Planning Board Meeting ~ April 5, 2017

2017-04-05 · Planning Board · 2:16:13 · watch on YouTube →

The planning board opened by filling the vacancy left by Mike Fitzpatrick's resignation, electing the alternate Brian Lanoie as a full member, and approving the minutes of the 1 March meeting. Most of the evening went to Barry Baldwin's revised subdivision on Spring Road: the board worked down the submission checklist item by item, accepted waivers for septic designs, well locations and contour intervals, disputed his position that the lots are back lots exempt from the subdivision road standard, and left the engineering items open until his engineer produces a road design. It also questioned whether he has secure legal access over the former town road running up to the site, which he does not own, and Anne Torregrossa moved that the application is still incomplete. The board then heard an amendment to the Huitt campground conditional use permit for two more campsites, deemed that application complete with Juliet Caplinger recused, and worked through the approval criteria and the campground standards, ending with a motion to approve subject to DHHS approvals, occupancy time limits, a bar on overnight sleeping in vehicles other than recreational vehicles, and recorded ownership of a small triangle of land whose owner, the town or the RSU, was left unresolved. Closing business covered a proposed workshop on what the board will require of subdivision applicants, the growth management ordinance the town cannot enforce, and moving the May meeting to Wednesday 10 May.

What was discussed

1. 0:06
   Call to order, resignation and vacancy

   Mindy Woerter called the meeting to order, confirmed a quorum, moved a few agenda items around and took the pledge of allegiance early. She noted that Mike Fitzpatrick has resigned from the board and thanked him for his service on the board and on other town committees over the years, and the board then took up electing its alternate, Brian Lanoie, as a full member. Copies of the 1 March minutes had been circulated by Jill Toher and were moved for approval.

2. 0:06
   Baldwin subdivision returns

   Barry Baldwin came back with revised documents and a sheet listing every checklist item previously found incomplete with his answer to each. He described three changes of scope: the five acre lot whose contiguity was in question has been added to the main parcel, the 40 acre problem has been done away with, and the 22 acre piece at the front has been sold to the abutter who had already bought lot one.

3. 5:11
   The back lot argument

   Baldwin (?) said the sale turns the remainder into a back lot situation, and set out what he understands the back lot ordinance to change: lots must be five acres rather than 90,000 square feet, each needs a rectangle 300 feet along the road by 200 feet deep, and the paving requirement that otherwise applies after the third house falls away. He stressed there is no such thing as a back lot subdivision, only a subdivision and a separate back lot ordinance.

4. 5:11
   Road frontage road history

   Baldwin produced copies of two letters sent by regular mail to abutters whose green cards had not come back, then turned to the access. He said he was not asking the board to decide the point, only to see his documentation that the way was accepted as a road frontage road in 2012. He obtained the recording of that meeting, sent it to the road commissioner with the pertinent segments marked, and transcribed the relevant passages himself. The recording is not on the town website, and the date was given variously as June or August 2012.

5. 10:35
   What the attorney actually said

   A member said the letter from Curt Weber, shown at the previous meeting, was not as clear as Baldwin was making out: evidence was put to the planning board and the board made a decision on it, but nobody ever asked the attorney for a spelled-out determination. Baldwin agreed there is a letter to the planning board chairman and a letter to code enforcement but no determination filed anywhere. Members noted the recording, not the minutes, is the legal record of a meeting.

6. 10:35
   Engineer (?) introduced

   Baldwin brought Jason Vafiades, PE, LEED AP, a civil engineer with Atlantic Resource of Freeport who works on roadways and permitting, to answer the technical questions. Asked directly whether the lots being back lots means the road need not be brought to subdivision standard, Baldwin (?) said only the paving requirement drops away and everything else is followed as if it were a subdivision.

7. 15:37
   Right of way against road

   The board pressed on the distinction: Spring Road is a private right of way serving the lots, but a right of way does not constitute a road until someone builds it, and building a second house on it triggers construction to town standard. One member said plainly that she was not buying the back lot argument and that the subdivision requirement would apply in any case, and that she had driven up and had concerns about the road. Because the plan now has more lots, the board also debated whether this is a new application requiring a blank checklist.

8. 20:52
   Board carries the checklist forward

   Members settled on updating the existing checklist rather than starting over, since the abutters, the parcel and the road location are unchanged and state law treats it as one continuous application. A member asked whether the district allows no more than five lots and was told that comes from the growth management ordinance, which the town cannot enforce because of the comprehensive plan situation. On item 10 the plan now shows the zoning classifications and district boundaries, with resource protection along the stream and the lots in the transitional and residential zones, and it was found complete.

