Planning Board Meeting ~ March 1, 2023

2023-03-01 · Planning Board · 2:39:17 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board met on March 1, 2023 with four of five members present. It took up the Deer Creek Crossing subdivision, which had been tabled twice waiting on state permits, and voted 3-1 to accept the application as complete on condition that the board see the Army Corps permit before final plan approval, then opened the substantive review. George Thebarge set out five issues for that review: the stream crossing, the fire pond, an easement for the stormwater basin, the applicant's request for a conditional agreement in place of a performance guarantee, and the need for one consolidated final plan package. The board then discussed the land use warrant articles with Kevin Nadeau and Joseph Roy, and voted 3-1 to recommend that the select board keep Part 1A, renamed Part 1, and remove Part 1B from the warrant. A follow-up motion to amend 1B by dropping one criterion failed for lack of a second. The affordable housing articles were left off this town meeting, with the board aiming instead at a November vote.

What was discussed

1. 0:03
   Roll call and minutes

   John Talbot confirmed a quorum of four: Allan Purinton, Ron Williams, Juliet Caplinger and himself. There were no amendments to the agenda and the minutes of the January 4, 2023 meeting were accepted.

2. 0:03
   Town planner's report

   George Thebarge said he and John Talbot had presented the board's recommendations to the select board the previous night, and that the select board asked for a change to Part 1B. He also reported the new GIS parcel mapping is live on the town website; about a dozen parcels do not match the Trio property records, and reported errors will be collected for the annual update, which is usually done over the summer.

3. 5:44
   Public comment on the warrant articles

   A resident objected to the select board chair taking part in the board's discussion of the land use articles, citing his own letter saying the select board should simply vote recommendations up or down, and said the board had already voted on what it would send. The resident asked that if the select board chair was to be included then the Conservation Commission member should be as well, and repeated a request that 1B be removed from the warrant altogether.

4. 5:44
   Deer Creek Crossing: completeness review

   George Thebarge recounted that the application was found incomplete in November, reconsidered in December and tabled twice waiting on three approvals: a DEP permit for the new stream crossing and removal of the existing one, an Army Corps approval, and an MDOT permit for the road entrance. Will Haskell, the town's peer review engineer, delivered final comments that evening recommending an impermeable barrier on top of a stormwater treatment berm.

5. 10:48
   Status of the outstanding permits

   Charles Burnham said the MDOT permit had been received and that DEP had confirmed by email that the amended permit by rule was in order, since DEP does not issue a document for permits by rule. The Army Corps approval remained outstanding. Board members noted that the Corps is the body that will approve the stream crossing design, so its decision could change the plan.

6. 16:50
   Whether to accept the application as complete

   Ron Williams said the plans show a straight culvert where the stream meanders and that the crossing needs a proper design rather than a cross-section detail. Members discussed that a completeness finding only means something has been submitted for every item, not that the board agrees with it. John Talbot proposed accepting completeness with a condition that no final approval issue until the Corps permit is in hand.

7. 22:45
   Vote on completeness and start of substantive review

   The board accepted the application as complete with the Army Corps condition and moved straight into substantive review rather than scheduling a separate meeting, which George Thebarge said the ordinance permits.

8. 27:57
   The five key issues for substantive review

   George Thebarge listed the stream crossing including removal of the existing unpermitted crossing that is damming the stream; the fire pond and whether it will hold water; a stormwater treatment basin sited on land to remain with the current owner, which needs an easement on the survey plan for the homeowners association; the requested conditional agreement; and the need for one consolidated final package. He also said the plan should make clear the town is not responsible for maintaining the fire pond.

9. 33:00
   Conditional agreement in place of a performance guarantee

   The applicant's original infrastructure estimate was about $300,000 and Will Haskell's peer review raised it to about $600,000. Rather than post that amount, the applicant proposes the ordinance's conditional agreement: no lot may be sold and no building permit issued until all improvements are complete, with a smaller guarantee, suggested at about $60,000, for erosion control and site stabilization. If they later want to sell lots they must come back and post a guarantee for the remaining work.

10. 38:48
    Outstanding peer review comments

    Juliet Caplinger raised the treatment of roadway runoff lumped with the wooded area, where the applicant disagreed with the peer reviewer. John Talbot said the board needs confirmation that the applicant's later responses satisfied Will Haskell rather than a running exchange, and George Thebarge agreed to obtain a letter from Haskell confirming whether all comments have been addressed.

