Planning Board Meeting ~ July 6, 2016

2016-07-06 · Planning Board · 2:32:08 · watch on YouTube →

Planning board meeting of July 6, 2016, taking two conditional use applications. The first, from Mr. Kelly for an accessory apartment over a garage on Stackpole Road, was tabled to the August meeting: the board worked down the completeness checklist and found the site plan missing distances from the new structure to the boundaries, drainage arrows, the deed establishing a right of way deeded to a family member, and notice to abutters across the road. The second, from Heather Roy, was a change of use to run a small before and after school child care facility in part of the former Durham Oil office on Newbrook Road, the rest of which the owners continue to use for a firewood business. The board waived the abutter signature requirement, found the application complete, made a separate finding on each approval criterion and performance standard, and approved the permit subject to five conditions: proof of right, title and interest, most likely a lease; signage within the ordinance limits; the state child care licence; a minimum of eight parking spaces; and evidence to the code officer of no encumbrances on the property. The board also approved the previous minutes, deferred the typed general performance standards to next month, and after adjournment discussed a 2011 building permit issued for an accessory apartment without planning board approval. The recording then continues into a separate meeting, which convened at 6:03 and went into executive session to interview a candidate for the assistant public information technician post.

What was discussed

1. 0:14
   Call to order

   The chair opened the July 6 meeting with the pledge of allegiance and a quorum well over the minimum. There were no amendments to the agenda beyond taking the minutes last, and no continuing business.

2. 0:14
   Kelly application: abutter notices

   Mr. Kelly (?) reported that three abutters signed the notice of intent and one did not feel comfortable signing, or with him being on her property. He left the notice with her to return before the meeting, went back on the day of the meeting and found nobody home. Paul had told him a certified letter would be needed in that case.

3. 0:14
   An earlier permit for the same project

   A permit for a garage apartment was pulled about six years earlier, in early 2011, but the work never went into a construction phase because of a divorce. The board noted the ordinance gives three years before a permit expires. The garage itself is being built now; without the conditional use it would simply be a large family room over the garage.

4. 5:24
   Whether the notice requirement can be waived

   The ordinance requires the notice of intent to abutters to be mailed certified return receipt requested or hand delivered against a signature. The board read out its waiver power: it may waive a submission requirement on written request of the applicant, only where the information is not needed to determine compliance with the approval criteria, with the burden of proof remaining on the applicant. Mr. Kelly wrote the request out at the table.

5. 5:24
   Conflict disclosed

   A member said his son is providing the material for the job and asked whether anyone objected to his voting. Asked whether he felt he had a conflict he said no, and no member objected.

6. 5:24
   Which section the requirement sits in

   The board worked out whether abutter notification falls under review procedures, which the code officer handles, or under application submission requirements, which the board can waive. It found it at item 4B in the submission requirements.

7. 10:54
   Starting the completeness checklist

   The board asked Mr. Kelly to record on the application that he had hand delivered the notice, so there is a record she has it even without a signature. The nine copies and application fee were in order, and the application form itself needed only the code officer's signature.

8. 10:54
   The site plan

   The plan is hand drawn on graph paper, with a boundary survey attached. The board found it lacks the distances from the new structure to the property boundaries and to the right of way.

9. 16:26
   Waiving the engineer or surveyor

   The board moved and seconded a waiver of the requirement that an engineer or surveyor prepare the site plan, on the basis that the applicant would still have to label the plan and measure from the corners to the pins, and add his own name and address to it.

10. 16:26
    Sketch map, zoning and property lines

    The tax map covers the sketch map requirement; there is no contiguous property under the applicant's control, and the lot is in rural residential with no other district involved. On bearings and distances of property lines, the mortgage loan inspection carries measurements but no bearings, and the board rejected using the tax map for that purpose as unreliable; the discussion of waiving the bearings is not clearly resolved on the recording, and the item was left incomplete.

11. 16:26
    Buildings, driveways and parking

    Locations, dimensions and ground floor elevations of buildings were accepted from the sketches, and driveways, parking and walkways were taken as shown on the site plan.

12. 21:53
    Roads and driveways within 450 feet

    The applicant thought there were none, but the board identified an undeveloped private right of way to a back lot that he had deeded to a family member, and driveways serving lot 29, a rental property owned by Gina Keith, and Neil Berry and Megan across Stackpole Road. He was asked to run a measuring wheel from each corner of the lot in both directions and mark anything within 450 feet on his sketch.

