Planning Board Meeting ~ May 10, 2017

2017-05-10 · Planning Board · 1:41:34 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board spent almost the whole of its May 10, 2017 meeting working through the completeness checklist for Barry Baldwin's Mineral Springs Estates, a seven-lot subdivision off Granite Hill Farm Road. Baldwin arrived with a road maintenance agreement and a set of engineering plans and profiles that the board had not seen before, so members agreed to mark items complete or incomplete and give guidance without taking up the approval criteria. The largest gaps were a wetland delineation dating from 2006, a utility plan, culverts missing from the profile view, and evidence of financial capacity, which Baldwin's credit union would not write because he is not borrowing. A motion that the application remains incomplete was made and seconded, but the recording does not carry the result. The board wanted a site walk and concluded its own ordinance does not allow one until an application is complete, and then discovered that at least three different versions of the land use ordinance are in circulation, including on the town website.

What was discussed

1. 0:09
   Call to order and minutes

   The chair established a quorum and led the pledge. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2017 meeting.

2. 0:09
   New material handed in at the table

   Barry Baldwin came forward with documents he had not been able to get into the packet in time: a road maintenance agreement and a plan and profile. He had also revised the survey plan to add a building envelope on the lot where there had been a question about ground steeper than 20 percent.

3. 5:26
   How to review material received that evening

   A member raised the technicality that the engineering plans had arrived only that night. The board agreed to run the completeness checklist against both the mailed site plan and the new engineering set, marking items complete or incomplete and offering guidance, but not to attempt the technical analysis or the approval criteria, treating the new plans more like a sketch plan review.

4. 11:00
   Test pit locations

   Test pits are shown on the plan by lot number with a circled symbol marked TP. Marked complete.

5. 11:00
   Utility plan

   The checklist requires the location and nature of electrical, telephone and other utility services in addition to water supply and wastewater. The lines are not drawn. The engineer explained that the plan and profile normally shows the approximate run, that CMP takes a 50-foot easement over the right of way and paints its own line at the field determination visit, and that in this case everything is underground. Left incomplete.

6. 11:00
   Vernal pool survey

   The vernal pool work had been delayed by weather and the pools were only located that month, at the same visit as the test pits and the survey. One pool is on the state or federal list of significant vernal pools, carrying a 250-foot setback, which is why the nearest building envelope sits well away from it. The board asked for a memo on the surveyor's letterhead giving the date of the visit and confirming no additional pools or wetlands were found.

7. 16:01
   The 2006 wetland delineation

   The wetland delineation on file was done in 2006 by Mark (?). The board was told that anything over five years old is considered almost invalid, making this eleven years stale, and that the recent vernal pool work was done by a different person. Members asked for a qualified delineator to revisit the site and issue a letter confirming the mapped lines are still accurate.

8. 21:03
   Flagging for the site walk

   Members wanted the wetland boundary shown as a defined line rather than icons, and flagged in the field so the board can see it on a site walk. The engineer noted the delineation line is on the plan but reads like a contour line. The board later added streams and other jurisdictional water bodies to what should be flagged and confirmed at the same visit.

9. 26:07
   Contours and slopes

   Two-foot contours appear on the road profile plan, which the board accepted as satisfying the requirement. The board asked for another look at lots 4 and 7 against the 20 percent slope limit; the engineer said an independent calculation had been run with different software, that lot 7's envelope is entirely below 25 percent, and that one area of lot 4 came close, around 24 percent.

10. 26:07
    Culverts and drainage ways

    With no public sewer or water, the item turns on culverts and drainage. The culverts appear on the plan view but not on the profile, where the triangles are point of vertical intersection markers rather than culverts. The engineer explained that a culvert has been sized for each of the three or four dips in the road, one of them an existing culvert near station 14 or 15 that would be extended. The board asked for culvert locations in the profile view and for rip rap protection to be shown.

11. 31:38
    Road widening at the existing culvert

    The existing road is essentially a logging road and the new road has to be built to town standard, so it will be widened. Members asked where the wetland line falls at that culvert to see whether the widening would encroach, and whether a stream runs from the wetland under the road. With a right of way of 50 feet and a road width of about 22 feet, the calculation on the table left roughly 11 to 14 feet either side, enough to keep the fill slopes inside the right of way absent a large cut.

