May 19, 2021 ~ Planning Board Public Hearing

2021-05-19 · Planning Board · 2:14:21 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board continued its preliminary review of a six-lot residential subdivision off Royalsborough Road (Route 136) proposed by John Weekes and Ron Miley, with Adrian (?) presenting for the applicant. The board worked through the subdivision review criteria one standard at a time, finding most of them preliminarily met, and identified a short list of items the applicant must resolve before the final plan stage. The longest argument was over section 5.14 and a neighboring property, the red house at 1394 Royalsborough Road, which Maine Historic Preservation has coded as not determined but potentially eligible: the board split over whether the ordinance's 25-foot buffer around historic property lines is triggered only by a new structure or applies to any lot line, including where the proposed subdivision road runs. Ann, who chaired the review, read it as applying only to structures and said she was outvoted; the burden was put on the applicant to obtain a determination that the property is not protected or to find a way to provide the buffer. Other unresolved items were low-hanging tree branches at the Route 136 entrance, a trash collection arrangement, homeowners association documents, and a written escrow procedure for the performance guarantee. The board voted 5-0 to grant preliminary approval subject to seven outstanding issues, and discussed returning on July 7 or at a possible special meeting on June 30.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:10
   Historic properties within 1,500 feet

   The board reviewed correspondence identifying two nearby properties, 1355 and 1394 Royalsborough Road, both coded not determined but considered eligible at one time on exterior appearance alone, with the advice that they be treated as eligible during review until determined otherwise. Adrian (?) said most of the lots are in the woods and not visible from Royalsborough Road, with only lot one potentially visible behind a 50-foot vegetated buffer. A suggestion was made that a buffer condition be tied to actual visual impact once a house is built, since no one can know how it will look beforehand.

2. 5:21
   Buffers on lots one and six under section 5.14

   Lots one and six abut or face the red house property. The board confirmed a 40-foot no-clear buffer along lot six's shared lot line and a 50-foot buffer on lot one along Royalsborough Road, and corrected an earlier statement of 60 feet to 40 feet for the minutes. The proposed subdivision road runs between lot one and the red house, with no buffer on the road side.

3. 10:27
   Sight distances and the DOT entrance permit

   The board had asked for actual sight distances and received the state DOT entrance permit instead, numbered 26655; the applicant said DOT took its own measurements to grant the permit but that those measurements were not supplied. The applicant's own figures were given as approximately 427 feet to the south and, to the north, a number stated first as approximately 150 feet and then repeated as 850 feet, so the northern figure is garbled in the recording.

4. 15:47
   Water and air pollution, water supply and fire protection

   The board found no flood plain issues and no concerns about managing water on the site or affecting wetlands. On water supply, members noted a letter from the fire chief and a note on the plan that all houses will be sprinklered. On erosion, one member pointed to the wetland at the bottom of the hill, described as eight and a half acres and moderately significant, and asked that silt fencing keep material from washing downhill during construction.

5. 20:52
   Erosion and sedimentation control plan

   Adrian (?) said silt fence, a construction entrance and erosion control notes and details are on plan sheets C3.0 and C4.0, including typical controls for individual house construction. A member said the applicant had done this well on previous subdivisions, and the standard was accepted.

6. 20:52
   Traffic and street standards: internal circulation and the Route 136 exit

   The board turned to safe and convenient circulation on interior streets and the connection to Route 136. A member raised the trees along the edge of the road at the exit, saying trimming them would improve the view.

7. 25:53
   Low-hanging branches near the entrance

   Members debated who has authority to trim the overhanging limbs, noting power lines in the trees and that Royalsborough Road is a state road, and did not want to take on that responsibility themselves. A precedent was cited where a recent driveway entrance permit carried a condition to keep branches trimmed at a corner. The board also found no concern with the standard on avoiding traffic congestion, one member noting the subdivision is six lots entering a state highway.

8. 31:14
   Road design standard and commercial use

   The board discussed designing the road for the estimated average annual daily traffic and the land uses it would serve. A member noted that covenants typically restrict modulars and mobile homes but not commercial or home-based businesses, and the chair asked whether the road would be adequate if a conditional use brought a high-intensity commercial use onto the large lots.

