Planning Board Meeting ~ June 1, 2022

2022-06-01 · Planning Board · 1:02:36 · watch on YouTube →

A Planning Board meeting on June 1, 2022, held with three voting members after COVID and travel kept the rest away. The board reviewed the May 12 site walk at the Hallowell Road subdivision, now named Deer Creek, then carried out a completeness review of the subdivision application, working through the submission checklist item by item with town planner George Thebarge. The board voted that the application is not complete, principally because the septic soil test logs for the individual lots had not been submitted, and added a list of further items to the letter of incompleteness. Members agreed that if the missing material arrives by the next submission deadline, the public hearing and preliminary plan review will be held at the July 6 meeting, and that an optional second site walk will be scheduled then only if the board thinks it necessary. Two recurring questions were left open: what standard governs abutter notification when properties change hands, and whether the satisfaction of judgment on the town's court action against the property has been filed.

What was discussed

1. 0:06
   Anne Torregrossa appointed a voting member for the meeting

   Anne Torregrossa normally sits as an alternate. The chair appointed her to vote for the evening, giving as the reason what he called a perfect storm of COVID and travel among the other members.

2. 0:06
   Minutes of the May 4 meeting

   The minutes were moved and seconded with no comments. One member abstained because she had not attended that meeting.

3. 0:06
   Informational exchange and public comment

   The chair invited comments from the fire chief, who had none, and explained that general comments at this point may not touch anything else on the agenda. No residents or non-residents came forward.

4. 0:06
   Summary of the May 12 site walk

   George Thebarge circulated notes and read them out. John Talbot was the only board member who attended, along with the new code officer Alan Plummer, Thebarge, and applicant representatives Charlie Burnham, Jack Doughty and Johnny Schnell; Chief Rob Tripp was present for part of it and was added to the record at John Talbot's request.

5. 0:06
   Site walk findings east of the brook

   The group looked at the area east of the tributary of Dyer Brook and observed that erosion control measures installed by the property owner had failed. They then crossed the stream on an old logging road crossing, which creates a dam in the stream and does not meet state stream crossing standards, having been put in long ago.

6. 0:06
   Materials remaining on the cleared area

   The cleared area on the west side of the brook held a large amount of construction equipment and materials from the prior business use, which remained in violation of an enforcement action and a court order. The select board had directed town staff not to process development permit applications for properties in violation of the ordinances, including this one.

7. 0:06
   Follow-up compliance inspections

   The code officer and George Thebarge carried out follow-up inspections on May 17 and May 19 and verified that the site had been brought into substantial compliance with the court order, reporting that to the select board chairman. The chairman emailed back supporting the approach taken. The site walk finished with the board walking the perimeter of the proposed open space and viewing wetland areas.

8. 0:06
   What a completeness review is

   John Talbot explained that the evening's business was a completeness review only: whether the applicant submitted everything on the checklist, not whether the lots are the right size or the road turns the right way. He said a quality submission in this sense does not mean the board would vote to approve it.

9. 5:32
   Planner's review and the supplemental submission

   George Thebarge transmitted his comments to Charlie Burnham after the site walk, and a supplemental application addressing some of the points was submitted on May 20. The first step is the checklist on pages one to three; if anything on it is missing the application is incomplete and no substantive review starts.

10. 5:32
    What a determination of completeness does and does not do

    Thebarge said a determination of completeness indicates only that the board has the minimum information it needs to judge compliance or non-compliance, not that the information is accurate or that it satisfies the criteria. The ordinance also lets the board request additional information within stated parameters.

11. 5:32
    The sixty-day clock

    Once the board determines an application complete, a legal clock starts and the board has sixty calendar days to finish its review, hold the public hearing and decide. It may approve, approve with conditions, which Thebarge said happens about ninety-nine per cent of the time, or deny if the application fails any subdivision standard.

