Planning Board Meeting ~ October 2, 2024

2024-10-02 · Planning Board · 1:58:27 · watch on YouTube →

Planning Board meeting of October 2, 2024, with all five members present. The board completed the site plan review for the Kids Next Door daycare expansion at 706 Hallowell Road, working through the submission checklist, granting three waivers and then voting on each site plan criterion in turn before approving the plan subject to four conditions. It then held a sketch plan discussion on a seven-lot subdivision off Newbrook Road, where the main issues raised were the legal status of the existing access road, the requirement to build to town standards, and arranging a site walk once the lots are staked. Finally George Thebarge set out the plan for the November 13 public information meeting on the battery energy storage moratorium and the resource protection district realignment, including postcards to 120 affected property owners. Several of the daycare votes were split, and the final approval count was announced as 4 to 1 and then corrected to 3 to 2.

What was discussed

1. 0:11
   Roll call and September minutes

   All five members were present, giving a quorum, followed by the pledge of allegiance. The minutes of September 4, 2024 were accepted as presented.

2. 0:11
   Community facility steering committee

   George Thebarge reported that the committee has met and that the Greater Portland Council of Governments is preparing a survey asking residents about their concerns with existing town facilities and their goals for the properties. GPCOG will walk through and inspect all the facilities, and will hold stakeholder meetings, one during the day and one in the evening, with boards, the fire department, the Eureka Center, town office staff and the general public.

3. 0:11
   Daycare site plan: completeness review opened

   The board took up the completeness review of the site plan application for a daycare centre at 706 Hallowell Road, Map 7 Lot 35, with no public comment taken at this stage. Andrea (surname not clear in the recording), the property owner, and Mike Trione (?) of Acorn Engineering, the project engineer, introduced themselves.

4. 5:41
   Town planner's introduction and outstanding items

   George Thebarge said conditional use approval was granted in July and this is the site plan review stage, covering an addition at the rear of the building and parking for the expanded daycare. He listed discrepancies: the fees paid did not match the new fee schedule, and the original application had not addressed the water source for fire protection, wetlands mapping, fire protection generally, or the wildlife habitat and historic resource inventories. The applicant had since submitted further material, and the fire chief's email of September 25 had been incorporated into the draft findings.

5. 5:41
   Handling of the fee shortfall

   George Thebarge proposed deducting the difference between the fee paid and the new fee schedule from the peer review escrow when it is returned, rather than asking the applicant to pay again. The board accepted that approach, noting the escrow has a built-in replenishment provision if it is drawn down.

6. 11:23
   Going through the checklist

   The applicant said she had already been through the State Fire Marshal's office and holds a permit. A member asked to go through the checklist item by item rather than skipping to the flagged entries, and the board did so. Abutter notice receipts were produced and were to be handed to George Thebarge.

7. 11:23
   Water supply for fire protection

   The chair said he had spoken to fire chief Rob Tripp that afternoon and that the chief is satisfied with the water supply, alarms and fire arrangements, and had sent an email to that effect. The applicant had also submitted a letter with additional information.

8. 17:12
   Wetlands mapping

   The applicant confirmed no wetland delineation had been done and that the National Wetland Inventory shows none on the site. George Thebarge said a stream on the adjacent property brings a 100 foot resource protection buffer just onto the edge of the lot, but not near the construction area. One member said the board did not have the information for this item and should not record it as not applicable, while others said the work area is already developed, is not in resource protection and is not on the national wetlands map.

9. 17:12
   Aquifer protection

   Asked whether the aquifer protection ordinance applied, George Thebarge said it regulates minimum lot size and requires a groundwater study only for uses involving hazardous materials or gravel extraction, so it does not apply here.

10. 22:24
    Grading and the leach field

    A member said the grading plan does not appear to account for the new leach field, which has to sit about two feet above existing grade, and that the grading shown beyond the addition does not reflect it. The engineer said it would not interfere with the proposed parking area grading. The board agreed the location had been shown and deferred whether it was adequate to the substantive review.

11. 22:24
    Remaining checklist items

    No signage is proposed, exterior lighting and utilities are shown, and the site is not in a FEMA flood zone. On wildlife habitat and historic resources the applicant had submitted Beginning with Habitat GIS mapping rather than agency consultation; a member said the board was getting deep into the weeds for a minor project in an already developed area. A phosphorus plan is not required as the site is not in the watershed.