9. 36:22
   Road specification and conformity to topography

   Adrian (?) described a 20-foot paved road with two-foot gravel shoulders, three and a half inches of pavement over 18 inches of gravel in two layers, all to DOT specification and meeting the town's subdivision street standards. Members agreed the width and construction would carry any likely vehicle weight or volume. The road was found to largely follow existing contours, with a changed slope in the first hundred feet or so.

10. 36:22
    Access standards, street signs, sewage and solid waste

    The access permitting requirement was met by the DOT permit, and the trip threshold in the standard was found not to apply, with the project's traffic described as roughly 57 trips in a day. Signage will be a street sign and a stop sign, both shown on the plan. Sewage disposal under the state subsurface wastewater rules was accepted, and the board moved on to the solid waste standard.

11. 41:28
    Where subdivision trash will be collected

    The applicant's plan was for collection at the end of the road. Members raised wind-blown trash reaching the drainage ditches on Royalsborough Road and noted the town's hauler does not go down private roads, which would put six households' bins on the state road. Options discussed included a containment area, or widening the gravel shoulder to make a flat pad.

12. 46:48
    Widening the shoulder for a collection point

    The board settled on asking whether the hauler would turn into the road and stop at each house, and if not, having the applicant propose a widened shoulder or pull-off on the north side of Royalsborough Road so the truck can get partly out of travel. Adrian (?) cautioned that DOT needs the ditch there, so the truck cannot be pulled far off the road. Some members were cool on a built containment structure, saying it could be more unsightly than the bins.

13. 52:00
    Natural beauty, natural areas and wildlife

    Clearing limits and the buffers will be carried on the final plan and by deed restriction, and the 50-foot wooded buffer along the existing road was confirmed. The board noted letters on file stating the site is not in the Maine Natural Areas Program, has no historic or prehistoric site on the subdivision itself, and a letter regarding significant wildlife habitat. There is no water body, so the shoreland standard does not apply.

14. 57:37
    Section 5.14 argument: is a road a structure

    The chair argued the 25-foot buffer sentence sits inside subsection B2, which addresses remodeled or new structures, and that a road is not a structure, so no buffer is triggered along the proposed road. Other members read the buffer sentence as standing on its own and applying at all lot lines of property abutting a historic property. Candace (?) said section 5.14 also covers eligible properties and a town list of historic resources from the comprehensive plan, and that visual impact is part of it.

15. 1:03:01
    Board polled on the buffer reading

    The chair said the last sentence of 5.14 is the easiest to understand but is formatted inside subsection B2, and acknowledged the drafting is confusing. Alan (?) and Wes (?) were asked directly and both said the 25-foot buffer is required at the lot line regardless of whether a structure is proposed.

16. 1:08:10
    Definition of structure and lot one's building envelope

    The board read the ordinance definition of structure, which excludes driveways, walkways, patios and other paved surfaces, and agreed a road is not a structure; the disagreement was over whether only a structure triggers the buffer. A member suggested enlarging the buffer on lot one, but Adrian (?) said the lot needs roughly 44,000 square feet of contiguous building envelope and has about 45,000, leaving little room. Members noted lot one does not abut the historic property, so the question is confined to lot six and the road.

17. 1:13:31
    Burden placed on the applicant

    The chair said she would be outvoted on her reading and added the item to the list the applicant must address at final plan stage: either provide evidence the red house is not protected under the ordinance, or provide a 25-foot buffer at that lot line. She noted the board is not approving structures tonight but is approving building envelopes.

18. 1:18:34
    Distance available and the prospect of denial

    Adrian (?) put the distance from the abutter's property line to the edge of the two-foot gravel at approximately 14.5 feet, leaving about ten feet to find. The applicant said the DOT permit fixes the entrance location and the road cannot be shifted or angled further. The chair said that on the information before them the board would deny the application for not meeting that section, that the applicant could buy land from the neighbor, and that a denial could be appealed since the board is not unanimous.

