Planning Board Meeting ~ March 6, 2024

2024-03-06 · Planning Board · 2:08:52 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board's March meeting was given over almost entirely to Central Maine Power's application to rebuild transmission line section 62 and re-rate section 64 through Durham. The board decided at the outset that it would take no votes that night on the conditional use, on the completeness of the site plan application, or on the site plan itself, and voted instead to hold a formal public hearing at its April 3 meeting and vote afterwards. Sam Rice of Burns McDonnell (?) presented for CMP, with Gerry Mirabile, Adam Marque, Lisa Galbraith and Troy Thibodeau, and the board worked through the conditional use criteria and much of the site plan checklist, leaving the applicant a list of questions to answer in April. Recurring themes were which poles actually sit in wetlands, whether the mapping is legible enough for the code officer to enforce against years later, and the three requested waivers on map scale, boundary survey and the plan signature block. The board decided against a site walk and asked CMP to contact the code enforcement officer, fire chief and road commissioner before the next meeting. It also agreed to put the Pledge of Allegiance on the next agenda and to hold its ordinance priorities discussion until May.

What was discussed

1. 1:01
   Roll call, quorum and minutes

   John Talbot opened the March 6, 2024 meeting. Six members were present with one alternate, giving five voting members: Tyler Hutchison, Allan Purinton, John Talbot, Juliet Caplinger and Brian Lanoie, with Marc Derr as alternate. The minutes were accepted; a member asked when minutes get posted to the town website and George Thebarge said he would look into the protocol.

2. 1:01
   Town planner's report: meeting room and Board of Appeals

   George Thebarge apologised for the meeting room mix-up, explaining that the meeting room at the Town Offices had been converted to an office and that the CMP notice sent two weeks earlier gave the wrong location. He reported that the Board of Appeals had held two hearings on appeals of the Resource Protection District map: in January it granted a variance for a lot that was in process when the map was revised, and on February 28 a property on Runaround Pond Road obtained a substantial adjustment on field-verified evidence. He said Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is producing a more precise map for Durham, that the board may look at refining that part of the district for next year's town meeting, and that affected owners can appeal in the meantime.

3. 6:27
   Upcoming ordinance public hearing, and the co-occurrence map

   George Thebarge reminded the board of a special meeting the following Wednesday for a public hearing on draft land use ordinance amendments covering housing density and diversity, solar energy standards and the fee schedule. A member said Durham is the only town in Maine to have used the Beginning with Habitat co-occurrence map as a basis, and asked to hear more about the appeals; the board agreed to take that up later.

4. 6:27
   Public comment, and the decision to hold a CMP public hearing

   John Talbot said no public comment would be taken on the CMP project that evening and that the question before the board was whether to hold a formal public hearing at the next meeting. A resident pressed to know what CMP was planning and was told the company would give a presentation and there would be a public hearing. A motion to hold that hearing was made and voted on.

5. 11:33
   How the board would take the CMP application

   John Talbot proposed working through the conditional use application, then the completeness review of the site plan application, then the substantive site plan review, taking no votes that night so that public input from the April hearing could be taken into account first. George Thebarge said conditional use review is required only where the work falls within the state-mandated Shoreland zone or the town's Resource Protection District; elsewhere it is a permitted use needing no planning board review of the use. He said the applicant also needs a flood plain permit from the code officer, that the packet runs to about 700 pages, and that once the board determines the application complete it has 60 days to decide.

6. 11:33
   The three waiver requests and the exhibits

   George Thebarge said the applicant is asking to be excused from a boundary survey of the entire corridor, from the standard one inch to 100 feet site plan scale, and from the plan signature block. He walked through the exhibits: the site plan and conditional use checklist and waiver requests, state permits, right title and interest documentation, aerial overlays showing pole locations and the resources triggering review, cross-sections, the post-construction vegetation management plan, environmental guidelines and spill measures, a financial capacity letter, encumbrances, the historic preservation agreement, and the abutter list.

7. 22:25
   Applicant's team and project description

   Sam Rice, permitting specialist with Burns McDonnell for CMP, presented with Gerry Mirabile, director of permitting and compliance for CMP, Adam Marque, CMP project manager, Lisa Galbraith of Pierce Atwood as legal counsel, and Troy Thibodeau of Burns McDonnell as public involvement specialist. The project is a 115 kV transmission line section 62 rebuild and section 64 re-rate running about 4.5 miles between Auburn and Pownal (?), entirely within an existing corridor on land CMP owns in fee, with no widening. It replaces 49 poles in section 62 and 16 in section 64, at an average height of 71 feet, and crosses three resource protection districts at Runaround Brook, a tributary to Runaround Brook, and Libby Brook, plus a limited residential district associated with a wetland.

8. 27:39
   Design change from rebuild to re-rate

   Lisa Galbraith explained that CMP originally believed both lines had to be rebuilt and was permitted on that basis by the Army Corps and DEP, but ISO New England's interconnection studies determined the middle line only needed re-rating. The revised design, which brings section 64 closer to the centre line, is what is before the Corps, DEP and Durham, and applies the same way in Auburn and Pownal (?). The applicant said two single poles and two double poles are involved in wetlands, with the permanent disturbance figure given as approximately 91.4 square feet at one point and 9,147 square feet later; the two do not agree.

