Planning Board Meeting ~ June 7, 2017

2017-06-07 · Planning Board · 1:39:21 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board spent most of this meeting working through the completeness checklist for Barry Baldwin's Mineral Springs Estates subdivision, item by item, and then heard a conditional use application from one of its own members, who moved to the applicant's side of the table to present it with her husband Ben. The subdivision ran into several items the applicant cannot supply yet, chiefly a DEP stormwater permit needed because the site drains to Runaround Pond, so the board had him write a waiver request covering the outstanding items and then moved to find the application complete and to set a site walk and public hearing for June 28. The conditional use application, to excavate and backfill a 100 by 60 foot area for horses on land in resource protection, was taken through the approval criteria one at a time with a motion on each. The board also cancelled its July 5 meeting in favour of June 28, moved the application deadline to June 19, and noted it has no alternates at all. One caution for readers: the recording does not capture the members' responses to any call for a vote, so no outcome here is recorded as carried.

What was discussed

1. 0:02
   Call to order and quorum

   The chair opened the June 7 meeting with a quorum of three and the pledge of allegiance. A fourth member, Juliet, arrived shortly afterwards.

2. 0:02
   Minutes of the May 10 meeting

   One member said she had not attended and would abstain. Members checked the item numbers against the list before a motion to approve was made and seconded.

3. 5:04
   Mineral Springs Estates: continuing business

   Barry Baldwin returned with a copy of the warranty deed and the road maintenance agreements, received from his lawyer that day, and apologised for bringing only six copies. The board resumed working down the completeness checklist from where it had stopped.

4. 5:04
   Utility easement (item 25)

   The plan carries a line type marked EGU, coordinated with the detail, showing phone, power and cable running in one utility trench. The board called the item complete.

5. 5:04
   Wetlands and vernal pools

   The board had asked the applicant to go back to his surveyor about water features adjacent to the subdivision. A letter from the surveyor set out what had been surveyed and supplied a missing line near the vernal pool on the lot with the small building envelope, now shown on the plans.

6. 10:07
   Wetland delineation and road construction

   A member said he had walked the site with Baldwin and that the wetland line looked accurate, noting no licence is required to delineate wetlands in Maine. There are no proposed impacts, even temporary, from the road construction: the limit of disturbance and the right of way are both shown outside the wetland, and no stream was found where the culvert is to be extended. The item was called complete.

7. 10:07
   Drainage and utilities (item 29)

   The plan shows inverts, sizes and details for drainage and utilities, including a new 15 inch HDPE culvert. Called complete.

8. 10:07
   Flood-prone areas

   The 100-year flood plain elevation is shown on the plat plan, interpreted from the FEMA overlay by Mr. Kavich (?). Called complete.

9. 15:15
   Wildlife habitat and unusual natural areas (items 33 and 34)

   The response from Inland Fisheries and Wildlife had come back with nothing of concern, but the unusual natural areas response was still outstanding and the applicant preferred to submit both together. Members first suggested making it a condition, then concluded that a condition can only attach to a permit and not to a finding of completeness, so both items were marked incomplete.

10. 15:15
    Street plan (item 36)

    The board had previously asked for the turn from the existing street, the culvert detail, and an indication that the construction entrance is temporary. Members were satisfied the revised plan addressed the earlier feedback and that the entrance detail is marked temporary.

11. 21:00
    Ownership and road maintenance agreement (items 38 and 45)

    A member questioned how item 38 had been marked complete when the deed only arrived that day; it was clarified that 38 covers existing ownership and 45 the road maintenance agreement with a sample deed attached. A member advised that lot purchasers will want easements over the road and for utilities written into the body of their deeds rather than relying on the maintenance agreement, and that the road as property is not defined in that agreement. Item 45 was called complete.

12. 21:00
    Cost and time schedule (item 47)

    Baldwin said he already owns the land, has crushed gravel on site and owns the necessary equipment, putting the project at $25,000 to $35,000 with the money in his savings account, and produced a bank statement. He said he would start as soon as it was approved and wanted the road built before the ground froze; the board recorded roughly six months and called the item complete.

13. 27:00
    Stormwater permit (item 48)

    The applicant's engineer said Baldwin does need a stormwater permit because the site is in a watershed most at risk, Runaround Pond, rather than draining to the Androscoggin as he had first assumed. A pre-application meeting with DEP is pending; phosphorus control will be handled through buffers rather than structural measures, and the buffers will appear on the recorded plat. The town does not get a copy from DEP, so the board marked it incomplete pending a copy from the applicant.

