2011-04-28 Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Members Present:  Ellen Baum, Paul Beltramini, Paul Baines, Brent Zachau, Nate Drummond and Bill Shippen

 

Item 1:              Call regular meeting to order at 7pm

 

Voting members: Baum, Beltramini, and Shippen.

 

Item 2:              Old Business

 

Site Plan Review and Shoreland Zoning Application –

Central Maine Power Company

Tax Map R10, Lot 16

The application is for the construction of a set of transmission towers and poles, in order to separate the two existing 345 kV transmissions lines onto separate towers/poles. 

 

Baum closed the Planning Board Meeting and opened the public hearing.

 

Sean Donohue presented an overview of the project.

 

Ed Friedman asked if new line and conductors are being installed. 

  • Yes, all old material will be removed and not reused.

 

Ed Friedman asked what the construction schedule will be. 

  • The information is to be determined by the contractor.  Once the information is known it will be provided to the Board for final approval.

 

George Christopher stated that during the PUC proceedings an 18-26 day window was proposed for construction.  Now a 9 month construction window is proposed.

  • Yes, the construction will take several months, not several weeks.  The PUC does not approve the project schedule; they approve the project based on its merits and need.

 

George Christopher stated that they are proposing to refuel over an aquifer that supplies the houses and farmers in the area.

  • Refueling, as proposed, will not create any additional threats to the area.

 

Andy Cutko asked how often refueling will happen.

  • Guess – a couple of times per week.

 

Kathleen McGeestated that she wanted to reiterate George Christopher’s comments as the water table is high in this area. 

 

Kathleen McGeeasked, what are the serious deficits that require this project to be done?

  • The double circuits have to be separated into separate towers. 

 

 

Kathleen McGeeasked how long this has been an issue in Bowdoinham. 

  • Last year Bangor Hydro had one circuit down for maintenance and the second was hit by lighting causing power to be lost for 24-48 hours.

 

Andy Cutko asked if the EMF modeling was based on field work.

  • No it was based on modeling.

 

George Christopher asked if provisional approval is granted then what control does the Planning Board have over the schedule.

  • The Planning Board will have to approve the schedule in order for CMP to get final approval for the project.

 

Pete Galle asked if the Planning Board can give CMP the timeframe.

  • The Planning Board has been clear that we want the impact on agriculture limited, and we hope that the proposed schedule reflects that.

 

Libby West stated that she had been contacted by someone regarding land acquisition or a land swap but has not heard anything further.

  • CMP will look into this.

 

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

 

      Baines asked who is the authority on pre-construction condition of roads.  Briand stated it was the Road    Commissioner.

 

      Baines asked if the Town would be reimbursed if the services of the fire department were needed.  Mr. Donohue stated that the Town would be paid was required by any Town ordinance or policy regarding emergency services.

 

      Shippen asked if there is a site safety plan.  Mr. Donohue stated that there was and that they would provide the Town with a copy of the plan.

 

      Baines asked for copies of the agreements with abutters and farmers.  Mr. Donohue declined to provide this documentation, as he said it was part of their public relations work and not part of the Planning Board's scope of review.

 

      Baines asked about fuel storage and refueling.  The Board is concerned about fuel spills that could affect abutter wells and the agricultural fields.  Mr. Donohue said that he would provide the Board with additional information at the next meeting.

 

      Baines asked if the Town would be present at the final walk through.  Mr. Donohue stated that they could be.

 

      Baum asked that CMP address the difference in the proposed construction schedules between the 18-26 day window that Mr. Christopher referred to through the PUC process and now.  Baum understands that these are separate processes, but the farmers had a different understanding from the PUC process than is being proposed now.

 

      Shippen asked about the temporary access: where will the gravel be going and when will it be taken out.  Mr. Donohue explained that the existing driveways and mats will be used for most temporary access.  Mats will be left in place during construction unless they do not have enough mats on-site then they may be moved around.

