Meeting of November 8th, 2016
7:00 PM
Vassalboro Town Hall

Board Members Present: Ginny Brackett, Chair; Betsy Poulin, Doug Phillips, John Philips, Sally Butler,

Public: Mary Grow, Deborah Jacobs, Robert Jacobs, Kristen Willis, Greg Willis, Duane Ellis

Staff: Richard Dolby, CEO

1. Call Planning Board Meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

2. The Board welcomed those present, and introduced the Board Members.

The Chairwoman outlined the process for reviewing the application presented for consideration. In an effort to identify the concerns of the public present the members of the public were asked to voice their concerns, if any, and also explain where their properties were in relation to the property being reviewed. The members of the public noted they had experienced over time difficulties with the tenants of Old Meadow Rd. and were less than anxious to see a commercial operation of any kind within the immediate area. There were issues identified with dealing with odor, excessive heat that might be viewed as an elevated fire potential, exterior lighting, and the increased traffic from deliveries and workers come to and going from the proposed commercial use. They expressed concern that the business would devalue their own properties as well.

The applicant noted he felt it unfair to hold him responsible for interactions with tenants. He noted that the closest property was well over 2,000 feet away, and the odor would be unlikely to affect their properties. The other existing facilities he owned in other locations showed no sign of excessive heat that would rise to dangerous levels. The exterior lighting would be provided at entry doors only and would be limited to residential lighting and it would not be visible from outside the lot. The vehicles coming to and from the property would be in keeping with that of the residential traffic.

The CEO noted that the Planning Board Review was along the lines of compliance with established performance standards and not the use itself.

The Board moved to the review of the application and the plan submitted. The plan was noted as being at a scale of 1’ to 100’ rather than the required 1’ to 50’. The size of the building and potential access driveway and associated parking and walkways appeared to exceed the 5,000 sq. ft. limitation of a “Minor Review”. The Board was concerned with the plan and their ability to discern the adequate compliance with performance standards. The Board chose to table the review and asked the applicant to have a plan prepared that had the scale required and accurately reflect the size of the building, driveway and parking to be provided.

3. The Board moved to adjourn and voted to accept the motion.

4. Adjourned, 9:00 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted

Richard A. Dolby, CEO