9. 33:24
   Permits held and outstanding, and construction timing

   CMP holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Public Utilities Commission dated May 3, 2019, site location of development and Natural Resources Protection Act permits from DEP dated May 11, 2020, and Army Corps section 10 and Clean Water section 404 permits dated November 6, 2020. Still outstanding are MaineDOT utility location and driveway entrance permits, town driveway entrance permits, a building permit, and a minor revision application submitted to the state and the Army Corps in December. Sam Rice said construction in Durham is anticipated to begin in May and that no construction will start until all permits are in hand.

10. 33:24
    Driveway entrance permits

    Gerry Mirabile clarified that the entrances onto the right of way are existing and none are being created or changed. MaineDOT requires a permit because the use changes from operation and maintenance access to construction access, which is how the department regulates it.

11. 39:15
    Walking the aerial sheets

    George Thebarge first displayed a zoning overlay showing which stretches are shoreland zoning, limited residential, resource protection and Durham resource protection including wetlands. The board then went through the aerial sheets, with Sam Rice pointing out where existing section 62 poles will be demolished and the line pulled to the centre of the right of way, where access ways were routed to avoid wetlands, and where timber matting will be used to spread equipment loads. He said there will be no in-stream work below the ordinary high water mark.

12. 44:34
    Which poles are actually in wetlands

    The chair asked which poles are physically set in the ground in a wetland, saying he read the application as identifying four. Sam Rice said he would need his GIS analyst to confirm and thought 6279 might be the only one; George Thebarge noted the limited residential district extends 250 feet from emergent wetlands, so being in that district does not mean being in a wetland. The board agreed to take the answer at the April meeting.

13. 50:07
    Mapping base and enforcement

    John Talbot said the point of showing the locations clearly is so that if someone is working in the wrong wetland the town can point to what was approved, and so the code enforcement officer knows where work should be. George Thebarge suggested replacing the aerial photo base with a standard mapping base so the wetlands and other features stand out.

14. 55:14
    Conditional use criteria: health, traffic, safety and environment

    The board asked Sam Rice to summarise rather than read the application. He cited electrical codes and clearance requirements, a four-year vegetation maintenance cycle, no sewage disposal, construction-period air quality no different from adjacent roads, and water quality measures following environmental guidelines developed with DEP. On traffic he cited maintaining sight distances entering and leaving the right of way, and said the completed line does not generate traffic beyond existing maintenance activity.

15. 1:00:23
    Staging, refueling and spill response

    Adam Marque said staging areas will be within the right of way, with poles and insulators on pads, and that the lay down yard is still being worked out with the contractor. On refueling, which the application says will not occur within 100 feet of a stream, the applicant described bringing in a fuel truck with secondary containment, and said a breakdown or spill would be cleaned up immediately and reported to the state within a set time.

16. 1:05:55
    Pole heights, lighting, noise and hours

    The average proposed height is 71 feet while the cross-section shows 80, and the existing height was not known; Sam Rice agreed to bring the existing average pole heights to the next meeting so the increase is clear. He said no aircraft warning lights are expected on this segment. On noise the applicant is committed to 45 dB at night and 55 dB by day, which the board wants checked against the town ordinance, and the chair said the state application's 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. hours must be checked against Durham's ordinance and would be made a condition.

17. 1:10:58
    Land use standards and essential services

    The board and applicant worked through the land use standards, noting that poles are not structures by the ordinance definition and that the access ways are not driveways or roads by definition. On essential services, Sam Rice read the standard that installation be limited to existing public ways and service corridors and said the work is wholly within CMP's existing corridor on land it owns. He said pole 64-197, an existing pole partly within the resource protection district, will receive maintenance in the form of a cross brace, and that he may have been mistaken in saying other poles are being installed in wetlands.

18. 1:21:45
    Vegetation management, erosion control and revegetation

    Sam Rice described managing the right of way for capable species that can grow into the conductor zone, using mechanical cutting and selective herbicide applied by licensed backpack sprayer rather than broadcast spraying, with no herbicide within 100-foot riparian buffers in the resource protection district; the board asked for the specific herbicides at the next meeting. On restoration, he said sites will be stabilised with erosion and sediment controls before crews leave and the corridor's scrub-shrub habitat will regenerate naturally. The chair pressed on how the town would know a site had actually revegetated, and was told CMP's environmental inspectors and the state-employed but CMP-funded third-party inspectors check before crews leave and follow up.

19. 1:27:00
    Historic resource, and contacting town officials

    The application identifies one site eligible under the National Historic Preservation Act, to be fenced at 100 feet with an archaeologist on site during any disturbance nearby; Sam Rice said the location is not publicised because such sites are vulnerable to being looted. John Talbot asked CMP to contact the code enforcement officer, Alan Plummer (?), the fire chief and the road commissioner before the next meeting, saying he had asked all three for comments.