14. 27:00
    Impervious area and the waiver provision

    The board looked at whether the stormwater submission could be waived on the basis that impervious surfaces come to less than five percent of the subdivision. The road was put at roughly 42,500 square feet, just under an acre, with about 8,000 square feet per lot, which members thought left the project hovering close to the threshold.

15. 27:00
    Erosion and sedimentation control (item 49)

    Sheet 300 covers erosion control. The engineer noted the check dams he had drawn were switched off before printing, but that the details and notes require them to be installed and inspected. The board called the item complete.

16. 32:13
    Traffic generation (items 50 and 51)

    Trip generation was put at 10 daily trips per single family lot from the manual. It needs to come in as a short letter rather than on a plan, so both items were left incomplete.

17. 32:13
    Infrastructure cost estimates (item 53)

    The board had asked for a list of materials with volumes and cost estimates showing how the project cost breaks down against what construction requires. Because the ordinance calls for someone experienced in preparing such information, this was left for the engineer and marked incomplete.

18. 32:13
    State permits (item 54)

    The checklist requires copies of applicable state approvals, which the town cannot have until DEP acts. Members worked through the distinction that the board can waive an application completeness requirement without waiving the approval criteria, and can make the permit being in hand a condition of approval before construction starts. The item was left incomplete pending a written waiver request.

19. 37:29
    No site walk before completeness

    Asked whether a site walk could be scheduled, the board said not until the application is accepted as complete, which is what had held things up before. The suggestion was that Baldwin write a waiver request covering all outstanding items while the board took the next application.

20. 37:29
    Outstanding application fees

    A member raised that fees may be outstanding at $100 per lot, the application having grown from three lots to eight. Baldwin said he had come in and paid for the extra lots and had a receipt but not with him; the board said it would check.

21. 37:29
    Snow Road conditional use application

    A member of the board presented her own application, introducing her husband Ben. They own 10 acres on Snow Road, a dead end off Route 136 between Davis and Stackpole, mostly field and in resource protection with the house grandfathered. The proposal is to excavate a 100 by 60 foot rectangle and backfill it with gravel and stone dust to give horses proper drainage, filling in resource protection requiring a conditional use permit.

22. 43:02
    Abutters and surroundings

    The applicants said they spoke in person to the one physical neighbour. Behind them is roughly 400 acres of logging land, one side is land the state took when the road was rebuilt, another is owned by the Tanner family, Robert Tanner, who cannot build on it because of resource protection, and across the way are neighbours who also keep horses.

23. 43:02
    Waiver of the design professional requirement

    The applicants asked to be excused from having a design professional prepare the plan, describing the work as trucking in dirt. A motion to waive the requirement for a professional engineer or surveyor was made and seconded.

24. 48:03
    Site checklist run-through

    Members recorded that there are no wetlands, streams or open drainage courses on the site, with a brook well to the rear and a man-made backfill area more than 250 feet away. Return receipts, site location, boundaries taken from a warranty deed at the county registry, and setbacks for existing buildings were all recorded as complete, with the parcel entirely in resource protection and no buildings proposed.

25. 48:03
    Further waivers

    A motion was made and seconded to waive ground floor elevations, no structure being affected. A second motion was made and seconded to waive the water supply and wastewater information on the ground that the project generates no waste water.

26. 48:03
    Remaining submission items

    Drainage direction, signs, easements and covenants, exterior lighting, utilities and planting schedule were all recorded as none proposed or complete. Manure was noted as not classified as a hazardous material, and members confirmed the application covers only the fill, with any shelters to be permitted separately.

27. 53:21
    Schedule, cost and completeness

    The site work is expected to be done by the end of June, with an excavator's estimate provided as an exhibit; the applicants said contractors are booked well out for building the shelters. A motion was then made to find the application complete.

28. 53:21
    No approval criteria checklist to hand

    The board had the application checklist but not the approval criteria form and had to hunt for a copy. Members discussed putting the forms somewhere accessible on the town's new website.

29. 53:21
    Number of conditional use criteria

    A member who prepares decision forms for a board in Portland (?) said it works with a handful of approval criteria where Durham has fifteen and more. Members noted that almost every use in Durham, including an accessory to a residence, is a conditional use.

30. 58:31
    Overlap between the ordinance lists

    Members agreed the approval criteria and the performance standards are duplicative and need integrating, that work on it had been started and never finished, and that it needs resources beyond members doing it on the side. A member noted the budget set aside for ordinance work is being taken up by the comprehensive plan.

31. 58:31
    Approval criteria: pollution, water, erosion

    Working through the criteria in turn, members moved and seconded findings that the project will not result in undue water or air pollution, that sufficient water for foreseeable needs is not applicable, and that it will not cause soil erosion, the site being flat and the developed area a small percentage of the parcel.