11. 49:34
    Detention pond easement and the fire pond

    Charles Burnham said the survey plan received that day carries the new easement around the under drain soil filter, and the board treated that concern as resolved. The fire chief's concern that other fire ponds in town do not hold water in drought was taken up next.

12. 54:37
    Fire pond calculations

    Charles Burnham said the pond will be clay lined, roughly 18 inches, cited about 46 inches of annual rainfall against about 26 inches of evaporation logged at New Gloucester, and said the top four feet is discounted for freezing. The ISO requirement is 120,000 gallons and he has proposed about 180,000. The board asked for sign-off from both Will Haskell on the calculations and the fire chief before the next meeting, and discussed a marker in the pond and an obligation in the homeowners association documents to keep it filled.

13. 1:00:10
    Ordinance language on guarantees and past subdivisions

    George Thebarge read section 6.3.4(c) on conditional agreements and listed the options: cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, conditional agreement, or another form approved by the town attorney at the applicant's cost. Members cited Ruby Lane, where money sits in escrow for an unfinished road, Bowie Hill, and Granite Ridge, which defaulted with houses on an unbuilt road.

14. 1:05:21
    What the conditional agreement must cover

    The board agreed the conditional agreement must appear as a condition on the final plan and that the notice of decision should list what counts as completed improvements, including the fire pond. It also noted the erosion control guarantee means the site can be stabilised if the developer walks away. No motion was taken on this at the meeting.

15. 1:10:30
    Stream crossing design

    Charles Burnham described an open bottom arch culvert with footers two feet below the stream bed, the channel bed rebuilt to Army Corps guidance, and the existing logger's dam and rusted 12-inch culvert removed. The culvert size was given as starting at 60 inches and reduced to 48 inches, based on one and a half times a 30-inch stream width, and the depth of fill over it was stated variously as five, six, ten and twelve feet in the recording. Juliet Caplinger asked that the stream crossing be added to the list of questions put back to the peer reviewer.

16. 1:15:40
    Documents to be resubmitted

    The board asked Charles Burnham to resend the updated NRPA permit application, including the impacts of removing the existing culvert, and to include all DEP correspondence and the Corps approval when it arrives in the final package. Board members said they would send any remaining comments to the planner if the peer reviewer's letter does not cover them.

17. 1:21:22
    Land use articles: where the process stands

    George Thebarge recapped the February 15 public hearing at the Eureka Center, the board's votes on wording for Parts 1A and 1B, and its recommendation to hold Parts 2A and 2B until the state finalises the rules for LD 2003, also called chapter 672. A second public hearing is set for March 22 at 6:30 pm at the Eureka Center, for information only, which also satisfies the legal requirement for amending the ordinance. Letters had been sent in the previous days to 480 affected landowners.

18. 1:27:20
    Affordable housing timing

    The board discussed a single warrant article combining accessory dwelling allowances with acreage requirements, an approach credited to Ian, but concluded a June vote would be too tight: final state guidance is not expected until the end of April and ballot wording must reach the town clerk 60 days before a paper ballot vote. Members settled on aiming at November so there is time to explain one question to voters, while acknowledging the town would be following state law in the interim.

19. 1:37:46
    The select board's concern with Part 1B

    Kevin Nadeau explained that after last year's vote failed he had offered 1B as a contingency question to remove land that meets none of the criteria, but that as drafted 1B would also write the criteria into the ordinance text, adopting criteria the voters would have just rejected in 1A. The select board's consensus the previous night was to drop the beginning with habitat 6 plus criterion from 1B. He said he had since come to doubt 1B should go on the warrant at all.

20. 1:43:22
    Joseph Roy's argument for a single question

    Joseph Roy said 1A asks voters whether to adopt the comprehensive plan's resource protection recommendations across the whole town, adding and removing land. He argued 1B would apply the criteria only where resource protection already exists, which is inequitable, and that if 1A fails the town should then work through the criteria one at a time. He also said if 1A fails no landowner leaves with a restriction they did not already have.

21. 1:54:34
    Existing remedy through the board of appeals

    Kevin Nadeau noted landowners already have a remedy through the board of appeals, which has agreed in at least one case that a property did not meet the criteria. George Thebarge said the appeals board declined the Celebration Tree Farm appeal mainly because of the pending map changes, holding it inappropriate to circumvent the legislative process.