     

      Baum asked the Board to discuss what would and would not be in the provisional approval.  Baum stated that she thought that the Kennebec River tower should be apart of the provisional approval, as it was previously agreed that the provisional approval would be for the project design.  The Board agreed to continue reviewing the application while CMP works on obtaining the following information for the Kennebec River tower:

  • Site Plan showing tower base, shoreline, setbacks, impact area, vegetation removal.
  • Geotechnical review for tower base.

 

The Board asked for the following information:

  • staging areas
  • removal depth for towers being removed
  • how monopoles constructed
  • impact areas
  • disposal of construction debris
  • information regarding how the lines will be put up

 

The Board agreed to begin reviewing the project for standards at the next meeting.  The Board and CMP agreed to discuss the need to extend the review timeframe at the next meeting if needed.

 

 

Item 3:              New Business

 

Site Plan Review Application –

Peter Feeney & Nanette Giacoma

Tax Map U01, Lots 061, 064, and 080

The application is for a change of use for the development of the Long Branch School of Maine.

 

Nanette Giacoma and John Favreau were present to represent the application.

 

Baines recused himself from the Board.  Drummond will be a voting member.

 

Mr. Favreau explained that they are creating a traditional skills school patterned after the Northfolk School in Minnesota, plus more.

 

The Board reviewed the application for completeness:

 

 

 

 

Submission Requirements

 

Submitted

Waiver

Requested

Planning Board Comments

  1. All applications for site plan review must contain the following information:

 

 

 

  1. a fully executed and signed copy of the application for development review;

X

 

 

  1. evidence of payment of the application and technical review fees; and

X

 

 

  1. Eleven (11) copies of written materials plus eleven (11) sets of maps or drawings. The maps or drawings must be at a scale sufficient to allow review of the items listed under approval criteria:

X

 

 

  1. forty (40) feet to the inch is preferred, but in no case shall the scale exceed one hundred (100) feet to the inch for that portion of the tract of land being proposed for development.

X

 

 

  1. General Information.

 

 

 

  1. record owner's name, address, and phone number and applicant's name, address and phone number, if different.

X

 

 

  1. the location of all required building setbacks, yards, and buffers.

X

 

 

  1. names and addresses of all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of any and all property boundaries.

X

 

 

  1. sketch map showing general location of the site within the municipality based upon a reduction of the tax maps.

X

 

 

  1. boundaries of all contiguous property under the total or partial control of the owner or applicant regardless of whether all or part is being developed at this time.

X

 

 

  1. the tax map and lot number of the parcel or parcels on which the project is to be located.

X

 

 

  1. a copy of the deed to the property, an option to purchase the property or other documentation to demonstrate right, title or interest in the property on the part of the applicant.

X

 

 

  1. the name, registration number and seal of the person who prepared the plan, if applicable.

X

 

 

  1. cost of the proposed development.

X

 

 

  1. evidence of the applicant's financial capacity to complete it. This evidence should be in the form of a letter from a bank or other source of financing indicating the name of the project, amount of financing proposed or available, and individual's or institution's interest in financing the project or in the form of a letter from a certified accountant or annual report indicating that the applicant has adequate cash flow to cover anticipated costs.

 

 

Pending

  1. evidence of the applicant's technical capability to carry out the project as proposed.

X

 

 

  1. Existing Conditions Plan including the following:

 

 

 

  1. zoning classification(s), including overlay and/or subdistricts, of the property and the location of zoning district boundaries if the property is located in two (2) or more zoning districts or subdistricts or abuts a different district.

X

 

 

  1. the bearings and length of all property lines of the property to be developed and the source of this information.

 

 

Shippen requested that the surveyor add a tie line across the road.

  1. location and size of any existing sewer and water mains, culverts and drains, on-site sewage disposal systems, wells, underground tanks or installations, and power and telephone lines and poles on the property to be developed and on abutting streets or land that may serve the development and an assessment of their adequacy and condition to meet the needs of the proposed use. Appropriate elevations must be provided as necessary to determine the direction of flow.