13. 21:53
    Abutters across the road

    The board established that a road does not break the abutter relationship, so owners directly across Stackpole Road are abutters and have to be notified. Item 4B was therefore marked incomplete.

14. 21:53
    Water and wastewater

    An HHE-200 prepared by Bonnie Cobb was in the packet, so the water supply and wastewater disposal requirement was complete.

15. 26:54
    Drainage

    The applicant explained the house sits near the top of a rise running parallel to Stackpole Road, with water falling away to the right of the house as seen from the road and towards the back, and slightly towards the road from the driveway. The board asked for arrows on the plan showing the direction of drainage across the site, and marked the item incomplete for now.

16. 26:54
    The right of way and the deed

    The applicant had deeded a right of way to a family member so they could build back, and neither he nor the board could tell from the papers whether an easement was granted or land conveyed. The board explained an easement may appear only on the grantee's deed and not be added to the grantor's, and asked for the deed, directing him to the Androscoggin registry of deeds in Auburn or its online records to trace back through the references.

17. 32:01
    Lighting, hazardous materials and utilities

    Lighting will be porch lights and possibly a flood light at the garage entrance, to be drawn on the elevation. No hazardous materials will be in the new structure, the oil tank staying in the existing building, and there are no utility changes, so those items were not applicable.

18. 37:28
    Remaining checklist items and tabling

    The construction schedule, financial capacity information and the detailed description of the proposed use were all found complete. The board then moved and seconded tabling the application to the August meeting so the applicant can supply the missing plan detail, the deed and the outstanding abutter notices, telling him that tabling avoids a new application fee, whereas the alternative would be denial. Construction was not due to start until the first or second week of August.

19. 37:28
    Conflict on the next application

    A member said he is good friends with the family, that the applicant's children are the same age as his own, and that most of the children she cares for are known to him. He recused himself and the board appointed the alternate, who had been sworn in and can vote, to sit in his place for the application.

20. 42:33
    Heather Roy: change of use for child care

    Heather Roy of Hallowell Road applied for a change of use for the former Durham Oil office space on Newbrook Road, to run a small child care facility. The space and the proposed outside area have already met the state's requirements, pending town approval, and she is licensed for 12 children, before and after school care only.

21. 42:33
    Sharing the building with the wood business

    Only a small section at one end of the building would be used, making it a mixed-use building because the owners, Dan and Michelle Tibo, continue their firewood business in the rest. From September all the wood business moves to the left of the building and the daycare is to the right, with no cutting while children are present and the wood business run at weekends. The children's area is completely fenced, with both access points enclosed.

22. 42:33
    Right, title and interest

    There is no written lease, only an email agreement with the owners covering rent and shared heat costs. The board said an applicant must have right, title or interest to apply, and that it normally wants a lease or memorandum of understanding rather than an application on someone else's property, but agreed it could be handled as a condition of approval. The applicant said she had not wanted to pay for legal work to draw up a lease before knowing whether the state would license her.

23. 42:33
    Whether the firewood business needed its own permit

    The existing conditional use permit is for the oil business. The code officer said Dan had asked him about the firewood business and he had told him it was the same business, providing heating fuel whether solid, liquid or gaseous, so he did not consider it a change of use. A member disagreed, saying he would be unhappy as an abutter because processing firewood is a lot louder than an oil truck.

24. 47:54
    New permit or an amendment

    The board debated whether to grant a new conditional use or amend the existing one, and concluded the permit runs with the property rather than the person: the applicant cannot take it elsewhere, and if the owner sold the property the buyer would keep both approvals. It settled on treating this as an addition to the existing permit with the owner's written permission supplied as the right, title and interest condition.

25. 47:54
    A gap in the ordinance

    A member said this will recur, and that the board and the ordinance need to work out what part the owner of a property plays in a conditional use and what part a renter, lessee or multiple occupant plays, particularly if someone puts up a small multi-tenant commercial building.

26. 53:04
    Fencing detail

    The fence will run 6 feet out from the front of the building and across the front, 4 feet off the side as an aisle down the length of the building, and open into a space about 30 feet deep at the back where the ground is flat, stopping before the ground rises. The 4-foot aisle and full enclosure of both access points were the fire marshal's recommendation. The board asked for the dimensions marked on the plan and a copy left with Paul for the file.