9. 26:04
   Item 11, boundary survey

   The outstanding issue was that the site plan was not stamped. Baldwin (?) confirmed it has now been stamped, and the item was found complete.

10. 26:04
    Item 16, septic designs and vernal pool timing

    Baldwin (?) asked for a waiver of the requirement to show subsurface wastewater disposal systems, since a system is designed only once a lot is sold and the house sited, and on a five acre lot the location cannot be predicted. The board said it does want the soil test pit logs, which weather has prevented, and noted lot one, already sold, has a permit design done before purchase but nothing built. Vernal pools cannot be verified until about the third week of April, with a window of roughly six weeks after that.

11. 31:17
    Waivers (?) moved

    The board moved and seconded a waiver of the subsurface disposal system designs for each lot, and then a waiver of item 22, the requirement to show existing and proposed private wells on and within 100 feet of the property, on the same reasoning. Members satisfied themselves from Department of Agriculture and Conservation material in the previous month's packet that there are no wells within 100 feet of the boundaries.

12. 31:17
    Item 25, utility easement

    Note 9 on the plan grants utility easements to Central Maine Power, the town and others for poles and associated works, but does not say where. Members asked for the location, and the engineer said it will appear on the plan and profile he produces, so the item was left incomplete.

13. 36:18
    Power to lot one

    Baldwin (?) explained the invoice he submitted covers the new service to the first lot, which is underground, with him digging and installing the conduit. He described how CMP handles lot-by-lot power costs in subdivisions, with later buyers contributing to what earlier ones paid.

14. 36:18
    Item 27, wetlands, vernal pools and wildlife habitat

    The engineer noted the submitted wetland delineation dates from 2005 and that delineations are typically good for about five years, and recommended having the vernal pool surveyor redo it at the same time; a second report was thought to exist but could not be found in the packet. The Inland Fisheries and Wildlife response in the file, saying the area is within significant wildlife habitat under NRPA and barring permanent development in the wetland and its buffer, is ten or eleven years old, so a fresh response was recommended.

15. 41:19
    Relaxed rules and the buffer drawing

    A member said IF&W revised the rules around 2010, backing the classification off from moderate value to high value only, so an updated response may work in the applicant's favour. The engineer separately asked for a coloured image showing the wetlands found on site with the 250 foot NRPA buffer around them, because on the current plan the two cannot be told apart.

16. 41:19
    Watershed and DEP permitting

    Members discussed whether the site drains into the Runaround Pond system by way of New Brook and Collins Brook. The watershed carries an urban impaired stream classification with Maine DEP that may trigger DEP permitting requirements, and the board had already asked for a DEP determination.

17. 41:19
    Item 28, contours and the 20 percent slope rule

    The plan shows four foot contour intervals and a waiver was requested. Before it was disposed of, a member raised the ordinance rule that a building envelope may not contain slope greater than 20 percent, pointing to lot seven and possibly lots two and four, and the board asked that those areas be shown and the envelopes tightened clear of them. The engineer said he can generate any interval from the surface already surveyed and will produce two foot contours for the whole parcel, work he has to do anyway, at no extra charge, and will identify the slopes over 20 percent.

18. 46:31
    Culverts, easements and deed restrictions

    No culverts or drainage ways are shown; they will appear sized and in profile where the road crosses the low spots as part of the road plan and profile, so item 29 stays incomplete. Baldwin (?) confirmed the deed restrictions he intends, no modular homes, no double wides and no prefabs, to go on the plan, and that item remains incomplete pending the utility easement location.

19. 46:31
    Flood plain and agency letters

    A plan note says no flood hazard area falls within any building envelope, but another refers to a flood zone on land adjacent to Libby Brook; the ordinance asks about any portion of the subdivision, so item 32 was left for the engineer. For wildlife habitat the board wants a response letter from IF&W rather than a plan note, and for critical natural areas a letter from the Department of Agriculture; members said a note on a drawing does not hold much water.

20. 51:39
    Deeds, test pits and water volume

    The deeds requested were supplied, with the right of way delineation and language to follow when created, and members confirmed the abutters have separate access points, so item 38 was called complete. Item 39, the test pits, remains incomplete pending soil work, and item 40, sufficient volume of water, was satisfied by the letter from the fire chief.