X

 

 

  1. location, names, and present widths of existing public and/ or private streets and rights - of-way within or adjacent to the proposed development.

X

 

 

  1. The location, dimensions and ground floor elevation of all existing buildings on the site.

 

 

The dimensions of the buildings need to be added to the plan.

  1. the location and dimensions of existing driveways, parking and loading areas, walkways, and sidewalks on or immediately adjacent to the site.

 

 

Dimensions need to be added, parking spaces need to be shown and the 3 Town spaces should be marked.

  1. location of intersecting roads or driveways within two hundred (200) feet of the site.

X

 

 

  1. the location of open drainage courses, wetlands, stonewalls, graveyards, fences, stands of trees, and other important or unique natural areas and site features, including but not limited to, floodplains, deer wintering areas, significant wildlife habitats, scenic areas, habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals, unique natural communities and natural areas, sand and gravel aquifers, and historic and/ or archaeological resources, together with a description of such features.

 

X

Shippen made a motion to waive this requirement because no new development is proposed on this developed site.  Beltramini seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  1. the direction of existing surface water drainage across the site, and any off-site drainage facilities that will be used.

X

 

 

  1. the location, front view, dimensions, and lighting of existing signs.

 

 

Briand stated that the Town will be moving their sign.

  1. location and dimensions of any existing easements and copies of existing covenants or deed restrictions.

X

 

 

  1. the location of the nearest fire hydrant or other water supply for fire protection.

X

 

 

  1. Proposed Development Activity

 

 

 

  1. estimated demand for water supply and sewage disposal, together with the location and dimensions of all provisions for water supply and wastewater disposal, and evidence of their adequacy for the proposed use, including soils test pit data if on-site sewage disposal is proposed.

 

 

They are in the process of having the septic design completed.

  1. the direction of proposed surface water drainage across the site, and from the site, with an assessment of impacts on downstream properties.

X

 

 

  1. provisions for handling all solid wastes, including hazardous and special wastes, and the location and proposed screening of any on-site collection or storage facilities.

 

 

The Board requested additional information be provided.

  1. the location, dimensions, and materials to be used in the construction of proposed driveways, parking and loading areas, and walkways and any changes in traffic flow onto or off-site.

 

 

None proposed

  1. a grading plan showing the existing and proposed topography of the site at two (2) foot contour intervals, or such other interval as the Planning Board may determine

 

 

None proposed

  1. proposed landscaping and buffering.

 

 

None proposed.

  1. the location, dimensions, and ground floor elevation of all proposed buildings or building expansion proposed on the site.

 

 

 

  1. location of proposed signs together with the method for securing the sign.

 

 

 

 

Favreau stated that we have not determined what yet, but they are To be determined. 

  1. location and type of exterior lighting.

X

 

 

  1. the location of all utilities, including fire protection systems.

X

 

 

  1. a general description of the proposed use or activity.

X

 

 

  1. an estimate of the peak hour and daily traffic to be generated by the project.

X

 

 

  1. the existing and proposed method of handling stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and water quality and/or phosphorous export management provisions.

X

 

 

  1. A written statement from any utility district providing service to the project as to the adequacy of the water supply in terms of quantity and pressure for both domestic and fire flows.

X

 

 

  1. Approval Block. Space must be provided on the plan drawing for the signatures of the Planning Board and date together.

X

 

 

 

The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing for May 26, 2011 at 6:15pm, as long as the requested information is submitted.

 

Item 4:               Consideration of March 24th Meeting Minutes

 

Beltramini made a motion to approve the Board’s March 24, 2011 Meeting Minutes as amended.  Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

 

Item 5:              Other Business

 

Item 6:              Next Meetings          

  • May 26th

Item 7:              Adjourn Meeting