27. 58:32
    Plan authorship

    The owners are Dan and Michelle Tibo of Shiloh Road, and the survey and site plan were prepared by Dan LePoint (?), whose contact details are on the table of contents. The plans in the packet are from the original application for the building.

28. 1:04:07
    Abutter signatures waived

    Heather Roy submitted a written waiver request setting out multiple attempts to obtain signatures: notices left at residences and photographed for Paul, a text message from abutter Tyler Tibo, who is the owners' son and holds the adjoining property, proof of mailing to an abutter who lives in Alaska, and a signature from another abutter. The board moved to waive the requirement because all abutters appeared to have received actual notice; it was seconded and carried.

29. 1:04:07
    Zoning and natural features

    The property is rural residential with no aquifer protection issue, and no wetlands or resource protection on the property itself, though there is a small area of wetland between the road and the structure with a drainage ditch running under the driveway into a swale heading towards the river.

30. 1:09:17
    Flood zone, driveways and parking

    The board reviewed the flood map and found the site well clear of the flood zone. There is no proposed expansion of the driveway and no additional parking spaces; the fence is the only change.

31. 1:09:17
    Wastewater capacity

    The HHE-200 gives a design flow of 360 gallons a day, and as a commercial structure the code allows 15 gallons per person per day, so about 24 people could occupy the building before it reached the limit of the plumbing design.

32. 1:14:34
    Signage

    There is no sign now, but the applicant did not want to close the option of a sign the same size or smaller under the existing one at the base of the driveway, with no change of location. The board explained that a double-sided sign saying the same thing on both sides counts once for square footage, and made it a condition that the code officer confirm the combined signage does not exceed the maximum.

33. 1:14:34
    Easements and the missing deed

    The deed was not in the packet; the applicant had had trouble accessing the registry from home and expected it to be in the existing town file. Paul went to look for it during the meeting and could not find it, so the board made it a condition that the applicant demonstrate to the code officer that there are no encumbrances on the property.

34. 1:14:34
    Lighting, hazardous materials and utilities

    The exterior lighting shown on the elevation is all existing, with no new fixtures. There will be no hazardous materials or petroleum products in excess of 50 gallons, which the fire marshal had already made a condition of his approval, and there are no changes to utilities or planting.

35. 1:19:42
    Traffic and licensing

    The applicant expected less traffic than the oil business generated, with its employees, customers paying bills and trucks. The MaineDOT sight distance material was already part of the approved original application. Her state licence is pending, which the board noted leaves everyone pending on everyone else.

36. 1:19:42
    How many cars at once

    The applicant expected no more than six cars at a time, noting most of her children are siblings so one car often collects two, and that her families' finish times are staggered. Asked whether ten parents could arrive at once, she said it is possible but not what she expects. Parking will be across the front, with the firewood kept to the left of the building.

37. 1:24:55
    Parking geometry and the standard

    Members worked from the plan: the building about 100 feet wide, the pavement in front at least as wide, a 30-foot drive, and a parking space around nine feet by 22. The ordinance requires one space per employee plus one for each three customers or other persons anticipated on site at any one time. The board set a condition of at least seven spaces, then raised it to eight so the applicant would have the flexibility of a second caregiver.

38. 1:30:17
    Schedule and cost

    The fencing goes in during August with no children present until it is finished, and she is looking to open on the first day of school, about September 5. She submitted a credit card statement showing $4,500 available, and said the fencing will not exceed that, her husband being a fencer. The only other work required is an automatic door closer on one door.

39. 1:35:26
    Detail (?) added to the narrative and completeness

    The board asked her to add to the written narrative, on the spot, that there will be no more than two caregivers at a time, up to 12 children, school year only, hours from about 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and that the wood business is shut down during operating hours. It then moved and seconded a finding that the application is complete, and carried it.

40. 1:40:36
    Findings on the approval criteria

    The board made a separate motion, second and vote on each criterion: no undue water or air pollution; sufficient water supply given the 360 gallon flow; no unreasonable soil erosion since no major site changes are made; no highway congestion; adequate sewage disposal; adequate fire protection given the state fire marshal's approval; no undue adverse effect on scenic and natural beauty, the only change being the fence; setbacks, lot coverage and impervious surface met; adequate financial and technical capacity; and findings that the water body and flood plain criteria do not apply.

41. 1:45:40
    Setbacks and building envelope

    The board confirmed the 100-foot setbacks all round are met with the fence inside the area beyond the required setback and standing on existing pavement, that the single storey structure is under 25 feet, that impervious surfaces are under 25 percent and the building envelope over 40,000 square feet.