19. 1:23:42
    How the historic determination is made, and when it surfaced

    A participant explained the levels of historic designation, from the National Register to state determinations, and that DOT refers properties to Maine Historic Preservation for consideration. The applicant asked why emails on the subject dating back to February were not forwarded sooner; board members said the planning board itself had no discussion of it before this meeting and that the requirement is on the town's checklist. There was a sharp exchange about George, the planner, having contacted Maine Historic Preservation without the board asking him to.

20. 1:28:48
    Financial capacity and technical ability

    The applicant explained that the purchase and sale agreement is contingent on subdivision approval, so the land cannot yet be pledged, and that an escrow of cash is intended rather than a letter of credit. The chair distinguished the performance guarantee, which is the town's backstop, from financial and technical capacity, which is assessed up front. Adrian (?) pointed the board to attachment eight, a letter from Katahdin Trust Company regarding Ronald Miley.

21. 1:34:13
    Applicant name corrected, and groundwater

    The application was changed from an LLC, whose name is garbled in the recording, to John Weekes and Ron Miley so that the applicant matches the purchase and sale agreement; the LLC will be removed from the next plan set. On groundwater, the board discussed the requested waiver of the hydrogeologic assessment and a well driller letter stating water has been found in the area, and had no quantity or quality concerns. One member said the groundwater quantity section of the ordinance should be revisited the next time it is amended.

22. 1:39:42
    Remaining standards and homeowners association documents

    The board passed quickly through flood plain, freshwater wetlands, farmland, storm water, spaghetti lots, adjoining municipalities and timber harvesting, finding none of them an obstacle and noting the site is not in the Runaround Pond watershed. Under section 6.32 the applicant has provided a declaration of covenants, restrictions and easements based on the town template but still owes draft articles of incorporation for a nonprofit association and draft bylaws.

23. 1:44:44
    Performance guarantee and the escrow procedure

    Section 6.34 requires an escrow held by the town or an irrevocable letter of credit, and the applicant cannot open the escrow before owning the land. The chair proposed that the board see a written procedure signed off by the town manager, with the escrow agreement drafted and only funding left to do, and that release of the final signed plan for recording be made contingent on funding it.

24. 1:49:54
    Inspection escrow and waiver requests

    The board distinguished the $1,500 already on deposit for technical review during the approval process from the separate inspection escrow the ordinance requires before the recording mylar is released, set at 2 percent of the estimated cost of improvements; against a construction cost estimate of $163,000 that was put at about $3,200. The board then took up the waiver requests: high-intensity soil survey, hydrogeologic assessment, and traffic trip generation and traffic impact analysis, the last on the basis that six houses do not generate more than 140 vehicle trips per day.

25. 1:54:56
    Whether the historic buffer can be waived, and the chair's summary

    The chair said she would seek a town attorney opinion on whether the board can waive a zoning standard, noted case law suggesting it cannot, and raised a ZBA variance as an option, asking for advance notice if the applicant goes that route. She then summarized the outstanding items: the branch trimming and who may authorize it, the waste collection arrangement with the town and hauler, the historic status of the red house and the 25-foot buffer, and the association documents and escrow agreement.

26. 2:00:39
    Motion for preliminary approval

    A motion was made to preliminarily approve the subdivision plan with seven outstanding issues that must be addressed at the final plan stage or the subdivision may be denied. The chair agreed to put the seven items in writing for the applicant. A question was also raised about whether the DOT entrance permit has an expiration; the applicant said there is none unless road elevations change, while another speaker referred to a 24-month window.

27. 2:05:40
    Scheduling the return

    The board's June 2 regular meeting agenda has only two minor conditional use permits, and the June 16 meeting is a site walk and public hearing for another subdivision. Options discussed were a third June meeting on June 30, or the regular July 7 meeting, with submissions due two weeks in advance for continuing business.

28. 2:10:43
    Close of meeting

    The board agreed to discuss a possible June 30 special meeting at its June 2 meeting if the applicant gets a submission in. Bob (?) offered to send John Weekes contact information and a sample letter for Maine Historic Preservation the next morning, saying they usually respond within about five days. The chair called for a motion to adjourn; the recording ends during the roll call.