12. 28:05
    Waiver authority and the requests

    George Thebarge said the site plan standards are written for larger commercial projects and the ordinance gives the board broad waiver authority, with the burden on the applicant to show the intent of the ordinance is still met. The applicant sought waivers on the stormwater and erosion control plans, supported by calculations showing impervious area under the 5 percent threshold, and on the width of the parking aisle.

13. 34:11
    Aisle width waiver

    George Thebarge said 20 feet is adequate for the access drive but recommended a couple of extra feet where the parking is, based on the turning diagram for a pickup truck. The applicant agreed to widen from the disability space along the length of the parking. The board decided to grant the waiver as requested with a condition rather than have the applicant rewrite it.

14. 39:32
    Erosion and sedimentation control waiver

    George Thebarge read section 8.5 C.28, which allows the board to waive the erosion and sedimentation control plan only if the site is not in the Runaround Pond watershed and impervious surfaces are under 5 percent of the lot being developed, and section 8.7, which gives broader waiver authority on written findings. The calculations put the figure at 3.2 percent. Members confirmed the control measures themselves remain on the plan and must be followed; what is waived is the separate written report.

15. 45:03
    Stormwater management waiver

    The engineer said modelling peak flows is unnecessary at this scale, as the proposed grading takes runoff out back into the forested area, and that DEP treatment standards are triggered at an acre of impervious surface. A member noted that requiring treatment could mean deeding a section of the forested buffer.

16. 50:50
    Site plan criteria: utilisation of the site

    A member said that having voted the wetland delineation not applicable, the board still does not know for certain whether wetlands are present, and that no response had come back from the state on wildlife habitat. Others said consultation was unnecessary given the location and the Beginning with Habitat mapping supplied.

17. 50:50
    Road system and vehicular access

    The project is on State Route 9, described as an arterial with adequate capacity, and was found not to generate peak hour trips affecting traffic safety. The entrance was found to meet sight distance and traffic safety standards.

18. 55:54
    Internal circulation, parking, utilities and lighting

    The fire chief indicated the access is adequate. The parking layout was taken with the 22 foot width at the spaces added, and solid waste was treated under utilities using the existing arrangements. On lighting, the plan uses wall packs mounted on the building, with about 2.8 foot candles near the building falling to zero at the property line.

19. 1:01:04
    Fire protection

    The chair said the fire chief is satisfied with the fire protection measures, and that there are three ponds within a short distance, including one at Patriot Way and one that will come with the Deer Creek subdivision. The motion was framed on the water supply sustaining NFPA 1142 requirements for suburban or rural firefighting. Brian Lanoie voted against and did not state his reason during the meeting.

20. 1:01:04
    Buffering and the safety fence

    A member asked whether fencing for the children belonged in this section. George Thebarge said the ordinance does not address daycare outdoor fencing, that it was dealt with under the conditional use, and that the board had required the fence to be shown on the site plan as a condition of that approval. The applicant said part of the fence exists along the tree line and the proposal encloses the rest, and that it is also an insurance requirement.

21. 1:01:04
    Historic and archaeological resources

    Nothing had come back from the state. Members said the site is already developed and that the checklist requirement may need changing to distinguish major construction from an addition to a residential building.

22. 1:06:32
    Financial and technical capacity

    The applicant supplied a letter of commitment from a bank or Coastal Enterprises together with the total project cost, and information on the consultant's firm. Both criteria were taken as met.

23. 1:06:32
    Overall site plan decision

    The board voted on granting site plan approval for the Kids Next Door daycare subject to four conditions to be noted on the plan, with the chair saying the safety fence is covered by the first condition. The chair first announced 4 to 1, then corrected the count to 3 to 2, and said the plan is approved. The applicant was directed to code enforcement as the next step.

24. 1:06:32
    Newbrook Road subdivision: sketch plan

    The board opened the sketch plan review of a proposed subdivision off Newbrook Road, Map 6 Lot 49, with no public comment taken. George Thebarge described about 64 acres with frontage on the Androscoggin River, one existing dwelling reached by an old range road that would be upgraded to serve seven lots, and showed a lidar point cloud overlaid with the sketch plan to make the topography readable.

25. 1:12:39
    Layout, vernal pool and common land

    The road follows a ridge with house sites above it, at a grade of about 8 percent. A vernal pool with a 250 foot buffer sits in a depression on the site, and a wetland system runs through the drainages, with the rest of the developable area high and dry. One lot would be reached by a driveway easement across another lot rather than running a drive up through steep ground.