12. 36:43
    Easements and restrictions

    Members disagreed for a while over whether this item was complete. Note 9 on the subdivision boundary plan grants a utility easement to Central Maine Power along the right of way, and the surveyor's deed research would have picked up any existing easements or deed restrictions such as no-cut or phosphorus buffers, of which there are none. The board settled on complete, with the separate utility plan item staying incomplete.

13. 42:18
    Floodplain

    The plan's note says there is no flood hazard area within any building envelope and that the flood zone land is adjacent to Libby Brook. Members pointed out the ordinance asks for the flood hazard boundary and 100-year flood elevation within the subdivision, not just within the envelopes, and asked for the 100-year line to be drawn.

14. 42:18
    Wildlife habitat and critical natural areas

    Two letters had gone out, one to Inland Fisheries and Wildlife on high or moderate value wildlife habitat and one to the Maine Natural Areas Program on critical natural areas. Neither had been answered; the applicant's engineer expected a response by June and noted a 30-day stipulation. A checklist note referring to the Department of Agriculture was identified as the town's own wording and would be corrected.

15. 42:18
    Street plan requirements

    The chair read out the full requirement for the street plan: plan view at no more than 1 inch to 50 feet, profile at no more than 1 inch to 5 feet, with date, scale, north point, intersections with existing streets, right of way and roadway limits, drainage structures and their relation to natural waterways, and complete curve data, turning radii and centreline gradients. The board's only addition was to show the intersection with the existing road, which the engineer said he could fit by moving to a 40 scale.

16. 47:48
    Details to be added

    Pending a revised set of plans, the board asked for a standard HDPE culvert detail with rip rap protection and D50 sizing, noting the road will never be a town road, and for the construction entrance to be labelled temporary. Calvin, as road commissioner, was asked whether he needed anything further. It was noted the entrance would be better placed where Granite Hill Farm Road meets pavement, and that all material for the job is already on site with nothing to be trucked in.

17. 47:48
    Association documents and the deed

    The checklist calls for ownership and management arrangements for privately owned facilities and a draft of community association documents. Members traced their earlier notes: one item had been marked complete and the other left incomplete pending a proposed deed carrying information about the road maintenance agreement. Baldwin recalled being asked at the first meeting to take a note about road maintenance off the plan and deal with it in the agreement instead.

18. 52:51
    The road maintenance agreement

    The document handed in is the standard road maintenance agreement the State of Maine publishes, vetted and intended to be filled in, notarised and recorded once everyone signs. As written it creates a nonprofit corporation that must be kept in good standing and requires maintenance by competitive bid.

19. 52:51
    Who maintains the road in the meantime

    Baldwin said he is doing the initial construction and that he told the first buyer, in the sale documents, that he would take care of the road for two years, because nobody can maintain it until the lots are sold and the first house may be built before the subdivision is finished. Members asked him to tailor the standard document to the situation: probably no association at all, just an agreement assigned by lot, with the owners of lots one through seven each holding one share.

20. 58:04
    Tying the agreement to the deed

    The board asked that the deed reference the maintenance agreement and be recorded with it, so that a buyer looking at the deed knows they are bound. A member said the town has had trouble with people who bought homes with no idea they were in a subdivision with an association, and that the problem usually surfaces with the second or third owner rather than the first. The board recommended a sample deed be provided.

21. 58:04
    Cost estimate and construction schedule

    Baldwin said his cost estimate is accurate and that he could not commit to a schedule until final approval, but had put down a June start and completion by December 17, about six months, with the goal of getting the road in before winter.

22. 1:03:07
    Financial capacity

    Baldwin is doing the project personally rather than through an LLC and is funding it from savings, so his credit union will not write the usual capacity letter for money it is not lending. Members said they were not trying to pry but had to know the job could be finished, their concern being the applicant who underestimates, runs out of money and leaves a mess.

