty salon will require 200 gpd. A 380 gpd system is needed for their home and business and their current system is only 270 gpd.
Ginny checked the Site Plan for completeness going over the check list in the ordinance. The site plan and application were determined to be complete by motion of George and seconded by Gary. All in favor. Next, compliance with the performance standards were considered.
Performance Standards – Findings of Fact for Permit Approval
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and adjacent public streets.
Evidence – Parking will be off-street in the Gamache’s driveway. The driveway’s dimensions are 50 feet long by 40 feet wide which are adequate parking for one part time employee and two customers.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
2. Location or height of proposed structures and uses not detrimental to other public or private development in the neighborhood.
Evidence – No new structures are being proposed for this development. An existing garage will be converted to business space.
Discussion - None
Motion for approval by Gary. Seconded by George. All in favor.
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, provides adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the neighborhood.
Evidence – There are trees located around the property line. No removal of vegetation is proposed, except for one spruce tree.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – The required septic expansion has been designed and the permit made conditional to its approval. A commercial dumpster is located on the property. There is no need to provide additional storm water capacity in culverts, since the existing driveway culvert is adequate and no changes are proposed.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – There are no changes proposed other than to the interior of an existing building and the removal of one tree. These changes will not affect storm water quantity.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – No soil will be disturbed. An existing driveway will be used for parking.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – An existing light will be used. Lighting is adequate for safety. Lights are not powerful and should not distract traffic.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
8. An applicant for Site Plan approval has provided evidence of his financial capability to complete the development as planned.
Evidence – The investment for the business is minimal. The business plan provided in the application indicates the start-up cost of only $5000 which should be recovered by the second month that the business is in operation.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence: The driveway is large enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. There is ample parking.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence: The business is operated within a building and will be very quiet and harmonious with the neighborhood. The business will not have more than two customers at any given time.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
The Board then voted on the application as a whole. George made a motion to approve the application subject to the condition of approval of the septic system expansion. This was seconded by Gary. All in Favor.
Edward and Joanne Marcoux
Major Site Review
Shoreland Zoning / General Development District
Tax Map 23, Lot 85-1
The Marcoux’s appeared at the last Board meeting for their pre-application conference. They are planning to re-develop the site of the former Kennebec Bean Co. They are unsure of all their plans depending upon the economy. They are applying for a flea market, cold storage, and a fine furniture consignment store. The flea market is in their immediate plans with the other two uses on hold depending upon how successful they are. The flea market will be primarily outdoors which could be moved inside in the colder months.
Ginny first checked completeness of the application. They will not be incorporated. A release deed was provided as evidence of title, right, and interest to the property. A Google map was provided as a location map. The list of abutters and certified return receipt mail was included in the application. The site map included existing conditions and proposed conditions. An HHE- 200 form for the septic system was not applicable, since the property is hooked up to the Town sewer.
George asked about the two porta potties on the site plan and questioned why they were needed. Ed indicated that the Flea Market will be primarily outdoors and even though there are bathrooms within the building, it will not always be open to the public. The grass area along the north property boundary could be used as an overflow parking area, if necessary. Ginny asked if their building was attached to the Marden’s building next door and Ed indicated that it was attached by a walkway. Handicapped access will be adequate, since the site is all level with no steps.
Ginny checked the Site Plan for completeness going over the check list in the ordinance. The sewer line follows the driveway. One light currently in the driveway will provide lighting. The Marcoux’s do not anticipate that they will be there at night, but the light will provide security. The sign will be at the same location of the Kennebec Bean sign. They will replace it and it will not be lit. The site plan and application was determined to be complete by motion of George and seconded by Gary. All in favor.
Performance Standards – Findings of Fact for Permit Approval
1. Provisions for vehicle loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and adjacent public streets.
Evidence – There is a 200 X 60 foot paved area for parking and two grassed areas of dimensions 65 X 75 and 100 X 60 feet for overflow parking. This is adequate for the business.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
2. Location or height of proposed structures and uses not detrimental to other public or private development in the neighborhood.
Evidence – No new structures are being proposed for this development.
Discussion - None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
3. Provisions for on-site landscaping, provides adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the neighborhood.
Evidence – There are trees located around the property line. No removal of vegetation is proposed.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – The building is connected to the Town sewer and the waste flow should be less than the previous business, Kenebec Bean Co. Two porta potties will be provided for the outside flea market. A commercial dumpster is located on the property. There is no need to provide additional storm water capacity since no changes are proposed to site.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – There are no changes proposed that will affect storm water quantity or quality.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – No soil will be disturbed.
Discussion – None.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence – An existing light will be used. Lighting is adequate for safety. Lights are not powerful and should not distract traffic. The site will not be used at night.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
8. An applicant for Site Plan approval has provided evidence of his financial capability to complete the development as planned.
Evidence – There will be no capital investment other than for the purchase of tables.
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence: The driveway and parking areas are large enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
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.
Evidence: The flea market will be operated to the back of the property and should be adequately buffered from the surrounding neighborhood.
Discussion – None
Motion for approval by George. Seconded by Gary. All in favor.
George asked about the safety of the chimney at the site. Ed replied that the chimney is lined with steel is structurally adequate.
The Board then voted on the application for site review as a whole. George made a motion to approve the application. This was seconded by Gary. All in Favor.
The criteria needing approval for Shoreland Zoning was that a more non-conforming use would not be created with the proposed business. The board voted that this was the case by motion of George and seconded by Gary. All in Favor.
Richard Bradstreet
Major Subdivision
Three Lots
Tax Map 4, Lot 27E
Richard Bradstreet is proposing a three lot subdivision off Sherwood Lane which would utilize his driveway as a road for the subdivision. Adam Ellis was present and assisting Richard in the permit application process. Since the subdivision will create a new road, it is classified as a major subdivision. Gene Field, Vassalboro’s Road Commissioner, has already looked at the driveway, which may need additional gravel sub base and increased width to meet Vassalboro’s Road Construction Ordinance.
Ginny indicated that the road will require a performance guarantee. The Town Selectmen have asked the Board to require performance guarantee on all subdivision roads, due to the many non-compliance issues that the Town has been having with subdivision roads lately.
Raymond and Michael Dyer, who are abutters to the proposed subdivision, discussed a drainage issue over their land, which they believe may be due to runoff being re-directed as a result of the Richard’s driveway. Richard did not believe that the topology of the area would make this possible, but agreed to address this issue on the application. The Dyer’s indicated that they were not opposing the additional proposed homes near them, but wanted the applicant to address the drainage issue.
Ginny began the process of checking the preliminary plan application for completeness. The preliminary plan was determined not to be complete and was lacking the following:
Richard indicated that they would be back for the June meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.