2010-06-24 Planning Board Meeting Minutes

AttachmentSize
2010-06-24_Minutes-approved.doc102 KB

TOWN OF BOWDOINHAM

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

June 24, 2010 (Approved 7-22-10)

 

Item 1:              On-Site Inspections

 6:00 pm at 112 Pond Road (Tax Map R02, Lot 063)

Maxx Coombs, Site Plan Review Application

 Present: Paul Beltramini, Billie Oakes, Brent Zachau, Paul Baines, Scott Libby, Maxx Coombs, John Coombs and Nicole Briand.

 Mr. Libby gave the Planning Board a tour of the property.                       

6:30 pm at 6 Wallentine Road (Tax Map U02, Lot 022)

Kyle Cobb, Site Plan Review Application                       

Present: Paul Beltramini, Billie Oakes, Brent Zachau, Paul Baines, Kyle Cobb, Nicole Briand, John McMullan, John Hunton and two neighbors.

 Mr. Cobb gave the Planning Board a tour of the property.

 Item 2:              Call Regular Planning Board meeting to order at 7:00pm

 Present: Paul Beltramini, Billie Oakes, Brent Zachau, Paul Baines, Bill Shippen and  Nicole Briand.

 Mr. Beltramini will act as chair and Mr. Baines will be a voting member.

 Item 3:              Consideration of May 27, 2010 Meeting Minutes

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

 Item 4:Old Business

 The Board decided to switch agenda to take Cobb first, because a public hearing is scheduled for 7:30 pm.

 Site Plan Review Application – Kyle Cobb

6 Wallentine Road(Tax Map U02, Lot 022)

The application is for an automotive repair shop.

 Board reviewed the application for the information that was requested at the last meeting.

 Mr. Cobb has proved information regarding oil waste and safety, lighting, and landscaping/buffering as was requested.

 Beltramini asked what the timeframe is for finishing building. Mr. Cobb stated that it depended on approval, but is hoping to have the building complete by the end of August.

 Baines made a motion to find the application complete, Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

 Beltramini closed Planning Board meeting and opened the public hearing.

 Mr. Cobb stated that he wants to operate an automotive, power sport, farm equipment repair shop that will be open 8am to 6pm Monday thru Friday and 9a to 4 pm on Saturday.

 Beltramini asked if there are any questions or concerns.

 John Hunton stated that he has owned the abutting lot for eight years and wants to build a home in the future.  He asked if the application is for auto repair or repair, because the ordinance has them listed separately. Mr. Cobb stated that he intends to do both automotive, power sports and some farm equipment.  The Board stated that the Approval should be specific for what uses are allowed.

 Mr. Hunton asked why is there a need for 16 parking spaces if it is a small repair shop.  He would like to see the number of vehicles limited.  Baines stated that the number of unregistered vehicles will be limited.  Beltramini explained that the project is approved as shown and for the plan to be amended would require another application.

 Mr. Hunton asked if the public can ask for the size of the parking area to be reduced?  Beltramini explained that there is nothing in the ordinance to limit the size of the parking area, but the ordinance does require landscaping and buffering.  Mr. Hunton stated that he is very concerned about the buffering.  He would like to see a fence or shrubs.  Mr. Zachua stated that two or three rows of trees would make a good buffer.  Baines stated that a natural buffering will take time to grow.  Oakes stated that a junkyard is not allowed.

 Mr. Hunton asked if buffering, screening and landscaping are all covered in the ordinance.  Beltramini stated that the ordinance does require buffering and landscaping.

 Mr. John McMullan asked if the number of parking spaces could be reduced from 16.  Is personal automobiles part of the 16 or in addition to the 16?  Mr. McMullan added that he is concerned that the property will turn into junkyard.  He would be comfortable with 10 or less parking spaces.

 Baines stated that the issue should be visibility and buffering of the parking area not the number of parking spaces.

 Mr. McMullan asked the Board to consider the visibility for neighbors.

 Mr. Hunton asked what the limit is.  Could there be 100 spaces?  Is there a breaking point?  The Board explained that the review is dependent on application in front of the Board.  Mr. Hunton asked what the Board can do?

 Baines explained that the Board doesn’t have reason to reduce the parking area if it meets the performance standards and is reasonable.  Oakes stated that the Town does not have zoning.  Beltramini explained that there is nothing in ordinance to limit the size of the parking area, but the Board can address the appearance of the property with the performance standards

 Mr. Hunton asked if the business transferable.  Baines answered yes.  Mr. Hunton stated he is afraid business will do good and then Mr. Cobb will sell the business to someone else and then the look of the property will go down hill.  Mr. Hunton asked if the Board could limit the approval to Mr. Cobb so that the business could not be sold.  Baines stated that the Board could not limit the approval based on ownership; Mr. Cobb should have every right to sell his property and business.

 Mr. McMullen stated that the hours of operation seem reasonable and asked if they are limited?  Baines stated that ordinance provides framework for hours.