32. 58:31
    Approval criteria: road congestion

    The mover first proposed the road congestion criterion was not applicable. Another member pointed out there would be construction vehicles, so the motion was withdrawn and replaced with a finding that the project will not cause congestion, with temporary traffic during construction only. Sewage disposal, fire protection and scenic or natural beauty were each dealt with by motion in the same way.

33. 1:03:46
    Approval criteria: plan conformance, capacity, water bodies

    Members moved findings that the project conforms to the comprehensive plan and other ordinances, that the applicant has adequate financial and technical capacity with a qualified contractor, that it will not adversely affect any water body, the site being about 800 feet from the river, and that it will not affect the quality or quantity of groundwater.

34. 1:03:46
    Flood plain

    Most of the property lies in the flood plain. The applicant said the future accessory structure would be worked through separately with the codes officer under the flood plain ordinance, and members discussed how the criterion applies when the proposal is fill rather than a structure. An anecdote from neighbours recalled horses being swum up the road during flooding in the 1980s.

35. 1:08:54
    Final criteria and the permit

    Members moved findings that the filling to create a paddock does not include a principal structure, that it will not adversely affect spawning grounds, aquatic life, birds or wildlife habitat, that it will not cause noise, odour, glare or vibration disturbing adjacent property, and that it places no burden on municipal services. A motion to approve the conditional use permit was then made and seconded.

36. 1:08:54
    Waiver request read into the record

    Baldwin's waiver request was read out, asking to waive completeness on items 33 and 34 pending Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, item 48 pending the DEP stormwater permit, and items 50 to 53 pending memos and cost estimates from the engineer, with item 54 cross-referenced to 48. The letter recorded that the items will be required prior to approval or as conditions of approval.

37. 1:14:27
    What must be in before the hearing

    The board asked for a note that everything would be provided before the public hearing except the stormwater permit approval itself, DEP running about 60 days from the pre-application meeting. Members clarified that a site walk is a public meeting and the public hearing is where public comment is taken, that neither is strictly required, and that both need notice.

38. 1:19:30
    Waivers, completeness and scheduling motions

    Motions were made and seconded to waive completeness items 33, 34, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 on the applicant's written request, to find the application complete, and to set a site walk and public hearing. Members worked out that both must fall within 30 days of the finding of completeness with at least seven days' notice.

39. 1:19:30
    Site walk and hearing set for June 28

    The board settled on a site walk at 6 o'clock at the premises on Wednesday June 28, expected to take about half an hour, followed by the public hearing at 7 at the town office. Notice would go in the paper and to the abutters who received green cards.

40. 1:24:33
    Cancelling the July 5 meeting

    Because June 28 would serve as the regular meeting, the board decided not to meet on July 5, which falls just after the holiday. The application deadline moves with it, to June 19, and members discussed how to let anyone with an application in hand know. The chair said she is due on July 18 and the vice chair would run the August meeting.

41. 1:29:49
    No alternates on the board

    Members said the board has zero alternates and will be short over the summer, and that anyone recruited would still need to be appointed and sworn in by the selectmen. A notice was to be sent to Ruth for the town eblast.

42. 1:29:49
    Electronic notice signs

    A member said other towns use roadside electronic boards to announce meetings and asked whether Durham could. Another member said the current ordinance does not allow them and it would have to be changed.

43. 1:29:49
    Preparing for the June 28 subdivision review

    The engineer asked whether to bring a mylar in case the June 28 meeting reaches final approval, and was told to bring it. The board discussed that it must go through both the performance standards and the approval criteria, that a condition is likely requiring sieve analysis and compaction results for the gravel, and that paving is not required at this number of units under the current ordinance.

44. 1:34:51
    Building a workable checklist

    Members agreed the criteria and performance standards are too long to reproduce in full and that a list of headers would do, roughly twenty items. A member volunteered to retype the ordinance sections into a simple checklist.

45. 1:34:51
    Closing notes and adjournment

    The chair restated that the next meeting is June 28, that there will be no July 5 meeting, and that applications are due June 19, then moved to adjourn.