21. 56:58
    Item 44, road maintenance agreement

    The agreement submitted was called weird: it does not say who is responsible for maintaining the road, only that people will contribute, and the plan does not say who retains title. Members said road maintenance associations are inherently fragile and usually fail, and Baldwin (?) said such documents are not worth the paper once people start fighting; the reply was that the town still has to put the pieces in place. The state posts templates on its stormwater pages, and at a minimum the document should say who maintains the road, who assesses for it and what buyers agree to pay. The submission was called complete with a warning that the substance may be rejected later.

22. 1:02:21
    Item 45, who owns the road

    Note 7 says Spring Road is to remain private and be built to private road standard, but does not say who retains ownership. Members suggested the usual approach of conveying a one eighth interest to each lot owner with a right of way retained, or stating that the developer keeps the fee, and said it should appear in a proposed deed for each of lots one through eight included in the package. Left incomplete.

23. 1:02:21
    Items 46 to 53

    Cost estimates, construction timeline and financial capacity cannot be judged until the engineer's road design is in hand. The stormwater management plan waits on whether one is triggered, with a stamped letter from the engineer if it is not; erosion and sediment control comes with the road plan; and the wildlife habitat items tie back to the outstanding agency letters. The engineer agreed to supply the traffic estimate. Permits, including NRPA and stormwater because of the Libby Brook connection, remain incomplete.

24. 1:07:23
    Access over the former town road

    A member raised the stretch running from the pavement up past the utilities to the site, which is not on the site plan but is the access to it. She said there is no point requiring a properly built and drained subdivision road if a fire truck cannot get up the hill because that road has washed out. Baldwin (?) said he does not own it and the association will not own it, but that he has agreed to bring it up to the town dirt road standard and maintain it.

25. 1:07:23
    The 2013 motion

    Baldwin (?) read a motion from a planning board meeting of 7 August 2013, moved by Arthur Langley (?), recording that the board was aware the ledge created by the pipeline prevents him achieving an 8 percent grade, had no concern about it, and did not see an engineer as required; it passed with one vote against. He treats that as settled. A member replied that with no application before it that board had no authority to bind anyone, and that it amounts to an advisory opinion.

26. 1:12:25
    What Baldwin will do to it

    He said the road has been used but never built. He will ditch it, gravel it and put in culverts to stop water channelling down it, doing that work at the same time as running the power up through; the one exception is the exposed ledge over the pipeline, which he cannot touch. He said the washing started after CMP worked on the power line, that the erosion control they installed afterwards was minor and failed again, partly because there is no ditch on that side, and that he is working with CMP and an adjoining owner on a longer term fix.

27. 1:12:25
    The legal risk, and the application found incomplete

    Members said the road is open to everyone and nobody can be kept out, but that if somebody later contests it and it turns out not to be a discontinued town road, or to have lapsed to the abutters, the subdivision would have no access; a member said she was not ready to accept that without advice from the town attorney. The engineer offered to give a written opinion on that stretch, with suggestions for fixing and maintaining it, in the memo accompanying his work, since he cannot design land the applicant does not own. Anne Torregrossa then moved that the application is still incomplete, and Baldwin (?) said he expects to return in about a month.

28. 1:17:42
    Huitt campground amendment

    Gwen Huitt came forward on an amendment to the campground's conditional use permit. The board had previously approved the campground for all sites except two, which cannot meet the 100 foot setback without a triangle of land the town appears to own, an old school bus turnaround on a discontinued road, which she described as an old dump spot with rotten fencing and barbed wire sticking out of the trees. She said the town agreed to convey it at whatever the transfer costs, on the basis of old paperwork requiring it to be maintained and fenced, and that this was supposed to have been done before the last two board meetings.

29. 1:22:53
    Standing to apply, and a recusal

    Members noted state law treats a purchase and sale agreement as sufficient standing to apply. Ruth, the town administrator, had suggested using the selectmen's minutes showing the agreement, but nobody could find those minutes in the packet, which held only appeals board minutes. Members confirmed the selectmen can dispose of surplus property at their discretion under a policy adopted at town meeting. Juliet Caplinger recused herself because the applicants are her neighbours.

30. 1:27:54
    Proceeding on a condition

    Members said they were comfortable considering the amendment and making the transfer a condition, requiring the ownership to be obtained and recorded; Huitt (?) said the parcel is worth less than the cost of conveying it and is of use only for the two sites. Asked whether the health department has approved the extra sites, she said the amendment has not been submitted yet and approval follows construction, so the board agreed to condition the amendment on that approval.

