Planning Board Meeting ~ October 5, 2016

2016-10-05 · Planning Board · 2:06:20 · watch on YouTube →

The planning board spent almost the whole meeting on one conditional use application: Kenneth and Gwen Huitt's proposal to reopen sites at the campground on Route 136 that had been shut for about 15 years, putting water and sewer underground and expanding the septic. The board worked through the submission checklist and then each approval criterion in turn, finding the application complete subject to receipt of the state campground licence and a well capacity statement from Temple Well Drilling. Two problems held things up: the application and the financial capacity were in the owners' names rather than Durham Leisure Holdings LLC, which owns the land, and two proposed sites fall about 57 feet from a small triangle of town land, inside the 100-foot setback. Because the ordinance bars the board from acting until any required variance has already been obtained, the applicants amended the request from 27 new sites to 25 and the board approved it with conditions. The board then heard that a Supreme Court sign decision invalidates more than half the town's sign ordinance, and set an ordinance rewrite session for the 18th.

What was discussed

1. 0:06
   Call to order

   The chair opened the October 5, 2016 planning board meeting with five members seated, following a stretch of informal conversation before the recording began in earnest.

2. 5:22
   Minutes and outstanding signatures

   The minutes of September 16 were moved and approved, with two members abstaining because they had not been present. The three members who had attended were asked to sign work product still outstanding, including paperwork that had been awaiting review since July. There was no continuing business.

3. 5:22
   Campground application introduced

   Kenneth and Gwen Huitt (?) described their proposal: restore the previously existing sites at the campground, put the water and septic underground where it had been above ground, and run sewer to the sites. The sites were cut long ago and closed roughly 15 years ago by a previous owner; the earthwork involved is minimal.

4. 10:44
   Scale of the reopening and the state licence threshold

   Nine sites are currently operating. The applicant said state licensing would cover him well beyond that but that going over the current number puts him under the state's public water supply program, which he was content to accept. Water and sewer will run year round, with thermal lines and heat coils that can be pulled and shut off when a site is not in use, serving traffic that includes Canadians travelling to and from Florida in spring and late autumn.

5. 15:52
   Wells and septic design

   There are six wells on the property, including a dug well flowing into a bored hole fed by what amounts to a freshwater spring, and a drilled well by the farmhouse used to top the others up in a dry year. On septic, the existing system will be expanded and a second added; the designer, Bonnie, had specified two tanks and the applicant asked for three in series so more sediment settles out before the field.

6. 21:17
   Submission checklist begins

   The board read the conditional use submission requirements aloud item by item. Abutter notices and signed return receipts were produced. A board alternate who abuts the property did not sit for the application.

7. 26:20
   Wetlands, NRPA and the flood zone question

   The code officer had flagged that the campground entrance may sit on wetlands, so Jen Harris carried out a site evaluation; the encroachment pre-dates the Natural Resources Protection Act and is grandfathered. The application had flood zone checked because the town tax maps show the entrance that way, but the most current FEMA maps show no flood zone on the property, so the item was called complete and the applicant advised to take it off the application.

8. 31:32
   The pie-shaped parcel at the edge

   A small wedge of land on the boundary, deeded around 1880 and once the site of a school, is still held by the school district or the town. The applicant measured 57 feet from his pin to its edge. It now carries old barbed wire and has been used as a dumping ground.

9. 37:03
   Setback measurement and site layout

   With that 57-foot figure supplied, the board accepted the dimensional setback item. No new buildings are proposed, so building elevations were marked not applicable. On parking and turnarounds, the applicant described modern RVs up to 90 feet long asking for 100 amp service because they now run heat pumps rather than gas heaters.

10. 42:15
    Water supply and wastewater capacity

    The state plumbing code requires 75 gallons per day per site for campground sites with individual hookups. The existing system will be brought up to 2,000 gallons per day with a second 2,000 gallon per day system added, and wells and systems are kept at least 100 feet apart, with the larger separation circles required once a well becomes a public water supply. The well was flow tested at 20 gallons a minute, though the test result was not in the packet.

11. 47:22
    Hazardous materials, utilities and the state licence

    The only fuel on site is propane in existing above-ground tanks filled by Down East Energy, with nothing new proposed, so that item was marked not applicable. The site has Wi-Fi and an AT&T cell tower, and the electrical layout for each site was shown. The campground licence was not in the file, and because the expansion will require a different licence (which the state will adjust once the water quality work and the conditional use are done) the board made producing it a condition.

12. 53:15
    Financial capacity and cost estimates

    No cost estimates were submitted, but a letter from the applicants' credit union was, and the applicant said he gave the credit union a ballpark of $2,000 to $2,500 per site. Most of the work will be farmed out except the excavation, which he will do himself and which is the bulk of the cost because ledge on the property runs anywhere from three to six feet down.

13. 53:15
    Completeness finding

    A member moved to find the conditional use application complete with the condition of receiving the state licence, and it was seconded and voted.