 Mr. Cobb stated that he does not want to run junkyard. He wants to have good business and a good relationship with neighbors. 

 Beltramini closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Board meeting.

 The Board reviewed the approval criteria. 

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

Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, per the letter from Kevin Prout, Public Works Director dated June 21, 2010.  Baines seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Internal Vehicular Circulation– The proposed site layout will provide for the safe movement of passenger, service, and emergency vehicles through the site.

Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because there is adequate existing area on-site for the safe movement of vehicles. Baines seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Pedestrian Circulation– The proposed site layout will provide for safe pedestrian circulation both on-site and off-site.

Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because there is adequate existing area on-site for pedestrians. Baines seconded the motion 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.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because there has been no municipal concern. Zachau seconded the motion 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.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because it is an existing building. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Lighting– All exterior lighting will be designed to avoid undue glare, adverse impact on neighboring properties and rights-of-ways, and the unnecessary lighting of the night sky.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed lighting meets the performance standards. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Signage– The proposed signage will not detract from the design of the proposed development and the surrounding properties and will not constitute hazards to vehicles and pedestrians.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the proposed signage will met the performance standard as a condition of approval. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Buildings– The proposed structures will relate harmoniously to the terrain and to existing buildings in the vicinity, so as to have a minimally adverse effect on the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the neighboring areas.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the existing building meets the performance standard. Oakes seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Landscaping– The proposed development will provide adequate landscaping in order to define, soften, and/or screen the appearance of parking and developed areas as well as to enhance the physical design of the buildings and the overall development.

The Board discus the proposed landscaping with Mr. Cobb and it was agreed the additional landscaping would be added to the Site Plan for the Board’s signature.  Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed vegetation will serve to soften and screen the parking area and the building. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Buffering– The proposed development will provide for the buffering of adjacent uses where there is a transition from one type of use to another use and for the screening of mechanical equipment and service and storage areas.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed vegetation and fencing will serve to soften and screen the parking area and the building. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

      Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the existing utilities are       sufficient for proposed use. Baines  seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Water Supply– The proposed development will be provided with an adequate supply of water.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because property is served by a private well. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the subsurface wastewater disposal system on-site is adequate to support the proposed use. Baines seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately, because the property is adjacent to a fire hydrant. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Capacity of Applicant– The applicant meets the following criteria:

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

  1. Right, Title and Interest in Property– The applicant has the right, title and interest in the property.

            The applicant is the           owner of the property according to the deed.

  1. Financial Capacity– The applicant has the financial capacity to complete the proposed development.

                  A letter from Atlantic Regional Federal Credit Union dated May 2, 2010 has been submitted.                

  1. Technical Ability– The applicant has the technical ability to carry out the proposed development.

                  The applicant has demonstrated sufficient ability to carry out the proposed business.

  1. Special Resources

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

  1. Shoreland– The proposed development will be in compliance with the Town’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.

The property is not within the Shoreland Zone.

  1. Floodplain– The proposed development will be in compliance with the Town’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.

The building is not located in the Floodplain.

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

Erosion and sedimentation controls will be used.

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

This is an existing development.

  1. Groundwater– The proposed development will not adversely impact either the quality or quantity of groundwater available to abutting properties or to public water supply systems.

The performance standard has been met.

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

This is an existing development.

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

This is an existing development.

  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.

       Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met. Shippen seconded the motion and all        voted in favor.

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

The applicant will use a dumpster.

  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.

The applicant will use Clean Harbors to disposal of these materials.

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

The proposed repair/automotive repair shop will not produce undue air pollution or odors.

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

The proper containment and disposal will be used for waste oil and other special/hazardous materials.

  1. Stormwater– The proposed development will provide for the collection and disposal of all stormwater that runs off proposed streets, parking areas, roofs, and other impervious surfaces, which must not have an adverse impact on abutting or downstream properties.

The amount of impervious area being created.

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

Sedimentation and erosion control measures shall be used.

  1. Noise– The proposed development will control noise levels so that it will not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.

       Shippen made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the building will be insulated,        exterior work on vehicles will be limited to the stated business hours and the proposed use will not exceed        reasonable noise levels for the use. Baines seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed use is in compliance. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed use is in compliance. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.                             

Baines made a motion to approval the application with the following Conditions of Approval: 

  1. The applicant shall reimburse the Town for noticing costs.
  2. Non security lighting must be turned off between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M.
  3. The garage must be sided with clapboard or log siding.
  4. The business name sign must meet the performance standards in the Land Use Ordinance.
  5. Erosion & Sediment Control measures must be installed according to Maine Erosion and Sediment Control BMPS, dated March 2003 as required by 38 M.R.S.A. §420-C prior to the commencement of any earthmoving activity.]
  6. Double containment shall be used for the storage of waste oil.
  7. There shall be no more than fifteen vehicles allowed on-site.
  8. An automobile graveyard or junkyard is not allowed on-site.
  9. Noise levels shall be kept to a reasonable level for the approved use.
  10. Repair work conducted outside of the building shall be limited to the stated business hours.