26. 1:12:39
    Why it is a full subdivision

    David Brackett, one of the property owners, said the land was bought by himself, his brother-in-law and his mother through an LLC, and they were then told an LLC cannot use the family exemption to divide lots. George Thebarge said that means full subdivision review, carrying performance guarantees, a requirement to begin construction within a year and to complete the road within three years, and set out the three stage sketch, preliminary and final process. Conor Barass (?) of Northeast Civil Solutions attended for the applicant; the engineer, Bill Gish (?), had a personal emergency and could not be there.

27. 1:17:52
    Legal status of the access road

    The road is listed as the old Range Road and was never maintained as a town road. The applicant has an early 1900s document from the town releasing it to the abutters and nothing since, with no abutter having taken it into a deed, and a lawyer is working on the right of way. The board said it will need a legal opinion that the applicant has right, title and interest to use and improve the way.

28. 1:17:52
    Resource protection and flooding

    Resource protection runs 250 feet from the Androscoggin River, with steep slopes above it and flood plain on the low ground, all to be shown on the plans. The applicant said last December's flooding took out trail access along the river but the water never came near the 250 foot line.

29. 1:23:17
    Common land, lot lines and timing

    The common lot puts the environmentally sensitive areas into shared open space; it is not a cluster subdivision as lot sizes and frontages are not reduced, and road frontage requirements prevented the vernal pool being included. The board asked whether lot lines could be moved so lot six does not need an easement across lot five; the applicant said frontage of 300 feet and lot area constrain it. The first house would be for the applicant's brother-in-law, who retires from the Navy in June and hopes to start in autumn 2025.

30. 1:28:55
    Road standards and referrals

    The chair said the roads must be built to town standards and that any work postponed, such as paving, would have to be covered by money held by the town. He asked the applicant to talk to the road commissioner, the code enforcement officer and the fire chief, particularly about the location of the fire pond and whether the hammerhead is large enough to turn the ladder truck.

31. 1:34:14
    Site walk arrangements

    The board asked for the lot corners and the centre line of the road to be staked before a site walk, and pressed for it to happen soon because of daylight and weather. The week of the 21st or the 28th was discussed, to be arranged through George Thebarge, and the site walk will be publicly noticed and open to the public.

32. 1:34:14
    November 13 public information meeting

    The select board postponed its discussion of the land use articles to October 29, so no guidance has come back on R2 or the historic district. The November 13 meeting at 6:30 pm will cover the battery energy storage system moratorium and the resource protection district realignment.

33. 1:39:26
    Resource protection realignment

    George Thebarge said the first part amends the zoning map to remove about 1,500 acres assumed to hold Beginning with Habitat co-occurrence of value six or more, after a customised analysis found only a few spots, all already covered by other resource protection. The second part gives relief to owners of buildings in resource protection: a 100 foot development buffer around existing structures in flood plain or forested wetland, and for stream and waterfowl and wading bird habitat buffers, taking the buildings out of resource protection with no expansion closer to the resource. Postcards will go to 120 affected property owners, of whom about 20 to 30 fall in the buildings category.

34. 1:44:36
    Timing and scope of the public meeting

    Members agreed the postcards need to go out at least two weeks before November 13, which leaves little room after the select board update on October 29, and that anything the select board raises can be carried into the meeting. George Thebarge said discussion should be kept to what is actually proposed rather than wider requests to remove resource protection, since the select board's direction was limited to the two areas raised in 2023. November 13 is a public information meeting; the formal public hearing would come in March.

35. 1:44:36
    Publicity and historic preservation

    The chair asked that the November 13 meeting be added to the weekly list of meetings put out by the town, and the board discussed handing out summary sheets at the November 5 election. On historic preservation, members said it still has to be resolved between the historic district committee and the select board, that the planning board's only role would be the formal public hearing, and that a separate public information process is expected.

36. 1:49:42
    Next month and adjournment

    The chair said the Ruby Lane and Bowie Hill projects have gone quiet and next month's agenda is uncertain. Members thanked both applicants for well organised packages before moving to adjourn.