What was decided

• 0:02
  Motion to approve the minutes of the May 10 meeting, seconded, with one member abstaining because she had not attended. A vote was called; no result is audible on the recording.outcome unclear
• 37:29
  Motion to table the Mineral Springs Estates application for about ten minutes so the applicant could write a waiver request, seconded. No result is audible, but the board set the application aside and took up the next item, returning to it later in the meeting.tabled
• 43:02
  Motion to waive the requirement for a professional engineer or surveyor on the Snow Road conditional use application, seconded. A vote was called; no result is audible.outcome unclear
• 48:03
  Motion to waive the requirement for ground floor elevations, on the basis that no building is affected, seconded. A vote was called; no result is audible.outcome unclear
• 48:03
  Motion to waive the water supply and wastewater disposal requirement because the project generates no waste water, seconded. A vote was called; no result is audible.outcome unclear
• 53:21
  Motion to find the Snow Road conditional use application complete. No result is audible; the board went on to the approval criteria.outcome unclear
• 58:31
  Motions, each seconded, finding that the project will not result in undue water or air pollution, that sufficient water for foreseeable needs is not applicable, and that it will not cause soil erosion or reduce the land's capacity to hold water. No results are audible.outcome unclear
• 58:31
  On road congestion, the mover withdrew a motion of not applicable after a member pointed out there would be construction vehicles, and instead moved a finding that the project will not cause highway or public road congestion, with temporary traffic during construction only. Seconded; no result is audible.outcome unclear
• 1:03:46
  Motions, each seconded, finding conformance with the comprehensive plan and town ordinances, adequate financial and technical capacity with a qualified contractor, no adverse effect on any water body, and no adverse effect on groundwater quality or quantity. No results are audible; members at one point noted they were not sure they had officially voted.outcome unclear
• 1:08:54
  Motions, each seconded, finding that the filling to create a paddock does not include a principal structure, that it will not adversely affect spawning grounds or wildlife habitat, that it will not cause noise, odour, glare or vibration disturbing adjacent property, and that it places no burden on municipal services. No results are audible.outcome unclear
• 1:08:54
  Motion to approve the conditional use permit for the Snow Road filling, seconded. A vote was called; no result is audible, and the applicants were thanked and left.outcome unclear
• 1:19:30
  Motion to waive completeness requirements 33, 34, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 for Mineral Springs Estates, on the applicant's written request and his undertaking to provide the information before the public hearing. Seconded; no result is audible.outcome unclear
• 1:19:30
  Motion to find the Mineral Springs Estates application complete. Seconded; no result is audible.outcome unclear
• 1:19:30
  Motion to hold a site walk on June 28, 2017 beginning at 6 o'clock at the premises and a public hearing the same evening at 7 at the town office, seconded by Mindy. No result is audible.outcome unclear
• 1:24:33
  Agreed that there will be no meeting on July 5, that the next meeting will be June 28 and will include the public hearing, and that applications will be due June 19. The chair restated this at the close of the meeting.passed
• 1:29:49
  Agreed to advertise for planning board alternates, with a member emailing Ruth to get a notice into the town eblast, on the understanding that any alternate must still be appointed and sworn in by the selectmen.passed
• 1:34:51
  Agreed that a member would retype the subdivision approval criteria and performance standards into a simple header-only checklist for use on June 28.passed
• 1:34:51
  Motion to adjourn, seconded. A vote was called; no result is audible.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.

Motions the minutes record

The town's own written account of what was decided, taken from planningminutes7june2017.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 May 10" 2017 Minutes as presentedcarried 3-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• table this application for approximately twenty (20) minutescarried 4-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• find the Application completecarried 3-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• the Approval Criteria for this application for fill is completecarried

  Moved by Mindy Woerter, seconded by John Simoneau

• Waive requirements #33, #34, #48, #52, #53, #54, #50 and #51 based on a writen request from the Applicant who will provide the requested documents by the June 28" 2017 Public Hearingcarried 4-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• find the application is completecarried 4-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• set a site walk at Mineral Springs Estates on Wednesday, June 28" 2017 at 6:00 p.m., followed by a Public Hearing at the Town Office at 7:00 p.mcarried 4-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• Adjourn at 8:45p.mcarried

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Mindy Woerter

Worth knowing

• 27:00
  Mineral Springs Estates does need a DEP stormwater permit after all, because the site lies in a watershed most at risk, Runaround Pond, rather than draining to the Androscoggin as the engineer had first assumed. Phosphorus control will be by vegetated buffers, which will be recorded on the plat so residents can see where they are.
• 37:29
  The subdivision application fee is $100 per lot and the proposal has grown from three lots to eight. Whether the extra fees had been paid was left unresolved: the applicant said he had come in and paid and had a receipt at home, and the board said it would check.
• 37:29
  The second application of the evening was brought by a sitting member of the board, who moved to the applicant's side of the table to present her own proposal to fill part of her Snow Road property, which lies in resource protection, as a paddock for horses.
• 1:24:33
  The board cancelled its July 5 meeting, moving the next meeting to June 28 and the application deadline to June 19. It also has no alternates at all and expects to be short of members through the summer.

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: 14 passages of motion language, against 18 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2017-05-10 Planning Board2017-06-28 Planning Board →All meetings