12. 5:32
    The two items in the draft letter of incompleteness

    The first is a location map showing the subdivision in the context of surrounding subdivisions and properties and its position in the town, which Thebarge called easy to fix. The second and more substantive is that soil tests for each of the test pits were not included, the packet saying they would follow; the regulations require every lot to have a soil test that passes the Maine plumbing code for a septic system without easements on other lots or variances.

13. 5:32
    No public hearing at this stage

    John Talbot explained there is no public comment tonight; a public meeting with an opportunity to speak for or against or ask questions comes at the preliminary plan review once a complete packet is in. He urged the applicant and interested residents to talk to each other and pointed to George Thebarge as the town's planner and a source of information.

14. 5:32
    The ex parte rule

    John Talbot compared the board to a jury once a trial has started: nobody may talk to planning board members about the application outside the meeting, whether applicant or homeowner. Questions should go to George Thebarge, who passes them on.

15. 10:48
    Scope of the restriction clarified

    Thebarge confirmed the restriction applies only to planning board members and that he can still be contacted. The chair encouraged residents to keep a dialogue going with the applicant.

16. 10:48
    How the public hearing will work

    A resident asked whether the hearing is a give and take or whether the board simply listens; he was told the latter, and that the board does not answer questions back and forth at the hearing, though questions raised will be addressed. Members said the more that can be done outside the hearing, the better.

17. 10:48
    Sending questions in advance

    Juliet Caplinger noted the letter sent to abutters said comments or questions emailed in advance would help. George Thebarge asked people to send questions to the address on the town website so answers can be prepared rather than dug out on the spot.

18. 10:48
    Abutter's question about who he may speak to

    A resident who introduced himself as Alan, president of the Kimber Oaks association, said he has a vested interest in what happens beside and behind his association and asked whether he could talk to Charlie or others involved. He was told he could, that only planning board members are off limits, and George Thebarge supplied the term ex parte.

19. 16:03
    Whether waivable studies are decided now

    A member asked whether the board is deciding tonight which optional submissions will be required, since the applicant would want to know before the sixty days run. Thebarge recommended waiting until the substantive review, after hearing from interested parties and the applicant, then taking a majority decision, because the hydrogeological study, traffic study and high-intensity soil survey involve real time and money.

20. 16:03
    Completeness not expected tonight

    It was confirmed the sixty days run from the date of the determination, so a finding of completeness that night would start the clock the next day. John Talbot said he was not anticipating completeness because the test pit logs were missing; the applicant said the person doing them had telephoned that afternoon and was getting out there that week.

21. 16:03
    Checklist walkthrough begins

    Thebarge went through the checklist. The application form is present; the location map does not carry the required information; the plan scale is readable; the subdivision name, town and map and lot number have been added; the legal right to develop is covered by a purchase and sale agreement.

22. 16:03
    Easements, deeds and the boundary survey

    A member asked about the requirement for copies of deed restrictions, easements, rights of way and other encumbrances currently affecting the property. Thebarge said a certified boundary survey has been provided, so the item is complete for now, and that questions about title, including whether parts of the parcel are under a cloud of title, are substantive matters for later.

23. 16:03
    Further checklist items

    Proposed bylaws and covenants are in the packet; the septic soil test locations are on the map but the logs are not provided; a note on the plan says fire protection will be by sprinklers; well exclusion zones within a hundred feet of the septic system are shown. Abutter names come from the tax rolls and some properties may have changed hands, and wetland mapping and topography were provided.

24. 21:19
    Site features, water features and zoning

    There are no farmland soils; acreage, existing property lines and site features appear on an existing conditions plan; the site is not in the Runaround Pond watershed and zoning district boundaries are shown. A member pressed on whether water features must be shown on adjacent land, the ordinance requiring the location of all rivers, streams and brooks within or adjacent to the subdivision.

25. 21:19
    How far the mapped features extend

    The applicant said the lines shown come from the wetland survey rather than registered stream mapping, and that there are no USGS streams adjacent to the property. Members noted the stormwater plans and pre- and post-development sub-catchment sheets carry contours and features further out.