31. 1:27:54
    Application checklist

    The board worked the checklist: a fully executed and signed application; a site plan with date, scale and north point at no more than 100 feet to the inch; owner's name and address and the name of the engineer or surveyor; and names and addresses of abutters with copies of the letters. New notifications had been sent for the amendment and the originals were handed over.

32. 1:33:05
    Who actually owns the triangle

    The deed suggests the parcel passed to the RSU as part of the school's land, in which case it would have to come from the RSU, meaning the three towns, rather than from Durham. Members observed the town may not own what it agreed to convey. Huitt (?) added that the campground also has no road frontage at that point, since the way was changed to a road and the land across it is privately owned.

33. 1:38:07
    Broad condition and completeness

    Rather than wait, the board agreed to word the condition broadly enough to cover whoever turns out to own the land, requiring recorded title before the two sites go in, one member remarking that if the town conveys something it does not own it will be by quitclaim without covenant. With the chair and secretary briefly out of the room, the board then deemed the application complete, and members noted where to go if the RSU owns the land: the superintendent's office, Becky Foley being the superintendent, on West Street in Freeport.

34. 1:43:29
    Approval criteria, first group

    Working from the criteria used when the campground first came before the board, members moved findings one at a time: no undue water or air pollution given adequate septic design and only two extra sites; no unreasonable burden on water supply, with a drilled well meeting fire protection needs; no soil erosion problem, the sites already existing; no traffic congestion, with Leisure Lane coming off Route 136; sewage disposal in conformity with the plumbing code, an HHE-200 having been provided; adequate fire protection with a source within a mile; and no undue adverse effect on scenic or natural beauty, historic sites, rare natural areas or deer wintering areas.

35. 1:43:29
    Conformance with the comprehensive plan

    Rather than find this criterion met outright, the board moved to address it by imposing the condition that the Huitts or the LLC obtain sufficient ownership of the triangle.

36. 1:48:45
    Approval criteria, second group

    Findings were moved that the applicant has adequate financial and technical capacity, the additional expense being minimal; that the site is not within 250 feet of any relevant water body; that groundwater will not be affected because nothing is discharged; that the site is not in a flood plain; that there is minimal impact on wildlife habitat and no water; that noise is adequately buffered and subject to the town's noise provisions; and that the two sites will not add students to the schools or place an excessive burden on municipal services.

37. 1:54:54
    Campground standards

    The board then went through the campground standards in the ordinance, making a motion on each, which it had not done the first time. On conformance with state licensing procedures it imposed a condition that all necessary state campground licences be obtained. Members noted an apparent typographical error in the ordinance, a colon where a period belongs, and read the acreage and setback standard as at least 20 acres with camping units at least 100 feet from any property line and 400 feet from any residence other than the owners'.

38. 1:54:54
    Screening, sleeping and density

    The screening standard was found met on the existing vegetation. The board imposed a condition that no overnight sleeping is permitted in any vehicle other than a recreational vehicle or trailer. On density it found the standard satisfied: the ordinance allows up to 11 campsites per developed acre and the property runs to 86 acres.

39. 2:00:13
    Soils, setbacks and clearing

    The board found the soils standard met on the basis that these are existing sites on previously developed land, after noting it cannot waive a requirement. It also found that buildings are not within 250 feet of the normal high water mark of any pond or river, that nothing is proposed in a resource protection zone, and that no clearing falls within 250 feet of the water bodies the ordinance lists.

40. 2:00:13
    Facilities, occupancy limits and approval

    The requirement for water and sewer systems, sanitary stations and convenience facilities, with at least one toilet, lavatory and shower for each sex per ten sites, was dealt with by the health department approval condition, and the ordinance occupancy limits were imposed as a condition: 12 weeks for the period from 15 May to 15 December and two weeks at all other times. Anne Torregrossa then moved to approve the application with four conditions covering health department approval, recorded ownership of the triangle, the bar on overnight sleeping in vehicles other than recreational vehicles, and the occupancy limits.

41. 2:05:15
    The deed

    Huitt produced a document she said shows the school district holds the parcel, and members recalled the transfer paperwork was in the October packet. Nobody could say how the deeds were written when the RSU was formed.

42. 2:05:15
    Proposed workshop

    Juliet Caplinger suggested a short workshop, perhaps half an hour in May or June, on the subdivision requirements and what the board will require of applicants: site plans, contours, cross sections, wetland delineation reports and agency letters. Another member said the ordinance is fairly specific and has to be the starting point, and that what is needed varies with the application, four foot contours being fine in one case and not another. Members noted the range of applicants, from a fully engineered package in a binder to the most grassroots submission the town sees.