42. 1:45:40
    Complaints about the ordinance itself

    Members observed that the ordinance carries two overlapping sets of requirements, the approval criteria and the conditional use performance standards, that findings are needed on both, and that they are poorly numbered. One said the process needs fixing and that going through it this way is unsustainable, and the board agreed the two sets should be reconciled in a rewrite.

43. 1:51:02
    Findings on the performance standards

    Further findings were made and voted on vehicular access and circulation, subject to the eight-space condition; solid waste, the applicant intending simply to buy trash tags with little more than paper towels and snack waste; landscaping preserved in its natural state, the only change being fencing on pavement; no significant historical or archaeological resources; lighting, with no additional fixtures; explosive materials, not applicable; and signage, subject to the combined square footage condition.

44. 1:56:06
    Permit approved with five conditions

    The board moved to approve the permit subject to the applicant showing sufficient right, title and interest, most likely a lease; any signs constructed not exceeding the ordinance requirements; the applicant obtaining a state licence; a minimum of eight parking spaces; and the applicant demonstrating to the code officer that there are no encumbrances on the property. It was seconded and carried.

45. 2:01:24
    Minutes

    The minutes of the previous month were approved as amended, correcting one typo on page three. A board of appeals decision came up in passing, with a member asking for a copy of it to read.

46. 2:01:24
    Ordinance workshops

    The first session of the ordinance work went ahead but with poor attendance, several members having forgotten or been late. Another is set for the Monday after next, the 18th, at 6:30. The typed general performance standards, some 10 or 11 pages, were deferred so members could read them at home and email changes to the secretary for sign-off next month; members were reminded that only the town email address is valid.

47. 2:06:34
    Missing approval paperwork

    The board could not establish who was holding the completed criteria checklist for an earlier application, the name of which the recording does not render consistently, and deferred that approval to the next meeting.

48. 2:11:42
    Adjournment

    A motion to adjourn was made and seconded and the meeting closed.

49. 2:11:42
    After adjournment: the 2011 permit problem

    The code officer described a building permit issued in 2011 for an accessory apartment in a subdivision without planning board approval, on paperwork that says accessory apartment on its face. The work was never completed and the permit expired long ago, but the owner and the estate agent argue the apartment can be finished. Under the ordinance of record a conditional use in a subdivision requires a subdivision amendment and the accessory apartment requires planning board approval.

50. 2:11:42
    Advice not to put opinions in writing

    The code officer had written to a prospective buyer setting out the reasons the apartment could not be finished. Members told him, expressly not as legal advice, that he should not issue advisory opinions at all and certainly not in writing, that he can issue a denial with reasons if someone applies for a permit, and that anything more gives ammunition later. They also mentioned current advice not to sign submitted plans, only to stamp them as received.

51. 2:17:04
    A second meeting on the same recording

    The recording continues past the planning board's adjournment into a separate session. It was called to order at 6:03, and a motion was made to go into executive session under 1 MRSA 405(6)(A) for personnel interviews; the motion was seconded and carried.

52. 2:17:04
    Interview for the assistant public information technician post

    A candidate was interviewed about his interest in the position, describing a hobby in computers and electronics, his own range of cameras and a handycam used for wildlife filming, and editing in Movie Maker. Members explained that meetings are recorded unedited, as is, and the main work is indexing them by topic so viewers can jump to a subject, before uploading to the streaming service that feeds the town website.

53. 2:22:17
    Hours and the age question

    About 100 hours are budgeted, at perhaps six to eight hours a week across two or three meetings. Because the candidate is not yet 18 until October, Department of Labor limits apply, with a cut-off given as 10:15 on a school day, so the board would need a plan for a meeting that ran late. Members also half seriously discussed capping their own meeting length.

54. 2:27:29
    Hiring process and coming out of session

    One other person had expressed interest but had not applied, and there was no deadline, the post being open until filled. Ruth had asked by email whether the hiring should be turned over to her and Shannon, on the reasoning that Shannon is the one who has to work with the appointee, and members were content with that and agreed to raise it as an action item. The session came out of executive session at 6:14 with no action taken and moved into recess until 6:30.

