2012-02-23 Planning Board Meeting MInutes

 

TOWN OF BOWDOINHAM

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - Approved

February 23, 2012

 

Members present: Ellen Baum, Nathan Drummond, Bill Shippen, Brent Zachau, Paul Beltramini and Paul Baines.

 

Others Present: Nicole Briand, Jenna Pierce, Mark Bowker, Sue Hackett, and Sean Donahue and John Titus for Central Maine Power.

 

Item 1:            Call Regular Meeting to Order at 7:00pm

                                               

                        Baum called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.

 

Item 2:            Consideration of January Meeting Minutes

 

                        Beltramini made a motion to accept the January meeting minutes and Zachau seconded the motion and Baum, Beltramini and Zachau voted in favor. Shippen, Baines and Drummond abstained from the vote as they were not at the meeting.

 

Item 3:            Old Business

 

Subdivision Amendment Application – Mark Bowker

Riverwalk Subdivision

108 Bay Road, Tax Map R09, Lot 051

                        The applicant is requesting that residential/agricultural use be allowed on the airport lot.

 

                        Baum led the discussion before the public hearing regarding concerns brought to the Board by the public at the last meeting. Briand provided further information in connection with the issues discussed at the last meeting and based on the discussion with the Town’s attorney the deed restrictions and covenants do not concern the Board. The Board can amend the Plan containing the restrictions. The concerns brought to the Board stems around the perception of what was created. The airport is a facility that is privately owned. It is clear that there are inconsistencies between the approved plan and deed restrictions presented. The building that Bowker currently resides in is outside the 250 foot object free zone and has been moved further away.

 

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

 

                        Bowker presented his case. He was not initially fully aware of what he was or was not getting in terms of the airport and lot perspective. His intentions stay the same. He wants to be reside in the building as he is now and also protect his interest in the airport. Being an owner on the premises, he will be able the monitor things as they happen (such as an inspection). The airport is privately owned, but it is for public use (aviation take-off and landing uses only). The airport does not receive federal funding so FAA standards referred to in FAR-77 do not apply. Bowker provided a letter from DOT which reconfirms Bowker’s points that the property is not subject to FAA jurisdiction. Bowker also presented pictures to show his plans for finishing the house.

                       

 

Sue Hackett was present to express her sister’s concerns regarding the house and the septic system. He has been residing there for three years and that was a major concern for Hackett’s sister and husband.

           

The Board indicated that a permit was issued for building on the property and occupancy is the issue the Board is addressing. The Board must approve and issue a permit for a change of use to allow the structure to be a residential structure. Baines expressed that the Board only has limited authority for addressing this issue and all issues raised in the public hearing will not be addressed by the Board.   

 

                        Baum closed the public hearing and reopened the planning board meeting.  

 

                        Beltramini raised the issue concerning Item No. 6 on the Plan that the structure is to be in compliance with FAA standards. Bowker filed an application/notification because the structure is outside the 250 foot wide object free zone so it does not need to conform to FAA standards. It will take 30-45 days to receive response.

 

                        The Board reviewed the Proposed Findings of Fact Memorandum provided by Briand:

 

  1. Vehicular Access.Baines made a motion to approve the condition because the standard is not applicable because no change is proposed for the existing access. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  2. Traffic.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the proposed amendment to allow residential use on the airport lot will not create congestion on Route 24. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  3. Visual Impact.Zachau made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because there is no new proposed development and will not change to visual impact. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  4. Utilities.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because all utilities are existing. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  5. Water Supply.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the water supply is existing. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  6. Sewage Disposal.Baines made a motion that this standard shall be a condition of approval to ensure that an adequate sewage disposal is provided. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  7. Fire Protection.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because no concerns have been identified by the Fire Chief. Beltramini seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  8. Capacity of Applicant –
    1. Right, Title and Interest in Property.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the applicant owns the property per deed. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    2. Financial Capacity.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because no new development is proposed. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    3. Technical Ability.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because no new development is proposed. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  9. Special Resources –
    1. Shoreland.Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable because the property is not located within the Shoreland Zone. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    2. Floodplain.Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable because the property is not located within an identified floodplain. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    3. Wetlands & Waterbodies.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because no wetland impacts are proposed. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    4. Historic & Archaeological.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    5. Groundwater.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    6. Wildlife Habitat.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
    7. Natural Areas.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  10. Environmental Impact. Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  11. Solid Waste Management.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  12. Hazardous, Special & Radioactive Materials.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  13. Air Quality.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  14. Water Quality.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  15. Stormwater.Baines made a motion that the proposed subdivision will provide for adequate stormwater management. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  16. Sedimentation & Erosion Control.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the subdivision is an existing, approved subdivision. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  17. Compliance with Ordinances.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the proposed amendment conforms to the provisions of the Town’s ordinances and regulations. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  18. Town Plans & Vision Statements.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Town’s plans. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  19. Municipal Services.Baines made a motion that this standard has been adequately met because no concerns have been raised by municipal departments. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  20. Impact of Adjoining Municipality.Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable because the development does not abut another municipality. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  21. Spaghetti-Lots.Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable because the lot does not have any shore frontage. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
  22. Liquidation Harvesting.Baines made a motion that this standard is not applicable because timber harvesting has not taken place on the airport lot. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

