2010-04-22 Planning Board Meeting Minutes

AttachmentSize
2010-04-22_Minutes-approved.doc68.5 KB

TOWN OF BOWDOINHAM

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

April 22, 2010 (approved 5/27/10)

 

Members Present: Ellen Baum, Paul Beltramini, Billie Oakes, Bill Shippen, Brent Zachau, Paul Baines and Bradley Meads.

 Staff Present: Nicole Briand, Town Planner

 Item 1:              Baum called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

 Item 2:              Consideration of March 25, 2010 Meeting Minutes

                         Zachau made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, Shippen seconded and all                           voted in favor.

 Item 3:Old Business

Subdivision Application – Wildwood Reality Trust

52 Teal Lane(Tax Map R09, Lot 015-006)

The application is to amend the existing subdivision plat to create three lots.

 The Board reviewed the additional information that was provided by the applicant.  The Board discussed the open space performance standard and whether or not the airport parcel that was created with the original subdivision satisfied this requirement.  The airport parcel is a nineteen acre parcel that has a deed restriction restricting its development.  Shippen made a motion that the previously created airport property satisfies the open space requirement and Zachau seconded.  Shippen, Zachau, Baum and Beltramini voted in favor.  Oakes opposed the motion.

 The Board reviewed the approval criteria: 

  1. Vehicular Access– The proposed road design will provide for safe access to and egress from public and private roads.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard is not applicable because this application does not    involve the construction of a new road.  Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Traffic– The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the highways or public roads existing or proposed and, if the proposed subdivision requires driveways or entrances onto a state or state aid highway located outside the urban compact area of a urban compact municipality as defined by Title 23, Section 754, the Department of Transportation has provided documentation indicating that the driveways or entrances conform to Title 23, Section 704 and any rules adopted under that section.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application     involves only the creation of two additional lots. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Visual Impact– The proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, including water views and scenic views.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because the proposed new       development is located away from the water. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Utilities– The proposed development will not impose an unreasonable burden on existing utilities.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application     involves only the creation of one additional un-serviced lot. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Water Supply– The proposed subdivision has sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, per the letter from the       Bowdoinham Water District dated March 18, 2010. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Sewage Disposal– The proposed development will be provided with adequate sewage waste disposal.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because the applicant has provided a letter from Stephen P. Robbins, Site Evaluator #301 that states that the proposed        undeveloped lot contains soils that are suitable according to the State of Maine Subsurface Waste           Water Disposal Rules. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Fire Protection – The proposed development will have adequate fire protection.

            Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, per the letter from the Fire Chief dated March 13, 2010.

  1. Capacity of Applicant– The applicant meets the following criteria:
  2. Right, Title and Interest in Property– The applicant has the right, title and interest in the property.
  3. Financial Capacity– The applicant has the financial capacity to complete the proposed development.
  4. Technical Ability– The applicant has the technical ability to carry out the proposed development.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, as the applicant has provided       documentation showing interest in the property and is the developer of the original subdivision.  The       applicant must gain the right to the easement prior to obtaining a building permit, as a condition of       approval. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Special Resources
  2. Shoreland– The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the quality of the water body or unreasonably affect the shoreline of the water body and is in compliance with the Shoreland Zoning provisions of this Ordinance.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because there is no new development proposed in the Shoreland Zone. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Floodplain– The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Floodplain Management provisions of this Ordinance.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because there is no development proposed in the floodplain. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Wetlands & Waterbodies– The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse impact on wetlands and/or waterbodies, to the extent that is practicable.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because the undeveloped lot can be developed without impacting the wetlands. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Historic & Archaeological– The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on historic and/or archaeological sites.

            Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Groundwater– The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of groundwater.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Wildlife Habitat– The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on wildlife habitat.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Natural Areas – The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on rare and irreplaceable natural areas.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Environmental Impact– The landscape will be preserved in its natural state to the extent that is practical by minimizing tree removal, disturbance of soil and retaining existing vegetation.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because the undeveloped lot can be developed so that the environmental impact can be minimized. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Solid Waste Management– The proposed development will provide for adequate disposal of solid wastes.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application     involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau       seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Hazardous, Special & Radioactive Materials– The proposed development will handle, store, and use all materials identified as hazardous, special or radioactive in accordance with the standards of Federal and State agencies.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard is not applicable, because this application does not   involve any hazardous, special or radioactive materials. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Air Quality– The proposed development will not result in undue air pollution or odors.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application     involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Water Quality– The proposed development will not result in water pollution. 

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application     involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau       seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Stormwater– The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate stormwater management.  

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application     involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau       seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Sedimentation & Erosion Control– The proposed subdivision will take adequate measures to prevent soil erosion and the sedimentation of watercourses and waterbodies.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard shall be a condition of approval. Zachau seconded and         all voted in favor.