What was decided

• 0:11
  Accept the meeting minutes for September 4, moved by Allan Purinton and seconded by Marc Derr; the minutes record it carried 5-0passed
• 17:12
  Find that section C.8 of the site plan review checklist, all wetlands mapped, is not applicable because the developed area is not within the wetland or resource protection, moved by Allan Purinton and seconded by John Talbot; the minutes record it carried 4-1passed
• 28:05
  Find that the applicant has met the submission requirements for site plan approval, moved by John Talbot and seconded by Allan Purinton; the minutes record it carried 4-1, and one member said plainly he was voting nopassed
• 34:11
  Approve the waiver reducing the two-way aisle width from 24 to 20 feet, with the condition that the area along the parking spaces be 22 feet, moved by John Talbot and seconded by Allan Purinton; the minutes record it carried 5-0passed
• 39:32
  Approve the site plan waiver for the erosion and sedimentation control report under paragraph 8.7, moved by John Talbot and seconded by Allan Purinton; the minutes record it carried 5-0passed
• 45:03
  Approve the waiver for the stormwater management plan, moved by John Talbot and seconded by Juliet Caplinger; the minutes record it carried 5-0passed
• 50:50
  Find that the site plan reflects the natural capabilities of the site, that buildings and parking are on suitable land and environmentally sensitive areas avoided, moved by John Talbot; the chair recorded four in favour and one againstpassed
• 50:50
  Find the road system adequate, with capacity for the added traffic and no effect on traffic safety, and separately that the project entrance meets sight distance and traffic safety standards; both recorded 5-0passed
• 55:54
  Approve the criteria on internal vehicular circulation, parking lot layout and design with the 22 foot width at the spaces, utilities including solid waste, and lighting; each was moved, seconded and approved, with 5-0 recorded where the chair gave a countpassed
• 1:01:04
  Find that the water supply will sustain the fire suppression requirements of NFPA 1142 for suburban or rural firefighting; the chair recorded 4 to 1 with Brian Lanoie againstpassed
• 1:01:04
  Find that the applicant's plan adequately buffers abutters and the public from views of parking, storage and utilities; recorded 5-0passed
• 1:01:04
  Find that there are no historic or archaeological resources on the site that would be affected by the development; the chair recorded 4 to 1passed
• 1:06:32
  Find that the applicant has adequate financial resources, and separately adequate technical experience or retained consultants, to build to the standards; both recorded 5-0passed
• 1:06:32
  Grant site plan approval for the Kids Next Door daycare subject to the four conditions noted on the plan; the chair announced the count first as 4 to 1 and then corrected it to 3 to 2, and said it is approvedpassed
• 1:34:14
  Hold the site walk on the Newbrook Road subdivision in the week of the 21st or 28th once the lot corners and road centre line are staked, arranged through George Thebarge; agreed without a voteoutcome unclear
• 1:49:42
  Adjourn, moved by Juliet Caplinger and seconded by Brian Lanoie; the minutes record it carried 5-0passed

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 pb_minutes_10_02_24.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 meeting minutes for September 4thcarried 5-0

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Marc Derr

• section C.8 (All Wetlands Mapped) of the Site Plan Review Checklist is not applicable, because the developed area is not within the wetlandcarried 4-1

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by John Talbot

• the applicant has met the submission requirements for site plan approvalcarried 4-1

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton

• approve the waiver to reduce the two-way aisle width from 24 to 20 feet, with the condition that the area along the parking spaces is 22 feetcarried 5-0

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton

• approve the site plan waiver request for erosion & sedimentation control per paragraph 8.7carried 5-0

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton

• approve the waiver for stormwater management planscarried 5-0

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• adjourncarried 5-0

  Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Brian Lanoie

Worth knowing

• 17:12
  No wetland delineation was done for the daycare site. A member said the board therefore did not have the information and should not record the item as not applicable; the board split 4-1 on treating wetland mapping as not applicable, and split 4-1 again on whether the submission requirements had been met.
• 1:06:32
  The vote granting site plan approval for the Kids Next Door daycare was announced first as 4 to 1 and then corrected by the chair to 3 to 2. Brian Lanoie had also voted against the fire protection criterion earlier and did not state his reason during the meeting.
• 1:17:52
  The access road for the proposed Newbrook Road subdivision was released by the town to the abutters in an early 1900s document with no record since, and no abutter has taken it into a deed. The board said the applicant will have to produce a legal opinion establishing right, title and interest before it can be improved.
• 1:39:26
  The resource protection realignment would take about 1,500 acres out of the district, and would give owners of buildings currently in resource protection a 100 foot development buffer or remove the building from the district depending on the resource. Postcards go to 120 affected property owners ahead of the public information meeting on November 13 at 6:30 pm.

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

Elsewhere

← 2024-09-04 Planning Board2024-11-13 Planning Board →All meetings