 

Baines made a motion to amend to amend the Notes & Conditions #3 of Riverwalk Estates to allow the existing building as listed as “office,” as generally depicted on the Plan, to be used as a dwelling by the owner of the airport, and his heirs and assigns, as long as the airport is open; with the following Conditions of Approval:

 

  1. The subsurface wastewater disposal system for the airport lot shall be in conformance with the State of Maine’s Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules.
  2. No residential or agricultural uses shall be allowed within the 250 foot object free zone, as shown on the approved Subdivision Plan of Riverwalk Estates recorded at the Sagadahoc Registry of Deeds on February 15, 2002 in Plan Book 37, Page 22.
  3. No other dwelling shall be constructed unless approved by the Board.
  4. FAA authorization indicating that building height standards are met is to be provided.
  5. Noticing fees from the Times Record must be paid.

 

Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

             

Site Plan Review and Shoreland Zoning Application –

Application: Central Maine Power Company

Property: Tax Map R10, Lot 16

Project Description: 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.

 

Drummond recused himself from this matter due to conflict of interest.

 

CMP led discussion regarding outstanding issues that were raised at the previous meeting. The Board reviewed materials and Plan in connection with the tower design.  

 

The Board reviewed the Draft of Proposed Findings of Facts provided by Briand, in addition to updated Site Plan Review Performance Standards and Shoreland Zoning Performance Standards. Some issues need more direction from the Board and certain conditions reviewed for approval. Briand discussed issues and conditions for approval with the Town’s attorney who said she was not comfortable with a provisional conditional approval and the Board needs to make a positive finding before making it a condition of approval. Based on advice from the Town Attorney the Board agreed to move toward final approval with conditions.

 

The Town posted roads during the week and CMP will be submitting a separate application in order to start clearing. CMP can do maintenance on existing lines, but those that are in Shoreland Zone will require approval first. Baines added that it seemed reasonable for CMP to do what they need to do, as they have right and title to the land. Lands in Shoreland Zone can be done through the Town’s CEO in order to obtain a permit. Briand is looking for a permit for the existing corridor. CMP will be submitting an application (already provided map showing clearing).

 

The Board performed a full review of the Site Plan Review and Shoreland Zoning Performance Standards. This will allow Briand to draft a proposed approval for the Town’s attorney to review and bring back to the Board for public hearing. Town’s attorney recommended final approval with conditions and not a provisional approval because a provisional approval is not allowed in accordance with the Town’s Ordinance.

 

The Board reviewed the updated Site Plan Review Performance Standards:

 

 

  1. Vehicular Access

 

  1. Adequacy of Road System - Vehicular access to the site must be on roads which have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. A Traffic Impact Study may be required by the Planning Board if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or the Road Commissioner.

Concern regarding the road system during construction has been expressed, please refer to the recommendation from the Road Commission, Interim Town Manager and Public Works Director.

 

See letter from a few months ago.

  1. Access into the Site - Vehicular access to and from the development must be safe and convenient.

Some access ways will be via existing driveways. New access ways will be temporary for construction only.

CMP indicated that they would not impede access to any lands, etc. Drummond pointed out that a lot of access roads are used for agricultural purposes and should be addressed by CMP.

  1. Access way Location and Spacing -

Some of the access ways will be via existing driveways. New access ways will be temporary for construction only “as shown on Plan.” Board recommended adding “as shown on Plan.”

  1. Internal Vehicular Circulation

Proposed temporary roadways have been shown. Briand addressed the issue regarding parking during construction and recommended to the Board that it be “not applicable” because it is a temporary situation.

  1. Pedestrian Circulation

Doesn’t apply

  1. Municipal Services

 

A letter shall be requested from the appropriate Town Officials to address that 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.

Please refer to responses from municipal officials. Concerns were addressed.