14. 58:28
    Whose name the application should be in

    The property is held by Durham Leisure Holdings LLC while the application and the financial evidence were in the owners' individual names; a separate corporation, Durham Leisure Campground, Inc., runs the operation. A member drew the parallel with the Pinkham Brook LLC cell tower, where the board required the corporate ownership to be connected up so the right entity was on the hook if remediation were ever needed. It was also noted the applicant cannot apply for work on land it does not own, so the application should come from the LLC.

15. 1:03:28
    The financial condition settled

    Working from 27 sites at $2,000 to $2,500 each, the board set the figure at about $67,000 and made it a condition that the LLC demonstrate at least that much in financial resources. The application will be amended to name Durham Leisure Holdings LLC, and the applicants will supply the incorporation papers and a certificate of good standing from the Secretary of State's site.

16. 1:08:44
    Approval criteria: pollution and water supply

    The board found the project will not result in undue water or air pollution. On sufficient water, the well flow information from Temple Well Drilling was not in the packet, so rather than send the applicant home for it the board made producing a statement of the well's capacity a condition.

17. 1:14:06
    Approval criteria: erosion, traffic, sewage, fire protection and scenery

    Soil erosion was found not to be a concern because the land was previously developed. On traffic, the Maine DOT had reviewed the entrance and treated it as a grandfathered entrance rather than a driveway, with a letter in the package. Fire protection took some working out (there is no dry hydrant at the end of Whipperwill Lane) but a pond on Rabbit Road was agreed to be within the mile that serves as the standard, and the criterion on scenic and natural beauty was found met because the use is long-standing and screened.

18. 1:19:40
    Approval criteria: water bodies, groundwater, floodplain, wildlife, noise and services

    The board found no water body within 250 feet, no adverse effect on groundwater quality or quantity since nothing is being discharged, no floodplain, and low impact on wildlife habitat. Noise was found acceptable given the buffering and the campground's quiet hours, and the criterion on municipal and educational services was found met because campers do not put children into the schools.

19. 1:19:40
    Criterion 8: the setback problem

    Campground sites in rural residential must be 100 feet from a side lot line. Two of the proposed sites are within 57 feet of the town-owned triangle, and although those sites existed before being shut down, the application has to be reviewed as new. The board laid out the options: drop the two sites, buy the parcel from the town, or obtain a variance.

20. 1:24:48
    History of the abandoned school lot

    The deed to the triangle dates from around 1880 and was put in the packet. Members noted the town holds several such fragments (including access to a cemetery off Runaround Pond Road) with nothing in the file beyond the fact of ownership and a date. Two weeks had been spent going through the records for this location trying to reconstruct what had been approved in the past, and the last time it came before the planning board was 1987.

21. 1:29:58
    Campground-specific standards

    The board worked through the use-specific standards: at least 20 acres, and the property has 86; camping units at least 400 feet from any residence, which they scaled at about 425 feet to the nearest house; density not to exceed 11 campsites per developed acre, against a state limit of 10, which the layout meets; and coverage not more than 20 percent of the land, which at 86 acres allows 21 and a half acres against a campground of three or four.

22. 1:40:16
    Occupancy time limits

    The ordinance limits a camper to 12 weeks on any one space during the summer season and two weeks in any other period. The applicants said that is impossible for their winter operation, where campers are skirted and heated and cannot be moved every fortnight, and were told they would need a variance.

23. 1:45:25
    The campground standards motion

    A motion was made that the project meets the campground requirements, conditioned on complying with the Maine state plumbing code and DHHS requirements if any, and with the ordinance time limits under the use-specific performance standards for campgrounds. After a pause for a seconder it was seconded and voted.

24. 1:51:56
    Why a variance cannot be a condition

    The ordinance provides that no development shall be considered complete or acted upon until all required variances have first been obtained, so the board could not simply condition approval on a variance. That left two routes: hold the application for about 30 days while the applicants go to the board of appeals, or amend the application to exclude the two non-conforming sites and approve tonight, coming back later to add them if a variance or a purchase of the parcel comes through. The applicants chose to amend.

25. 1:56:57
    Approval and the conditions recited

    The board went back over the conditions: the LLC to show at least about $67,000 in financial resources, the application amended to come from Durham Leisure Holdings LLC with incorporation papers and a certificate of good standing, the state campground licence, the well capacity statement, and the plumbing, DHHS and time limit conditions. The applicant was told to approach the select board about buying the town parcel, and that if he does he will have to come back to amend the permit, but his materials stay active.

26. 1:56:57
    Sign ordinance and the Supreme Court decision

    The code officer reported on a United States Supreme Court decision from Arizona, named on the recording as Reed (?), holding that signage is speech, so restrictions cannot turn on what a sign says. Size, dimensions, font and duration can still be regulated, but categories that require reading the sign (directional, business, political, religious, temporary) cannot. That takes out more than half the town's sign ordinance, and further state restrictions on political and temporary signs in the right of way came in last year; the change will go to town meeting as a separate article with an explanation that it is required to comply with free speech law.

27. 2:02:08
    Ordinance rewrite session and adjournment

    The previous ordinance rewrite session failed for lack of attendance, partly because the news blast gave the time as 6:00 when the board met at 6:30. A new session was set for Tuesday the 18th at 6:30, avoiding the select board's meeting on the 11th, and the next regular planning board meeting was confirmed for Wednesday, November 2 at 7:00. Members closed by agreeing the meetings need streamlining and the applications better organised.

