Planning Board Meeting ~ September 7, 2016

2016-09-07 · Planning Board · 1:25:18 · watch on YouTube →

A short planning board meeting with three members present, given over entirely to one continued conditional use application for an accessory apartment at a property on Stackpole Road. Because the marked-up checklist from the previous meeting was not to hand, the board worked back through the whole submission requirements list item by item before voting the application complete. It then took each of the ordinance's approval criteria as a separate motion, discussed the accessory apartment standards on entrances, floor area and attachment, and spent some time on an inconsistency in the ordinance's density language, which sets a higher lot size for converting a house to a two-family than for building a duplex outright. The board approved the conditional use application for the accessory apartment without conditions, and adjourned to October 5th.

What was discussed

1. 0:02
   Before the meeting was called to order

   The recording runs for roughly fifteen minutes before the meeting starts. Members were hunting for the application checklist, the minutes and the notes from the previous meeting, none of which were in the packet, and concluded they would have to go back through the whole submission checklist because they did not have the marked-up copy. Conversation otherwise was informal.

2. 15:35
   Call to order and minutes

   The meeting was called to order with the pledge. Three members were present (the chair, Mindy and John) with another member absent following a death in his family. There were no amendments to the agenda, and the minutes of the July 6th meeting were moved, seconded and accepted.

3. 15:35
   Resuming the submission checklist

   The board picked up the application submission requirements where it had stopped at the previous meeting. The owner's name as preparer of the plan had now been supplied, making item 4A complete, and the names and addresses of abutting property owners had already been found complete.

4. 21:22
   Location and boundaries

   The sketch map showing the general location of the site within the town was found complete once the tax map was produced. The requirement for boundaries of contiguous property under the owner's control had already been found not applicable, and the zoning classification and district boundaries were complete.

5. 26:28
   Property lines and the deeds

   Two deeds were submitted, the second an amendment made when a neighbouring parcel was split off and the road frontage had to be adjusted, giving a lot of about 2.8 acres. The board found the bearings and distances item complete without an engineered survey, the formal boundary survey having been waived at the previous meeting, and confirmed the deed showed no restrictions.

6. 26:28
   Ground floor elevations waived

   What had been submitted was a building elevation rather than a ground floor elevation above sea level. Since the property is not in a flood plain, the board waived that part of the requirement and found the location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings complete.

7. 32:02
   Setbacks

   The setbacks item, found incomplete at the previous meeting, was answered by the supplemental paperwork. The plan shows 85 feet from the new structure to the property line against a 20-foot requirement, and the board found it complete.

8. 32:02
   The remaining checklist items

   Driveways, parking, walkways and intersecting roads within 450 feet were completed by the supplement. Drainage was found complete on the strength of a topographic plan showing the land sloping away from the house on all sides. Signs, a utility plan and state approvals were not applicable; easements, exterior lighting, hazardous materials storage, the construction schedule, cost estimates and the description of the proposed use were complete.

9. 32:02
   Application found complete

   With the checklist finished, a motion was made and seconded to find the application complete. A member then queried an item recorded as complete that concerned a corporate annual report, and it was agreed that item and the section for projects of six or more dwelling units were not applicable.

10. 37:30
    Approval criteria taken one by one

    The chair read each of the ordinance's approval criteria as a motion for another member to second. The board found in turn that the project will not result in undue water or air pollution, that there is sufficient water for the foreseeable needs of the use including fire protection without unreasonable burden on the aquifer or neighbouring wells, that it will not cause unreasonable soil erosion, and that it will not cause road congestion or unsafe conditions.

11. 42:46
    Could the apartment be two bedrooms

    The applicants asked whether they could change the plan to a two-bedroom apartment. Members said the accessory apartment criteria limit size as a proportion of the main dwelling but do not stipulate bedrooms, and that the binding constraint would be the septic design, which is a code enforcement matter. The existing house has three bedrooms and the system was designed for four, so a second bedroom would mean a fresh septic plan for five and probably a larger tank; the applicants said they were happy with one.

12. 42:46
    Further approval criteria

    The board found sewage disposal in conformity with the Maine State Plumbing Code, adequate fire protection, no undue adverse effect on scenic or natural beauty, aesthetics, historic sites, rare natural areas, deer wintering areas or public access to water bodies, conformity with the comprehensive plan and other town ordinances, and adequate financial and technical capacity.

13. 48:00
    Water body, flood and wildlife criteria

    The criterion on development within 250 feet of a pond, lake, stream or river was found not applicable, as was the flood hazard criterion, the application stating the property is not in a flood zone. A member noted the flood question is not on the board's application checklist and might be worth adding. The board also found no adverse impact on spawning grounds or wildlife habitat, no noise, glare or vibration disturbing adjacent property, and no undue burden on municipal or educational services.

14. 48:00
    Entrances

    Turning to the accessory apartment standards, the board looked at the requirement for one main entrance with others subordinate and no outside stairways above the first storey. The plan shows two separate entrances about ten feet apart, one into the apartment and one into the house through a new mudroom; the existing house already has two front doors. Members debated whether the apartment entrance looks subordinate and concluded it was not a problem.

15. 58:08
    Floor area

    The main dwelling must exceed 1,500 square feet and the apartment must not exceed 50 per cent of it. The house is a 42 by 26 raised ranch with a finished daylight basement; counting roughly three-quarters of the lower level and adding the mudroom and an adjoining section brought the total to a little over 2,000 square feet, against an apartment of about 780. The board found it dimensionally in compliance.