23. 1:08:12
    Ways of proving the money

    The options canvassed were a bank letter confirming cash reserves, a bank statement showing only name and balance with the rest redacted, opening a separate account holding the exact amount, a cash performance guarantee released on inspection, which the town's ordinance may not provide for, or a bond, which members said is expensive because the surety looks for the same backing. Baldwin said he had no problem showing an account balance once told it would become part of the public file, and the board asked him to take another run at his institution first.

24. 1:08:12
    Stormwater and erosion control

    The site was cut to just under an acre, and the engineer will either provide a stormwater plan or a letter stating one is not required. The erosion and sedimentation control plan was largely accepted, with stone check dam details and locations to be added given a maximum grade of 8 percent; the engineer explained check dams hold water back until the grass catches and are then removed.

25. 1:13:17
    Traffic

    The engineer offered a traffic statement of roughly 80 total daily trips with 8 peak-hour trips, working from the standard manual figure of about 10 trips per dwelling per day, and said a subdivision this size does not register on anyone's radar. It would be added to the project summary.

26. 1:13:17
    Infrastructure quantities

    The checklist asks for cost estimates of infrastructure improvements prepared by a professional, and the letter on file gives a cost without quantities. The resolution was for the engineer to run a quick cut and fill from his software to produce the gravel needed and for Baldwin to supply an inventory of what is on site; he put it at roughly 10,000 yards.

27. 1:18:32
    Earthwork balance

    A member observed the plan shows a great deal of fill and few cuts. The engineer explained that once 20 inches of gravel is added and the ground is grubbed out, some sections need around seven feet of material, that cutting more would reduce the grade, and that Baldwin had suggested moving material from off site to on site. Deeper cuts would in turn push the fill slopes toward the edge of the 50-foot right of way.

28. 1:18:32
    State permits

    The applicant must establish with DEP whether an NRPA permit or a stormwater permit is needed given Libby Brook. The engineer said he would write a statement that impervious area created since 2005 falls under the threshold, since DEP does not sign off on permits that are not required. NRPA would apply only if more than a tenth of an acre of wetland is filled, or if the delineator confirms a stream crossing, which would need a permit by rule; if one is issued, DEP and the town both get copies.

29. 1:18:32
    Motion on completeness

    With the checklist worked through, a member moved that the application remains incomplete and another seconded. The chair called for those in favour and the recording moves on without a result.

30. 1:23:40
    Whether a site walk can be held

    Members thought the site interesting enough to warrant an official site walk with the engineer and Baldwin, noting that a member who is not a fan of site walks was absent. Reading the ordinance at page 73, they found it says that upon a determination that a complete application has been submitted the board shall determine whether to hold a public hearing and site walk, and that any such hearing must be held within 30 days of a completed application and advertised. Members called the wording backwards and poorly written but concluded no site walk could be set while the application is incomplete.

31. 1:23:40
    How a site walk would be noticed

    Joe (?) said that when the agenda notice goes out he would add a preamble describing it as a public meeting for the purpose of a site walk, with lot, block, date, location and time. Members noted the ordinance says nothing about notifying abutters, which would be usual practice. An informal offer to meet interested members individually on the site was floated and a member said he would not be comfortable with it.

32. 1:23:40
    Rewriting the ordinance

    The engineer said he and his partner Andy do ordinance work for other municipalities and would volunteer time. Members said they had been working through the ordinance for a couple of years without finding a process that works, that bringing in outside help had not worked either, and that the comprehensive plan effort had taken the available money. Adopting a nearby town's ordinance that has already been lawyered and scrutinised was suggested.

33. 1:29:00
    Why the site walk timing matters

    The engineer explained the urgency is Baldwin's schedule: seeing the ground often produces changes, and changes that surface after the plans are finished cost the applicant time.

34. 1:29:00
    Approval criteria against performance standards

    Looking ahead, a member set out the difficulty that the approval criteria begin at page 79 while the performance and design standards run from page 81 to 97 and are intended to clarify and expand on the same criteria, so the two are largely repetitive. The board would have to make findings on each approval criterion but doubted it could do so on every performance standard, and noted standards can be waived on the applicant's written request. Page 90 was found to set out what a road maintenance agreement must contain.