  1. Compliance with Ordinances– The proposed subdivision conforms with the provisions of this Land Use Ordinance and other ordinances and regulations of the Town of Bowdoinham.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met. Zachau seconded and all voted     in favor.

  1. Town Plans & Vision Statements – The proposed subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Town’s Plans, including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, Waterfront Plan, and Transportation Vision Statement.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met. Zachau seconded and all voted     in favor.

  1. Municipal Services– The development will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on municipal services, including municipal road systems, fire department, solid waste program, schools, open spaces, recreational programs and facilities, and other municipal services and facilities.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met, because this application           involves only the creation of one undeveloped lot within an existing approved subdivision. Zachau       seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Impact of Adjoining Municipality– For any proposed subdivision that crosses municipal boundaries, the proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of existing public ways in an adjoining municipality in which part of the subdivision is located.

      Beltramini made a motion that the standard is not applicable, as the subdivision does not cross    municipal boundaries. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

  1. Spaghetti-lots– Any lots in the proposed subdivision which have shore frontage on a river, stream, brook, great pond or coastal wetland shall have a lot depth to shore frontage ratio less than or equal to 5 to 1.

            Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met. Zachau seconded and all voted     in favor.

  1. Liquidation Harvesting– Timber on the parcel being subdivided has not been harvested in violation of rules adopted pursuant to Title 12, Section 8869, subsection 14.

Beltramini made a motion that the standard has been adequately met. Zachau seconded and all voted in favor.

Beltramini made a motion to approve the subdivision application with the following Conditions of Approval:

 

  1. The property shown on this plan may be developed and used only as depicted on this approved plan.  All elements and features of the plan and all representations made by the applicant concerning the development and use of the property which appear in the record of the Planning Board approval are conditions of approval. No change from the conditions of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is submitted and approved under the provisions of this Ordinance governing revisions to approved plans.
  2. No changes, erasures, modifications, or revisions shall be made in this final plan after approval has been given by the Board and endorsed in writing on the plan, unless the revised final plan is first submitted and the Board approves any modifications
  3. The applicant must gain the right to the access easement prior to obtaining a building permit.
  4. Soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies must be minimized by an active program meeting the requirements of the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices, dated March 2003.

 

Zachau seconded the motion.  Baum, Beltramini, Shippen and Zachau voted in favor of the motion.  Oakes opposed the motion.

 Item 4:              New Business

Site Plan Review Application – Maxx Coombs

112 Pond Road(Tax Map R02, Lot 063)

The application is to allow for car auction on part of the property.

 Maxx and John Coombs introduced themselves to the Board.  They are requesting to have a car auction on the property, in the 60-ft by 120-ft building.  The business will not require any new construction, but they may add some lighting. 

 The Board asked how many cars they expect.  Mr. Maxx Coombs stated that they have room for about sixty cars but the limit would vary based on the types of vehicles.

 The Board reviewed the application for based on the submission requirements.  The Board asked what was planned for water supply and sewage disposal.  Mr. John Coombs explained that there was not running water in the building.  They would only have potable water and a food stand.  For sewage disposal, they will have portable toilets.  The Board determined that they needed the following information in order to find the application complete:

  • Names and addresses of all property owners within two hundred feet of the property boundaries.
  • An explanation regarding the provisions for handling all solid wastes, including hazardous and special wastes.
  • The location and dimensions of the parking area shown on the plan.
  • Information regarding proposed signs, including location and method for securing.
  • Information regarding the location and type of exterior lighting.
  • An estimate of the peak hour and daily traffic to be generated by the project.
  • North arrow on plan.
  • Location of the bathroom shown on the plan.
  • Hours of operation.

 The Board discussed whether or not to hold a public hearing on May 27th with Mr. Coombs.  They will schedule the meeting for May 27th, but if the application is not complete, then they will have to reschedule the public hearing for June.  Mr. Coombs stated that he would like to have the public hearing in May.

 Subdivision Application – Thomas Kerina

375 Bay Road(Tax Map R09, Lot 023-A)

The application is to amend the existing subdivision plat to allow for a waiver of underground power.

 Mr. Thomas Kerina stated that he is requesting a waiver because of the increased cost for underground power.  Baum stated that it was known during the original subdivision application that underground power was more expensive and that extending the dead end road length added additional costs for the installation of utilities.

 Baum referred to the waiver provision of the Land Use Ordinance and stated that given that provision she did not think this waiver should be allowed.  

 Baines referred to the Utilities Performance Standard and stated that the information that the applicant provided meets the requirement to allow for a waiver of the underground power.

 Oakes stated that if the Board is not going to stick to the underground requirement, then it should be taken out of the ordinance.

 Zachau stated that the circumstances involved allow for the waiver.

 Zachau made a motion to approve the waiver.  Zachau, Meads and Beltramini voted in favor of the motion.  Baum and Oakes opposed the motion. 

 Item 5:              Other Business

 Item 6:              Adjourn Meeting