22. 2:00:26
    The letters already sent to landowners

    Allan Purinton and John Talbot said 480 landowners had just been told there would be two questions, and that dropping 1B would leave that letter wrong. Others answered that the letter is inaccurate either way, since 1B would be reworded if kept. George Thebarge confirmed the letter describes what the planning board is recommending rather than a final ballot.

23. 2:16:49
    Floodplain example and equity

    Joseph Roy used FEMA floodplain mapping to illustrate the problem: under 1B the updated floodplain would be applied only inside the existing resource protection boundary, so one landowner in a mapped floodplain would be regulated and a neighbour in the same floodplain would not. Members disagreed over whether that is worse than leaving mapping errors uncorrected.

24. 2:27:34
    Recommendation to the select board

    The board voted to recommend keeping Part 1A, renamed Part 1, and removing Part 1B. Members noted the select board makes the final decision on the warrant on March 14, and Kevin Nadeau said he could not predict which way that vote would go.

25. 2:32:53
    Attempt to fix the 1B language

    A member argued the board should still settle on wording for 1B in case the select board puts it on the warrant, and moved that 1B simply drop criterion F. George Thebarge said ordinance amendments are recommended by the planning board rather than originated by the select board, and that the board had just recommended against 1B.

26. 2:38:28
    Warrant language for the town report

    George Thebarge said the town clerk needs the warrant article language for the town report by Friday, and asked whether to write one for the former 1A and two for the road acceptance article. He said he would mark the language as draft and work it out with Jessica the next day.

What was decided

• 0:03
  Accept the minutes from the January 4, 2023 meeting as presented, moved by Allan Purinton and seconded by Juliet Caplinger, carried 4-0passed
• 22:45
  Accept the Deer Creek application as complete with the condition that the board see the Army Corps plan before final plan approval, moved by John Talbot and seconded by Allan Purinton, carried 3-1passed
• 38:48
  Ask George Thebarge to obtain a letter from Will Haskell confirming the applicant has addressed all peer review comments, and add the stream crossing to the questions put to himpassed
• 2:27:34
  Recommend to the select board keeping Part 1A, to be renamed Part 1, and removing Part 1B from the warrant, moved by Juliet Caplinger and seconded by Allan Purinton, carried 3-1passed
• 2:32:53
  Motion by Ron Williams (?) that Part 1B be amended only to drop criterion F, in case the select board keeps it on the warrantfailed
• 2:38:28
  Adjourn, moved by Ron Williams and seconded by Juliet Caplinger, carried 4-0passed

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_01_2023.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 minutes from the January 4, 2023 meeting as presentedcarried 4-0

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• the Planning Board accept the application as complete with the condition that the Board see the Army Corps Plan before giving final plan approvalcarried 3-1

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton

• recommends to the Selectboard, keeping Part 1A – (will change to Part 1) and removing Part 1B from the warrantcarried 3-1

  Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Allan Purinton

• adjourncarried 4-0

  Moved by Ron Williams, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

Worth knowing

• 10:48
  The Army Corps approval, one of the three permits the application was tabled for, is still outstanding. Charles Burnham said the Corps reviewer told him it would come back on the same schedule as the DEP permit but has not responded to his last five contacts. The board accepted completeness anyway, 3-1, on condition the permit is in hand before final approval.
• 33:00
  The applicant's own estimate for the subdivision's infrastructure was about $300,000; Will Haskell's peer review put it at about $600,000. Rather than post that, the applicant asks for a conditional agreement barring any lot sale or building permit until the work is finished, with a guarantee of roughly $60,000 for erosion control and site stabilisation.
• 54:37
  The fire chief has told the board he doubts the fire pond will hold water when needed, based on other fire ponds in town and last summer's drought. The ISO requirement is 120,000 gallons and the applicant has proposed about 180,000 in a clay lined pond. The board asked for written sign-off from both the peer review engineer and the fire chief before the next meeting.
• 2:00:26
  Letters describing two ballot questions had already gone to 480 affected landowners in the days before the meeting, and the board then voted to recommend dropping the second question. The select board decides the warrant on March 14, the informational public hearing is March 22, and the town clerk needs article language for the town report within two days of this 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: 2 passages of motion language, against 6 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2023-02-15 Planning Board2023-03-22 Planning Board →All meetings