35. 1:34:01
    Three versions of the ordinance

    Page references would not line up between members. The subdivision ordinance has been folded into the general land use ordinance, and the correct document is the one adopted at town meeting on April 2, 2016. One copy was found to be off by a page, another to be a January 2016 working draft, and the version posted on the town website matched the January draft. A cross-reference to article 7D5J was traced to the old ordinance.

36. 1:34:01
    Standards that cannot be met at this stage

    Members noted the checklist asks for detail such as ground floor elevations of buildings, driveways and walkways that cannot exist until houses are built and will come with the building permit. They flagged it as something the ordinance should mark optional or subject to waiver rather than leaving the board to waive it every time.

37. 1:39:14
    Finding the attested copy

    The board concluded there is a clerical error to track down: the website needs to carry the April 2016 ordinance, an attested copy signed by the select board should exist at the office and needs to be located, and the other versions in circulation should be replaced. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded.

What was decided

• 0:09
  Approve the minutes of the April 5, 2017 meeting. The motion is made and seconded but the recording moves straight to the applicant coming forward without any statement of the result.outcome unclear
• 5:26
  Work through the completeness checklist against both the site plan received by mail and the engineering plans handed in that evening, marking items complete or incomplete and giving the applicant guidance, but leaving the approval criteria and the technical review of the new plans to a later meeting. Agreed by the board without a formal vote.passed
• 16:01
  Require a qualified delineator to revisit the site and issue a letter confirming that the 2006 wetland delineation is still accurate, covering vernal pools, streams and other jurisdictional water bodies as well, with the boundaries flagged in the field. Agreed by the board without a formal vote.passed
• 1:08:12
  The material submitted on financial capacity was not accepted and the item was left incomplete. Baldwin was asked to approach his financial institution again for a letter, or failing that to produce an account statement showing his name and balance with other figures redacted, on the understanding it would become part of the public file.tabled
• 1:18:32
  On infrastructure quantities, the engineer would run a cut and fill from his software to produce the gravel volume required and Baldwin would supply an inventory of the gravel already on site, which he estimated at about 10,000 yards.passed
• 1:18:32
  A motion that the application remains incomplete was made and seconded. The chair called for those in favour and the recording carries no result, so the outcome cannot be reported here.outcome unclear
• 1:23:40
  No site walk was scheduled. Members wanted one, but read the ordinance as allowing the board to determine whether to hold a public hearing and site walk only after an application has been found complete. No vote was taken on holding a site walk at this meeting.tabled
• 1:39:14
  A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The recording ends on the call for those in favour without a stated result.outcome unclear

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Motions the minutes record

The town's own written account of what was decided, taken from planningminutes10may2017.txt. It owes nothing to the recording or to a model: the clerk typed it, with the vote. Where the summary above claims a decision this list does not carry, the summary is the part to doubt.

• Approve the April 5 2017 Minutes as presentedcarried 4-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• find the Subdivision Application remains incompletecarried 4-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• Adjourn at 8:45 p.mcarried 4-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Brian Lanoie

Worth knowing

• 16:01
  The wetland delineation the subdivision rests on was done in 2006. The board was told that anything over five years old is treated as almost invalid, making this one eleven years stale, and that the recent vernal pool work was done by a different surveyor. A fresh confirmation letter and field flagging were required before the board would take the item as complete.
• 1:08:12
  Baldwin is funding the road out of savings rather than a loan, and his credit union will not write a financial capacity letter for money it is not lending. The board would not let the requirement go, noting every applicant, down to people building home additions, has produced some form of it, and the alternative offered was a bank statement showing only his name and balance, which would sit in the public file.
• 1:23:40
  The board wanted a site walk and concluded its own ordinance forbids one until the application has been determined complete, wording members called backwards and poorly written. The delay falls on the applicant, since changes that only become apparent on the ground cost him time later.
• 1:34:01
  At least three versions of the town's land use ordinance are in circulation. Some members hold the April 2, 2016 version adopted at town meeting, others a January 2016 working draft, and the copy posted on the town website matched the January draft. The attested copy signed by the select board could not be located during the meeting.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 3 passages of motion language, against 8 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2017-04-05 Planning Board2017-06-07 Planning Board →All meetings