20. 1:32:13
    Site plan waivers: scale, boundary survey and signature block

    On scale, the applicant confirmed the sheets are one inch to 250 feet rather than the 200 feet stated in the application, and members indicated they found the reasoning sensible. On the boundary survey, Sam Rice said the request concerns the right of way boundary rather than pole locations, that wetlands, vernal pools and streams have already been delineated, and members noted there is no expansion. On the signature block, the board discussed instead attaching cleaned-up plan sheets to the notice of decision and signing there, so the code officer and others can see later what was approved.

21. 1:37:39
    Mapping for the public hearing and scoping the conditional use

    Juliet Caplinger argued for keeping the satellite base for the public hearing so abutters can locate their own land, and the applicant offered to present again and add the map book at the end. The board asked that the sections needing conditional use approval, in resource protection, shoreland zoning and limited residential, be identified explicitly, whether by call-out boxes or in the findings of fact, so the vote is clearly scoped; one member said it sounds like four poles.

22. 1:42:44
    Site plan review checklist and access points

    George Thebarge said the site plan review standards are written for commercial construction and have limited applicability here, and directed the board to the checklist. Items (?) raised were 5-foot rather than 2-foot topography, and staging and lay down areas which the applicant said are not fixed this far ahead of construction. The board asked that the access points be marked as provided rather than not applicable, so the road commissioner, Calvin (?), can review them for sight distance and public safety.

23. 1:53:33
    Buffering, culverts and storm water

    The applicant confirmed there are no existing culverts in the right of way and none proposed, and no lighting on the poles. George Thebarge said storm water treatment provisions are aimed at permanent development such as subdivisions and phosphorus management, and do not apply to this project. Members noted buffering a corridor of this length is not practical and raised no request.

24. 1:59:10
    Site walk, communications and the Pledge of Allegiance

    The board decided against a site walk. John Talbot reminded members and the public that with the application filed, all communication outside the meeting must go through George Thebarge. He then raised restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the agenda; one member objected on principle, saying loyalty pledges make her uncomfortable, but agreed to stand, and the board agreed to add it to the next agenda without a vote.

25. 2:04:44
    Ordinance priorities for the coming year, and adjournment

    Juliet Caplinger asked to discuss resource protection changes, and the board agreed to hold that until May because the April agenda already has two or three projects, including a filing referred to as Ruby (?), a possible filing by Maine Custom Woods (?) and a wedding venue. George Thebarge said the conservation commission and other board leaders would meet on priorities around May, that a group of agricultural interests is forming a commission and may propose amendments on definitions, and that budgeted money for codification will generate its own list of issues. The meeting then adjourned.

What was decided

• 1:01
  Accept the February 15, 2024 meeting minutes, moved by Allan Purinton and seconded by Tyler Hutchison; the town's minutes record it carried 5-0. The transcript gives the date as February 7.passed
• 6:27
  Hold a public hearing on the CMP transmission line application at the April 3 Planning Board meeting, moved by Allan Purinton and seconded by Brian Lanoie; the town's minutes record it carried 5-0.passed
• 11:33
  Take no vote at this meeting on the conditional use application, the completeness of the site plan application or the site plan review, and take those votes after the April public hearing. Agreed in discussion; no vote is recorded.outcome unclear
• 1:59:10
  Do not hold a site walk on the CMP project. Agreed in discussion; no vote is recorded.outcome unclear
• 1:59:10
  Add the Pledge of Allegiance to the next meeting's agenda. The chair said no motion or vote was needed.outcome unclear
• 2:04:44
  Hold the discussion of resource protection and other ordinance priorities until the May meeting, given the April agenda. Agreed in discussion; no vote is recorded.outcome unclear
• 2:04:44
  Adjourn the meeting, moved by Juliet Caplinger and seconded by Allan Purinton; the town's minutes record it carried 5-0.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 pbminutes_03_06_2024.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.

• accept the February 15th, 2024 meeting minutescarried 5-0

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Tyler Hutchison

• hold a public hearing on the CMP transmission line at the April 3rd Planning Board Meetingcarried 5-0

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Brian Lanoie

• adjourn the meetingcarried 5-0

  Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Allan Purinton

Worth knowing

• 6:27
  No public comment on the CMP project was taken at this meeting. The board voted to hold a formal public hearing on it at the April 3 meeting, and said it would then take its votes on the conditional use, waivers and site plan.
• 22:25
  The project runs about 4.5 miles within CMP's existing corridor between Auburn and Pownal (?), replacing 49 poles in section 62 and 16 in section 64 at an average height of 71 feet. Construction in Durham was anticipated to begin in May.
• 27:39
  The permanent wetland disturbance figure is given two ways in the meeting, as approximately 91.4 square feet and later as 9,147 square feet. The two do not agree.
• 1:01
  The Board of Appeals has now heard two appeals of the Resource Protection District map, and a Runaround Pond Road property obtained a substantial adjustment on field-verified evidence. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is producing a more precise map for Durham, and owners affected in the meantime can appeal to the Board of Appeals.

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 7 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2024-02-15 Planning Board2024-03-13 Planning Board →All meetings