26. 21:19
    Culverts on and adjacent to the property

    The applicant confirmed he had not shown culverts off the property, while the checklist calls for existing and proposed culverts and drainage ways on or adjacent to the land being subdivided. The concern raised was downstream impact, for example on the culvert at Hallowell Road, and Thebarge said the board can require more information on drainage during the substantive review.

27. 26:46
    Entrance sight distances and layout items

    Sight distances for the Hallowell Road entrance were missing from the original submission and have since been added. Street locations and widths, lot lines with dimensions and areas, a significant proposed open space, and building envelopes and cleared areas are shown, the latter on a supplemental packet filed on the Friday after the submission deadline; Charlie Burnham (?) described the cleared areas as conservative and gave figures of fourteen or fifteen thousand per lot, with the unit not stated in the recording.

28. 26:46
    Flood-prone areas

    A FEMA panel was submitted with the application. The floodplain extends up the channel of this branch of Dyer Brook and through the Hidden Oaks subdivision; the other small channel at the far end of the property is not in the floodplain on those maps.

29. 26:46
    Habitats and historic resources

    The town's comprehensive plan inventories of natural resources show nothing on the site, and a letter in the packet from the Maine Natural Areas Program (?) says none have been identified. The Maine Historic Preservation Commission will be checked as part of the review, with nothing known at present.

30. 26:46
    Boundary survey and monumentation

    The boundary survey was not done for this project but was carried out earlier for the landowner, Dean. Members noted the parcel must be located on the ground and marked by monuments, and that lots will have to be pinned by the end of the process; nothing was re-pinned for this submission.

31. 26:46
    Farmland soils and vegetative cover

    Farmland soils were marked not applicable because the soil survey showed all sands; members clarified that where such soils exist the state requires them to be mapped but nothing more. A member asked whether the plans show where the land is forested rather than only what will be cut.

32. 31:48
    Where the forest cover data sits

    Charlie Burnham (?) said the HydroCAD report covers ground coverage of the sub-catchments, how much is impervious and how much forested, and the soil types, describing it as a 180 page report. Juliet Caplinger observed that some areas shown in green as to be cleared are already cleared, and members agreed the site is sparsely forested apart from denser ground around the perimeter.

33. 31:48
    Liquidation harvesting

    The submission indicates liquidation harvesting occurred on the property. Under the ordinance the applicant must submit a letter from a licensed forester determining whether it was done in compliance with state harvesting laws.

34. 31:48
    Sight distances and the road

    The sight distance arrows are on sheet C101 at the end of the road, one figure given as 700 feet. A letter from MaineDOT covers the road cut, which is an existing one, and no DOT permit is needed because the 13 residential lots do not trigger the peak hour trip threshold; the remaining street issue is getting the road name approved. The offset of Patriot Drive across the road was flagged for later discussion.

35. 31:48
    Wetland delineation done in winter

    A member raised that the delineation was completed in January of this year, in winter, and that only the areas around the streams were done then, the rear corner being walked later; photographs in the report are dated March 9, still winter. The rear parcel Dean wanted to retain lost roughly half its area to wetlands as a result. Escrow fees have been paid and could fund a third-party review.

36. 31:48
    School wells and aquifer protection

    The superintendent was sent the site plan and responded that she had no problem with what is proposed. The protection boundaries are shown on the plans.

37. 37:07
    Whether to redo the wetland walk now

    The applicant offered to send Alex out to walk the site again and reconfirm the delineation. Members said to wait, since a peer review, if the board orders one, might identify what should be investigated first.

38. 37:07
    Peer review budget

    Members noted the board is starting to use peer reviews more and has a budget for them, but that it is not large and could be used up quickly. How far it goes was said to depend on how well the plans have been prepared.

39. 37:07
    Planner's recommendation on completeness

    George Thebarge said both a draft letter of incompleteness and a draft letter of completeness were in the packet, and that in his view two items are missing: the soil logs, and the location map, which he described as minor and probably waivable. John Talbot noted the agenda was deliberately narrow because this was not a public hearing and several members were absent.