What was decided

• 25:53
  The board agreed to ask the applicant to contact DOT, and possibly CMP, before the final review to find out whether permission can be obtained to trim the low branches north of the entrance, with the idea that the board would then impose a condition that they be kept maintained. Reached by discussion; no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 46:48
  The board agreed that the applicant will check with the town whether the waste hauler will enter the subdivision road and stop at each house, and if it will not, propose a consolidated collection area with a widened gravel shoulder on the north side of Royalsborough Road. Reached by discussion; no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:13:31
  On section 5.14, a majority of members read the 25-foot buffer as required at all lot lines abutting a historic property whether or not a structure is proposed, while the chair read it as triggered only by a new or remodeled structure and therefore not by the proposed road. The chair said she would be outvoted and added the item to the applicant's final-plan list. The board was polled, not voted, so no formal outcome was recorded.outcome unclear
• 1:18:34
  The board told the applicant that on the information before it, it would deny the subdivision application for not meeting section 5.14, and that the applicant must either obtain a determination from Maine Historic Preservation that the neighboring property is not protected or provide the 25-foot buffer. Stated as the board's position; no vote was taken on a denial.outcome unclear
• 1:34:13
  The board accepted the correction of the applicant of record from an LLC to John Weekes and Ron Miley, matching the purchase and sale agreement, with the LLC to be removed from the next plan set. No vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:44:44
  The board agreed on a path for the performance guarantee: the applicant is to bring back a written escrow procedure with the town manager's sign-off, and any approval would be conditioned so that the final signed plan is not released for recording until the escrow is funded. Reached by discussion; no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:49:54
  The board indicated it would grant the waiver of the high-intensity soil survey, the chair hearing no objections. The chair noted these waivers are not formally acted on until the final plan stage, so no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:49:54
  The board indicated it would grant the waiver of the hydrogeologic assessment, on the basis that there is sufficient room to space wells and septic systems. No vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:49:54
  The board indicated it would grant the waiver of the traffic trip generation and traffic impact analysis, members agreeing that a six-lot residential subdivision is below the 140 vehicle trips per day threshold. No vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 2:00:39
  Motion, made and seconded, to preliminarily approve the subdivision plan subject to seven outstanding issues that must be addressed at the final plan stage or the subdivision may be denied. Roll call recorded as Juliet yes, Ron yes, Wes yes, Alan yes, Ann yes.passed
• 2:05:40
  The board and applicant agreed to aim for the regular July 7 meeting, with the possibility of a special meeting on June 30 to be discussed at the June 2 meeting if the applicant gets a submission in. Reached by discussion; no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 2:10:43
  Motion to adjourn, moved and seconded. The recording ends as the roll call begins, so the result is not on the recording.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.

Worth knowing

• 1:18:34
  About 14.5 feet separates the neighboring property line from the edge of the proposed road's gravel, roughly ten feet short of the 25-foot buffer a majority of the board reads the ordinance to require. With the DOT permit fixing the entrance location, members said the land may not be developable unless the applicant buys land from the neighbor or shows the neighboring house is not historic.
• 1:23:42
  The applicant said emails between the town planner and Maine Historic Preservation on the historic question go back to February and were not passed on; board members said the planning board itself had not discussed the matter before this meeting and that the requirement has been on the town's checklist from the beginning.
• 1:49:54
  The applicant has $1,500 on deposit for technical review, but the ordinance requires a separate inspection escrow of 2 percent of the estimated cost of improvements before the recording mylar is released; against a $163,000 construction cost estimate that was put at about $3,200.
• 10:27
  The board had asked for measured sight distances and got the DOT entrance permit, number 26655, instead. The southerly distance was given as approximately 427 feet; the northerly figure is garbled in the recording, stated first as approximately 150 feet and then repeated as 850 feet.

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: 1 passage of motion language, against 12 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2021-03-03 Planning Board2022-05-04 Planning Board →All meetings