 

       Shippen  seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

Site Plan Review Application – Maxx Coombs

112 Pond Road(Tax Map R02, Lot 063)

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

 Baines stated that Mr. Libby is his landlord and asked if there was any objection to him sitting on the Board for this application.  There was no objection to Mr. Baines.

 The Board reviewed list of information that was needed and determined that it has been provided.

 Hours for the auction will be Saturday from 10:30am  to 5pm, so there will be activity from 7 am to 7 pm.

 Board reviewed the application for performance standards.  Mr. Libby explained the waiver requests.  Baines made a motion to grant the requested waivers due to the dual use of the property.  Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

 The Board reviewed the approval criteria.           

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

Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the required permit has been obtained for Maine Department of Transportation.  Baines seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Internal Vehicular Circulation– The proposed site layout will provide for the safe movement of passenger, service, and emergency vehicles through the site.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because there is adequate existing area on-site for the safe movement of vehicles and vehicle movement will be directed by car auction staff. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Pedestrian Circulation– The proposed site layout will provide for safe pedestrian circulation both on-site and off-site.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because there is adequate existing area on-site for pedestrians to walk from their vehicles to the car auction, vehicular traffic will be directed by car auction staff. Zachau seconded the motion 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.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because there has been no municipal concern. Zachau seconded the motion 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.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because it is an existing development and there is no new proposed development. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Lighting– All exterior lighting will be designed to avoid undue glare, adverse impact on neighboring properties and rights-of-ways, and the unnecessary lighting of the night sky.

Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable, because no new lighting is proposed. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Signage– The proposed signage will not detract from the design of the proposed development and the surrounding properties and will not constitute hazards to vehicles and pedestrians.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the proposed signage does meet the performance standard. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Buildings– The proposed structures will relate harmoniously to the terrain and to existing buildings in the vicinity, so as to have a minimally adverse effect on the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the neighboring areas.

Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable, because the building is existing. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Landscaping– The proposed development will provide adequate landscaping in order to define, soften, and/or screen the appearance of parking and developed areas as well as to enhance the physical design of the buildings and the overall development.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the existing landscaping is sufficient for this added use. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Buffering– The proposed development will provide for the buffering of adjacent uses where there is a transition from one type of use to another use and for the screening of mechanical equipment and service and storage areas.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the existing buffering is sufficient for this use. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

      Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the existing utilities are        sufficient for the car auction. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Water Supply– The proposed development will be provided with an adequate supply of water.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met., because is available on-site. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met., because two portable toilets will be available for people at the auction. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met per the letter from the Fire Chief dated April 16, 2010. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. Capacity of Applicant– The applicant meets the following criteria:

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

  1. Right, Title and Interest in Property– The applicant has the right, title and interest in the property.

            The applicant has a lease agreement from the owner of the property.

  1. Financial Capacity– The applicant has the financial capacity to complete the proposed development.

                  The applicant has already purchased what is necessary to operate the car auction.

                  Technical Ability – The applicant has the technical ability to carry out the proposed development.

                  There is  no development is proposed.

  1. Special Resources

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

  1. Shoreland– The proposed development will be in compliance with the Town’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.

The property is not within the Shoreland Zone.

  1. Floodplain– The proposed development will be in compliance with the Town’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.

There is no proposed development.

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

This standard is not applicable because no new development is proposed.

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

No new development is proposed.

  1. Groundwater– The proposed development will not adversely impact either the quality or quantity of groundwater available to abutting properties or to public water supply systems.

No new development is proposed.

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

No new development is proposed.

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

No new development is proposed.

  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.

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

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

The applicant will use the dumpster on-site  provided by the property owner through Pine Tree.

  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.

The applicant is not proposing to use, handle or store any hazardous, special or radioactive materials.

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

This standard has been adequately met, because the car auction will only involve the selling of automobiles.

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

The car auction will only involve the selling of automobiles.

  1. Stormwater– The proposed development will provide for the collection and disposal of all stormwater that runs off proposed streets, parking areas, roofs, and other impervious surfaces, which must not have an adverse impact on abutting or downstream properties.

No new development is proposed.

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

No new development is proposed.

  1. Noise– The proposed development will control noise levels so that it will not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because the car auction will only take place from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed use is in compliance. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

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

Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met, because proposed use is in compliance. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.         

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

 The applicant shall reimburse the Town for noticing costs.

  1. There shall be no automotive or autobody repair work conducted on-site.
  2. The hours for the public auction shall be limited to Saturday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
  3. There shall be no parking along Pond Road (Route 125).
  4. Auction vehicles shall be kept inside the building Sunday through Friday.

 

       Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.        

 Item 5:              Other Business

 

Item 6:              Adjourn Meeting