40. 37:07
    Proposal to keep the process moving

    John Talbot proposed that if the petitioner gets the soil logs and the other missing material in before the next submission deadline, around June 15, so staff can review it, the board would advertise the public hearing for the July meeting on July 6. If the material is not in by the deadline, the public hearing information would not be filed and no hearing would be held.

41. 37:07
    Juliet Caplinger's additions to the letter

    Caplinger said the letter should list what is incomplete more formally and disagreed that the location map item could be waived. Her further items were survey monumentation at the property corners, existing vegetative cover, for which the applicant offered to fly a new aerial to sit under the existing conditions plan, and the location of culverts on the streams outside the property.

42. 43:03
    How far downstream the drainage analysis goes

    Members and the applicant discussed where the analysis should stop, distinguishing showing the location of a culvert from designing for it. The design is for the 25-year storm and a member asked what happens at the culvert under Hallowell Road in a 100-year storm; it was agreed the detail belongs to preliminary and final plan review but that the culvert should be shown.

43. 43:03
    Existing drainage problem near the road

    The applicant said he would probably tweak the road grade so that drainage from the development runs down to the stream and the wetland rather than adding to an existing drainage problem. Members noted the awkwardness of whether fixing a pre-existing problem is the applicant's job.

44. 43:03
    Flood boundary to be added to the plans

    Members asked for the FEMA flood area to be shown on the project maps along the stream. The applicant said most of the lots sit about fifteen feet above the bottom of the stream and agreed to add it.

45. 43:03
    Encumbrances and the satisfaction of judgment

    The applicant said there are no easements or encumbrances to the best of his knowledge and none were flagged in the title search. Members asked whether the town's legal action produced one and whether the satisfaction of judgment has been filed, noting that if the judgment was recorded in the registry the satisfaction must be too, or the property remains encumbered.

46. 43:03
    The final list of missing items

    George Thebarge read back the list to be added to the two items already in the draft letter: survey monumentation, existing vegetative cover, all adjacent culverts on the streams including the brook culvert out to Hallowell Road with the brook's name garbled at this point in the recording, the flood boundary on the project maps, and clarification of the satisfaction of judgment on the court action. The applicant said his remaining work was the test pit logs and adding the existing subdivisions within about 500 feet to the site location map.

47. 48:50
    Motion on completeness

    A motion was made and seconded on the application's completeness, framed as the list George Thebarge had just spelled out.

48. 48:50
    Which absent members may take part later

    Members asked whether the three absent board members could participate in the substantive review having missed this meeting. George Thebarge, having spoken to the town attorney, said the concern is missing substantive discussions, which were avoided this evening, and that once a complete application is determined the board should discuss whether to waive its rules for any member who misses a meeting where the application is discussed.

49. 48:50
    Whether to hold a second site walk

    A second site walk after completeness is optional and usually held before the public hearing, the first having been at the sketch plan stage. Members questioned what a second walk so soon after the last one would achieve and whether it would be better held once it is known what further material will be required.

50. 48:50
    Sequencing against the sixty-day clock

    Thebarge reminded the board the clock starts on the determination of completeness, that this is still the preliminary phase with a final phase to follow, and that a third meeting could be fitted in within the window, possibly as a special meeting. He noted the applicant can agree to extend beyond sixty days.

51. 54:35
    Public hearing set for the July meeting

    Thebarge argued for holding the public hearing at the next meeting so the input can be processed before the decision meeting, saying running the hearing and the substantive deliberations on the same night as the deadline would be brutal. Members settled on holding the hearing at the July meeting if the application is found complete, scheduling a site walk at that meeting only if it is then felt necessary, and not advertising a hearing at all if the material is not in by the submission deadline.