43. 2:05:15
    The missing pre-application meeting

    Members observed the ordinance contemplates a pre-application conference with the code officer, a role Calvin Beaumier has been standing in for, and that much of what the board is now handling itself belongs there. They said subdivisions should not take three or four board meetings, and that it is unusual for the board rather than staff to determine completeness. What the next code enforcement officer's hours and skill set will be is not yet known.

44. 2:10:41
    Growth management ordinance

    The growth management provision is on the books but cannot be enforced, because the comprehensive plan put forward in 2012 was rejected and the town has no current plan; state statute requires an up to date comprehensive plan, on roughly a ten year cycle, to support a growth ordinance. The ordinances will have to be amended once a new comprehensive plan is drafted.

45. 2:10:41
    Selling a lot before subdivision approval

    A member asked how a lot could be sold before the subdivision was approved. The answer was that under state law and the local ordinance it only becomes a subdivision on the third division, and at the time of that sale the parcel had been divided in two. A further parcel went to the applicant's son under the family transfer exception and is not contiguous, being on the other side of the CMP line.

46. 2:10:41
    May meeting moved

    With a member unavailable on 3 May, the board agreed to meet on Wednesday 10 May instead, the room being free on Wednesdays apart from the zoning board of appeals. A suggestion to move the start time to 6:30, as most other town bodies have, was raised and set aside; the meeting stays at 7 p.m.

47. 2:15:46
    Submission deadline and adjournment

    Pushing the submission deadline out a week to the 28th was floated because the meeting moves a week later, but it was left as it stands, Friday 21 April. The board then adjourned.

What was decided

• 0:06
  Appoint Brian Lanoie, the alternate member, as a full member of the planning board, filling the vacancy left by Mike Fitzpatrick's resignation. Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Anne Torregrossa, carried 4-0.passed
• 0:06
  Approve the minutes of the 1 March 2017 meeting as presented. Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Brian Lanoie, carried 5-0.passed
• 20:52
  Carry the existing submission checklist forward for the revised Baldwin plan rather than start a blank one, on the basis that the abutters, the parcel and the road location are unchanged and the main difference is the number of lots. The chair put the question round the table and the board then worked the existing checklist; no motion was made and no vote was called.outcome unclear
• 31:17
  Accept the waivers for checklist items 16, 22 and 28: the subsurface wastewater disposal system designs for each lot, the locations of existing and proposed private wells, and the contour interval. Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Juliet Caplinger, carried 5-0. On the recording the contour item is also left marked incomplete until the areas of greater than 20 percent slope are identified and the building envelopes adjusted clear of them.passed
• 51:39
  Find checklist item 38, the recorded deed and the restrictions, easements and rights of way affecting the property, complete, and item 40, sufficient volume of water, complete on the fire chief's letter. The chair announced both items complete and moved on; no motion was made and no vote was called.outcome unclear
• 56:58
  Find checklist item 44, the homeowner association and road maintenance documents, complete as a submission, on the explicit understanding that the board may reject the substance of the road maintenance agreement when it reaches the performance standards. The chair announced the item complete on that understanding; no motion was made and no vote was called.outcome unclear
• 1:12:25
  Find that the Baldwin subdivision application is still incomplete. Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau, carried 5-0.passed
• 1:27:54
  Consider the campground amendment now rather than wait for the land transfer, addressing the ownership by a condition that adequate ownership of the triangle be obtained and recorded, and condition the amendment on health department approval. Juliet Caplinger had recused herself because the applicants are her neighbours and took no part in this or any later vote on it. Settled as a direction of travel in discussion, with no motion and no vote called; both conditions were later carried into the approval motion.outcome unclear
• 1:38:07
  Deem the Huitt campground amendment application complete. Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau, carried 4-0, Juliet Caplinger being recused. The motion was made while the chair and the secretary were out of the room; no tally is audible on the recording, the count coming from the written minutes, and a member recapped it aloud afterwards as having been moved and seconded and the application deemed complete.passed
• 1:43:29
  Find met the conditional use approval criteria on water and air pollution, water supply and fire protection, soil erosion, traffic congestion, sewage disposal under the plumbing code, adequate fire protection, and scenic and natural beauty. Each was moved and seconded separately; no tally was audible on any of them, and the board worked straight down the list from one criterion to the next.passed
• 1:43:29
  Address the criterion on conformance with the town's comprehensive plan and other ordinances by imposing a condition that the Huitts or the LLC obtain sufficient ownership of the triangle of land. Moved and seconded; no tally was audible, and the board moved on to the next criterion.passed
• 1:48:45
  Find met the remaining approval criteria: financial and technical capacity, distance from water bodies, groundwater quality, flood plain, wildlife habitat, noise and vibration, and burden on municipal, governmental and educational services. Each was moved and seconded separately; no tally was audible on any of them, and the board worked straight down the list.passed
• 1:54:54
  Impose a condition that the applicant obtain all necessary state campground licences, and find the screening and density standards met, the ordinance allowing up to 11 campsites per developed acre on a property of 86 acres. Moved and seconded; no tally was audible, and the board moved on through the standards in order.passed
• 1:54:54
  Impose a condition on the permit that overnight sleeping is NOT allowed in any vehicle, with recreational vehicles and trailers being the only exception. Moved and seconded; no tally was audible, and the board moved on to the next standard.passed
• 2:00:13
  Find met the campground standards on soils, on the basis that these are existing sites on previously developed land, on the 250 foot setback from the normal high water mark, on resource protection zones, and on clearing near the listed water bodies. Each was moved and seconded; no tally was audible, and the board worked on through the standards.passed
• 2:00:13
  Impose conditions covering the water, sewer and sanitary facilities through health department approval, and the ordinance occupancy limits of 12 weeks between 15 May and 15 December and two weeks at all other times. Moved and seconded; no tally was audible, and the board moved on to the final motion.passed
• 2:00:13
  Approve the amendment to the Huitt campground conditional use permit subject to four conditions: health department approval of the campground and all sewage disposal facilities; obtaining and recording adequate ownership of the triangle of land; overnight sleeping NOT permitted in vehicles other than recreational vehicles; and occupancy of any one camping space limited to 12 weeks in the period beginning 15 May and two weeks at other times. Moved by Anne Torregrossa; no tally was audible and the written minutes record the mover without a count, but the board treated the campground business as concluded, wished the applicant well and moved on to other matters.passed
• 2:05:15
  A workshop on subdivision submission requirements was proposed by Juliet Caplinger and discussed, with another member arguing the ordinance and each individual application should govern instead. No conclusion was reached and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 2:10:41
  Move the May meeting from 3 May to Wednesday 10 May at 7:00 p.m., keeping the 7 p.m. start rather than moving to 6:30, and leave the submission deadline at Friday 21 April. Settled in discussion; no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 2:15:46
  Adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Anne Torregrossa, carried 5-0.passed