16. 58:08
    One per lot, attachment and conformity

    The board confirmed there would be only one accessory apartment on the lot, that it is attached to and part of the main residence rather than in a separate building, and that the criterion barring accessory apartments in a non-conforming structure or use is met because a house in a residential area is a permitted use.

17. 1:03:10
    The density language in the ordinance

    Members worked through the lot size requirements and found them inconsistent. The rural residential minimum is 90,000 square feet, converting an existing single-family house to a two-family requires a further 45,000 on top, and multiple family density is 110,000 for a duplex. Their own calculation from the deed put the lot at around 121,000 square feet, which clears the duplex figure but not the conversion figure.

18. 1:08:11
    The deed history and the right of way

    Members and the applicants traced the confusion in the deeds to the family having filed them themselves rather than through a lawyer, requiring amendments afterwards, and to road frontage being shifted when a neighbouring parcel was split off. A 50-foot right of way crosses the property, and it was unclear from the papers whether the acreage figures include it.

19. 1:13:41
    How the ordinance was read

    The board settled on reading the ordinance's closing sentence (that accessory apartments shall be allowed as conditional uses in rural residential) as overriding the density criteria that precede it, while saying plainly that the drafting is vague and that the sentence is tacked on where it does not belong. Members suggested the intent had been to bring the ordinance in line with the comprehensive plan and reduce sprawl. The applicants noted their original application had been approved by the board in 2011.

20. 1:18:48
    Findings and approval

    The board took the accessory apartment criteria as separate motions (entrance and stairways, floor area, one per lot and attachment to the main residence, and conforming structure, use and dimensions) each seconded and carried. It then moved to approve the conditional use application for the accessory apartment, with no conditions attached.

21. 1:23:52
    Close

    There was no other business. The next planning board meeting was set for October 5th, 2016 at 7 p.m., and the board adjourned.

What was decided

• 15:35
  Accept the minutes of the July 6th meeting. Moved, seconded and put to a vote, after which the board moved straight on to the application.passed
• 32:02
  Find the conditional use application complete, having gone back through every submission requirement. Moved, seconded and put to a vote; the board then proceeded to the approval criteria.passed
• 37:30
  Make findings on the ordinance's approval criteria, each read as a separate motion and seconded: no undue water or air pollution, sufficient water including fire protection without burdening the aquifer or neighbouring wells, no unreasonable soil erosion, no road congestion or unsafe conditions, sewage disposal in conformity with the state plumbing code, adequate fire protection, no undue adverse effect on scenic or historic resources, conformity with the comprehensive plan and other ordinances, and adequate financial and technical capacity.passed
• 48:00
  Find the water body setback criterion and the flood hazard criterion not applicable, and find no adverse impact on wildlife habitat, no noise, glare or vibration disturbing adjacent property, and no undue burden on municipal or educational services, completing the approval criteria for the application.passed
• 1:18:48
  Make findings on the accessory apartment standards, taken part by part and each seconded: one main entrance with the other subordinate and no outside stairwells above the first storey; a main dwelling of more than 1,500 square feet with the apartment not exceeding 50 per cent of it; only one accessory apartment on the lot, part of and attached to the main residence; and a conforming structure and use meeting the dimensional requirements.passed
• 1:18:48
  Approve the conditional use application for an accessory apartment, with no conditions attached. Moved, seconded and put to a vote, after which the board congratulated the applicants.passed
• 1:23:52
  Adjourn, with the next meeting set for October 5th, 2016 at 7 p.m. Moved, seconded and put to a vote.passed

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 planningminutes7sep2016.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 July 6" 2016 meeting Minutes as presentedcarried 3-0

  Moved by Mindy Woerter, seconded by John Simoneau

• find that the Application Submission Requirements are now completecarried 3-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Mindy Woerter

• find that the Application meets all Approval Criteriacarried 3-0

  Moved by Todd Beaulieu, seconded by Mindy Woerter

• Approve the Conditional Use Permit Application for the Kelleys without Conditionscarried 3-0

  Moved by Mindy Woerter, seconded by John Simoneau

• Adjourn at 8:20 p.mcarried 3-0

  Moved by Todd Beaulieu, seconded by Mindy Woerter

Worth knowing

• 42:46
  The applicants asked whether the apartment could be two bedrooms rather than one. The board said the ordinance caps the apartment's size as a share of the main dwelling but says nothing about bedrooms, and that the real limit is the septic design; the existing house has three bedrooms and the system was sized for four. A second bedroom would mean a new septic plan for five bedrooms and probably a larger tank, so the applicants kept the one-bedroom plan.
• 1:03:10
  The board found the ordinance's density figures inconsistent. Converting an existing single-family house to a two-family requires 90,000 square feet plus a further 45,000, which this lot does not meet, while building a duplex outright requires only 110,000, which it does. Members read the sentence allowing accessory apartments as conditional uses in rural residential as overriding those figures, and said plainly that the drafting is vague and the sentence is attached where it does not belong.
• 58:08
  The floor area calculation done at the table: a 42 by 26 raised ranch with a finished daylight basement counted at roughly three-quarters, plus the new mudroom and an adjoining section, came to a little over 2,000 square feet against the 1,500 minimum, with the apartment at about 780 square feet, comfortably under the 50 per cent cap.
• 0:02
  The board had to work back through the entire submission checklist because the marked-up copy from the previous meeting was not available and nothing had been included in the packet. The recording captures about fifteen minutes of members searching for the checklist, the minutes and their notes before the meeting could start.

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: 4 passages of motion language, against 7 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2016-07-06 Planning Board2016-10-05 Planning Board →All meetings