What was decided

• 5:22
  Approve the minutes of the September 16 meeting. Moved and seconded, with two members abstaining because they had not attended; the chair stated the minutes had been accepted.passed
• 53:15
  Find the Huitt conditional use application complete, with the condition of receiving the state campground licence. Moved and seconded, and the board proceeded to review the approval criteria.passed
• 1:03:28
  The board agreed that the application would be amended to be made in the name of Durham Leisure Holdings LLC, which owns the property, and that approval would be conditioned on the LLC demonstrating at least about $67,000 in financial resources, supported by incorporation papers and a certificate of good standing from the Secretary of State.passed
• 1:08:44
  Find that the project will not result in undue water or air pollution. Moved, seconded and voted.passed
• 1:08:44
  Find the water supply criterion incomplete for want of the well flow information, and make a statement from Temple Well Drilling on the well's capacity a condition of approval. Moved, seconded and voted.passed
• 1:14:06
  Find, in a series of separate motions each moved, seconded and voted, that the project will not cause unreasonable soil erosion; will not cause road congestion or unsafe conditions, on the evidence of the Maine DOT review; complies with the state plumbing code on sewage disposal; has adequate fire protection because a water source lies within a mile; and will not adversely affect scenic or natural beauty.passed
• 1:14:06
  Find criterion 9, adequate financial and technical capacity, incomplete, and carry it as the condition already discussed on the LLC's financial resources. Moved and seconded.passed
• 1:19:40
  Find, in a series of separate motions, that criterion 10 does not apply as there is no water body within 250 feet; that groundwater quality and quantity will not be adversely affected; that the floodplain criterion does not apply; that there will be no adverse impact on wildlife habitat; that noise and vibration will not disturb adjacent property given the buffering; and that the project will not place an excessive burden on municipal or educational services.passed
• 1:24:48
  Find that criterion 8, the setback requirement, is NOT met, with the condition that the applicants maintain the 100-foot side setback: whether by dropping the two affected sites, buying the town-owned triangle, or obtaining a variance. Moved and seconded.passed
• 1:45:25
  Find that the project meets the use-specific campground requirements, with conditions that it comply with the Maine state plumbing code and DHHS requirements if any, and with the ordinance's occupancy time limits under the use-specific performance standards for campgrounds. Moved, seconded after a pause, and voted.passed
• 1:51:56
  The board determined it could NOT make a variance a condition of approval, because the ordinance bars acting on a development until any required variance has first been obtained. The applicants agreed to amend the application to exclude the two sites within 57 feet of the town parcel, reducing it from 27 new sites to 25.passed
• 1:56:57
  Approve the amended 25-site conditional use application with all the conditions discussed over the course of the meeting. Moved and seconded, and the conditions were then recited back to the applicants.passed
• 2:02:08
  Set an ordinance rewrite working session for Tuesday the 18th at 6:30, and confirm the next regular planning board meeting for Wednesday, November 2 at 7:00.passed
• 2:02:08
  Motion to adjourn, moved and seconded.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 planningminutes5oct2016.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 Minutes for September 7" 2016 as presentedcarried 5-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Todd Beaulieu

• find that the Amended Conditional Use Application is Complete with the Condition that the Board receives a copy of the State Licensecarried 5-0

  Moved by Mindy Woerter, seconded by Michael Fitzpatrick

• the LLC show financial resources in the amount of $67,000.00, Amend the applicant to the LLC, provide a copy of the LLC Incorporation Paperscarried

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by Todd Beaulieu

• the applicants meet the Campground Requirements with the condition that they comply with all plumbing and DHHS Regulations, if any, Item #3-k for campgrounds — number of says allowed up to 180 days or twelve weeks from M…carried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• Adjourn at 9:08 p.mcarried 5-0

  Moved by Mindy Woerter, seconded by Michael Fitzpatrick

Worth knowing

• 1:19:40
  Two of the proposed campsites sit about 57 feet from a small triangle of town-owned land, inside the 100-foot campground setback. Because the ordinance forbids the board acting until a variance is already in hand, and a board of appeals hearing takes about 30 days to set up, the applicants dropped the two sites and the approval came out at 25 rather than 27 new sites.
• 1:40:16
  The town's ordinance allows a camper to occupy one space for only 12 weeks in the summer season and two weeks at any other time. The applicants said that is unworkable for their year-round operation, where winter campers are skirted and heated in place, and the board could offer only that they seek a variance.
• 1:03:28
  Approval was conditioned on Durham Leisure Holdings LLC, rather than the owners personally, showing at least about $67,000 in financial resources, following the precedent the board set with the cell tower application so the right entity is on the hook if remediation is ever needed.
• 1:56:57
  A United States Supreme Court decision means sign restrictions cannot depend on what a sign says, which the code officer said takes out more than half of Durham's sign ordinance. The replacement will go to town meeting as a separate article explaining it is required to comply with free speech law.

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: 9 passages of motion language, against 14 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2016-09-07 Planning Board2016-11-02 Planning Board →All meetings