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 planningminutes5april2017.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.

• Appoint Brian Lanoie as a full membercarried 4-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Anne Torregrossa

• Approve the March 1* 2017 Minutes as presentedcarried 5-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Brian Lanoie

• accept waivers for #16, #22, and #28carried 5-0

  Moved by John Simoneau, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• find that the Application is still incompletecarried 5-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• deem the Application completecarried 4-0

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, seconded by John Simoneau

• Approve the Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit — Campgrounds with the following conditions: Obtain DHHS approval for the campground and all sewage facilities; provide a copy of the recorded deed; obtain and r…

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded; no outcome recorded

• Adjourn at 9:00 p.mcarried 5-0

  Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Anne Torregrossa

Worth knowing

• 15:37
  The board did not accept the applicant's position that the lots are back lots and therefore exempt from the subdivision road standard. A member said she was not buying the back lot argument and that the subdivision requirement would apply in any case, leaving the road question to be settled when the engineer's design arrives.
• 1:12:25
  The subdivision's access runs over a former town road the applicant does not own. He has agreed to bring it up to the town dirt road standard except at an exposed ledge over a pipeline, but a member warned that if ownership is ever contested and the way turns out not to be a discontinued town road, the subdivision would have no access at all, and asked for the town attorney's advice before going further.
• 1:33:05
  The small triangle the campground needs for two sites may belong to the RSU rather than to Durham, despite the town having agreed to convey it. The board wrote the condition broadly enough to cover whoever turns out to own it, and pointed the applicants to the RSU superintendent's office.
• 2:10:41
  The town's growth management ordinance is on the books but cannot be enforced, because the comprehensive plan put forward in 2012 was rejected and state statute requires a current plan to support a growth ordinance. The ordinances will have to be amended once a new comprehensive plan is drafted.

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: 8 passages of motion language, against 20 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2017-03-01 Planning Board2017-05-10 Planning Board →All meetings