What was decided

• 5:24
  A written request to waive the abutter signature requirement on the Kelly application was made at the table, but the item was left incomplete after the board identified abutters across Stackpole Road who had not been notified, and the recording does not show a waiver being grantedoutcome unclear
• 16:26
  Waive the requirement that an engineer or surveyor prepare the site plan for the Kelly application, the applicant still to label the plan and measure from the corners to the pinspassed
• 16:26
  Waiving the requirement for bearings on the property lines was raised and a motion mentioned, but the exchange is garbled and the item was then treated as incompleteoutcome unclear
• 37:28
  Table the Kelly conditional use application to the August meeting so the applicant can supply the plan detail, drainage arrows, deed and outstanding abutter notices, avoiding a second application feetabled
• 37:28
  Appoint the alternate to sit as a voting member in place of the member who recused himself from the Heather Roy applicationpassed
• 1:04:07
  Waive the requirement for abutters' signed return receipts on the Heather Roy application, because it appeared all abutters had received actual noticepassed
• 1:35:26
  Find the Heather Roy change of use application complete, with the narrative amended at the meeting to record no more than two caregivers, up to 12 children, school year only, hours to 5:30, and the wood business shut down during operating hourspassed
• 1:40:36
  Make findings on each of the approval criteria in favour of the application, each moved, seconded and voted separately, including water and air pollution, water supply, erosion, traffic, sewage, fire protection, scenic and natural beauty, financial and technical capacity, groundwater, wildlife habitat, noise and burden on servicespassed
• 1:51:02
  Make findings on the performance standards, including vehicular access and circulation subject to the parking condition, solid waste, landscaping, historical resources, lighting, explosive materials and signagepassed
• 1:56:06
  Approve the conditional use permit for the child care use subject to five conditions: the applicant showing sufficient right, title and interest, likely a lease; any signs not exceeding the ordinance requirements; the applicant obtaining a state licence; a minimum of eight parking spaces; and demonstrating to the code officer that there are no encumbrances on the propertypassed
• 2:01:24
  Approve the previous month's minutes as amended, correcting one typo on page threepassed
• 2:01:24
  Defer the typed general performance standards to next month, members to read them at home and email changes to the secretarypassed
• 2:06:34
  Defer the outstanding approval paperwork for an earlier application to the next meeting, the completed checklist not being foundtabled
• 2:11:42
  Adjourn the planning board meetingpassed
• 2:17:04
  In the separate meeting later on the recording, go into executive session under 1 MRSA 405(6)(A) for personnel interviewspassed
• 2:27:29
  Come out of executive session at 6:14 with no action taken, and recess until 6:30passed

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 planningminutes6july2016.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.

• Waive the requirement for an Engineer or Surveyor to prepare a site plancarried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded

• table this Application until next meetingcarried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded

• Waive this requirement because it appears all abutters received actual noticecarried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded

• Find that the Conditional Use Approval Criteria Application iscarried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded

• Find that the Conditional Use Permit becarried

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded

• adjourn at 9:10 p.mcarried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded

Worth knowing

• 42:33
  The child care will share a building with an operating firewood business. From September all wood work moves to the left of the building and the daycare to the right, with no processing while children are present, and the children's area completely fenced with both access points enclosed on the fire marshal's recommendation. A member noted that firewood processing is considerably louder than the oil business it replaced, and that the code officer had told the owner it did not count as a change of use because a heating business is a heating business whether the fuel is solid or liquid.
• 1:56:06
  The permit was approved with five conditions, none of which the applicant had in hand at the meeting: proof of right, title and interest, most likely a lease with the building's owners; the state child care licence, which is itself pending town approval; signage within the ordinance's combined square footage; a minimum of eight parking spaces; and evidence to the code officer that there are no encumbrances on the property. The permit does not take effect until they are met.
• 21:53
  The Kelly application was tabled largely on paperwork. The site plan lacked distances from the new structure to the boundaries, drainage arrows and the roads and driveways within 450 feet, the deed for a right of way the applicant had granted a family member could not be produced, and owners directly across Stackpole Road turned out to be abutters who had not been notified. The board told him tabling avoids paying a second application fee.
• 2:11:42
  After adjournment the code enforcement officer raised a building permit issued in 2011 for an accessory apartment in a subdivision without planning board approval. The work was never finished and the permit expired long ago, but the owner and the estate agent argue it can be completed. Members told him not to issue advisory opinions in writing at all, only a denial with reasons if someone actually applies.

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: 10 passages of motion language, against 16 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2016-06-01 Planning Board2016-09-07 Planning Board →All meetings