52. 54:35
    Order of business going forward

    The sequence agreed was determination of completeness, then the public hearing, then scheduling and holding a site walk, with the substantive review and vote at the meeting after that. The chair noted George Thebarge is limited in hours and serves two other committees.

53. 54:35
    Abutter notification

    The application recorded that abutters had not been notified although the notices were included. Thebarge explained the list is generated by the town from the tax records as of April 15, so anyone who bought an abutting property since then may not be the noticed owner, and members could not find the governing standard in the ordinance, suggesting it may be in state statute.

54. 1:00:05
    A recently moved resident

    A resident said he and his household were the last people to move in and are shown incorrectly on the map, though they were notified. He was asked to leave his name and address.

55. 1:00:05
    Next meeting and a Conservation Commission email

    The next meeting is July 6. The applicant was told an email was coming through George Thebarge from the Conservation Commission and asked to coordinate with him.

What was decided

• 0:06
  Anne Torregrossa, normally an alternate, was made a voting member for this meeting. The chair appointed her directly rather than putting it to a vote, after a brief exchange about whether a vote was needed.outcome unclear
• 0:06
  Accept the minutes of the May 4 meeting. The motion was made and seconded and the chair recorded it as passing, with one member abstaining because she had not attended that meeting. The vote count as spoken is garbled in the recording.passed
• 16:03
  Hold off deciding which optional studies to require, including the hydrogeological study, the traffic study and the high-intensity soil survey, until the substantive review, after hearing from the applicant and interested parties. This was George Thebarge's recommendation and was accepted without objection; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 37:07
  Do not have the applicant commission a further wetland walk at this stage, and wait to see whether the board orders a peer review that might identify what needs investigating. Agreed in discussion; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 48:50
  Moved and seconded that the application be determined NOT complete, on the basis of the list George Thebarge had spelled out: the location map and the septic soil test logs from the draft letter, plus survey monumentation, existing vegetative cover, adjacent culverts on the streams out to Hallowell Road, the flood boundary on the project maps, and clarification of the satisfaction of judgment on the court action. The chair said it passes. This was a finding of incompleteness, not of completeness, so the sixty-day review clock did not start.passed
• 48:50
  Board members absent from this meeting are not barred from taking part in the preliminary plan review, because no substantive discussion of the application took place. This followed George Thebarge's advice, which he said reflected the town attorney's view; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 54:35
  If the missing material is submitted by the next submission deadline, the board will advertise and hold the public hearing at the July 6 meeting alongside the determination of completeness, and will schedule the optional second site walk at that meeting only if it then appears necessary. If the material is not in by the deadline, no public hearing will be advertised or held. Agreed in discussion; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 54:35
  The board needs to settle a standard for abutter notification where an abutting property has changed hands since the town's tax records were struck, with members saying they would look into the ordinance and state statute. Left open; no motion was made and no vote was taken.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

• 0:06
  The May 12 site walk found that erosion control measures installed by the property owner had failed, that an old logging road stream crossing dams the brook and does not meet state stream crossing standards, and that construction equipment and materials from the prior business use remained on site in violation of a court order. The select board had directed staff not to process development permit applications for properties in violation of the ordinances; follow-up inspections on May 17 and May 19 found substantial compliance with the court order.
• 48:50
  The board voted that the application is not complete, chiefly because the septic soil test logs for the individual lots were never submitted. Until a determination of completeness is made, the sixty-day clock for the board to hold its hearing and decide does not begin.
• 31:48
  The submission indicates liquidation harvesting took place on the property, which under the ordinance requires a letter from a licensed forester on whether it complied with state harvesting laws. Separately, the wetland delineation was carried out in January in winter conditions, with report photographs dated March 9, and the board discussed paying for a third-party review out of escrow already collected.
• 54:35
  Abutter notices are generated from the town's tax records as of April 15, so anyone who has bought an abutting property since then may not have been notified. Members said the ordinance does not appear to set a standard for this and that it may be in state statute.

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 8 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2022-05-04 Planning Board2022-07-13 Planning Board →All meetings