  1. Visual Impact

 

  1. When a proposed development is located on a hillside that is visible from a public street, road, water body, or facility, the development must be designed so that it fits harmoniously into the visual environment when viewed by the public from public areas. In predominantly natural environments, site clearing must be minimized and vegetation must be retained or provided to minimize the visual intrusion of the development. In developed environments, the appearance of the new development, when viewed by the public from public areas, must be compatible with the existing visual character in terms of scale, massing, and height to the maximum extent reasonable.

Existing corridor with existing towers.

  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.

Lighting will be required and CMP is to provide FAA documentation.

  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.

No permanent signage proposed.

  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.

N/A

  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.

For new buffering – application says limited to under 10-ft, but in conversations it has been said under 20-ft. Existing trees on point are 30 ft. +. Documentation regarding the actual regulations should be provided. CMP has been asked not to do any buffering above MDEP requirements.


Board was okay with no buffering outside of Shoreland zone (based on DEP plans).

  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.

 

  1. Utilities –The development must be provided with electrical, telephone, and telecommunication service adequate to meet the anticipated use of the project. New utility lines and facilities must be screened from view to the extent feasible. If the service in the street or on adjoining lots is underground, the new service must be placed underground.

N/A

  1. Water Supply

 

  1. If the project is to be served by a public water supply, the applicant must secure and submit a written statement from the supplier that the proposed water supply system conforms with its design and construction standards, will not result in an undue burden on the source or distribution system, and will be installed in a manner adequate to provide needed domestic and fire protection flows.

N/A

  1. Sewage Disposal

N/A – Construction only

  1. Fire Protection– The proposed development will have adequate fire protection as determined by the Fire Chief and State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Issue addressed as matter of condition.

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

 

  1. Right, Title and Interest in Property – The applicant must demonstrate that they have the right, title and interest in the property.

Documentation has been submitted.

  1. Financial Capacity – The applicant must demonstrate that they have the capacity to carry out the project in accordance with this ordinance and the approved plan.

A statement has been submitted.

  1. Technical Ability – The applicant must demonstrate that they have the technical capacity to carry out the project in accordance with this ordinance and the approved plan.

A statement has been submitted.

  1. Special Resources

 

  1. Shoreland – The proposed development will be in compliance with the Shoreland Zoning provisions of Article 6 and 7 of this ordinance if located within the Shoreland Zone.

In process. See Shoreland Zone Performance Standards checklist.

  1. Floodplain – If any portion of the site is located within a special flood hazard area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, all use and development of that portion of the site must be consistent with the Floodplain Management provisions of Article 8 of this ordinance.

Floodplain management permit is required from CEO. Obtaining a permit should be a condition of approval.

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

MDEP permit has been obtained & is in the process of being amended for impacts for the last tower.

 

Board is okay with the location of the last tower, as they agree that is the only option.

  1. The development must not adversely affect the water quality or shoreline of any adjacent water body, to the extent practicable. The development plan must provide for access to abutting navigable water bodies for the use of the occupants of the development as appropriate.

TBD.

 

See Shoreland Zone application.

  1. When a proposed development is immediately visible from a pond, river, or stream, the development must be designed so that it fits harmoniously into the visual environment when viewed from the water body. In predominantly natural environments, site clearing must be minimized, natural vegetation must be maintained adjacent to the shoreline to soften the appearance of the development, and vegetation must be retained or provided to minimize the visual intrusion of the development. In developed Shoreland environments, the appearance of the new development when viewed from the water must be compatible with the existing visual character in terms of scale, massing, and height to the maximum extent possible. Storage and service areas must be screened or landscaped to minimize their visual impact.

See Shoreland Zone application.

  1. Activities within 250 feet of vernal pools shall meet requirements set by Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s Natural Resources Protection Act.

Criteria met. MDEP permits obtained.

 

 

  1. Historic & Archaeological

Approved through MDEP permit.

  1. Groundwater

Construction concerns.

Projects that involve on-site water supply or sewage disposal systems with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater must demonstrate that the groundwater at the property line will comply, following development, with the standards for safe drinking water as established by the State of Maine.

N/A

  1. Wildlife Habitat

Approved through MDEP permit.

  1. Natural Areas

Approved through MDEP permit.

  1. Environmental Impact

 

  1. 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. 

There will be tree removal for power lines.

 

The Board agreed that it should be a condition to have the areas re-vegetated. CMP has a 3rd party inspector (through DEP) to address these issues.

  1. Solid Waste Management – The proposed development will provide for adequate disposal of solid wastes. All solid waste must be disposed of at a licensed disposal facility having adequate capacity to accept the project’s wastes.

The Board agreed that it should be a condition to clean up the mess when done.

  1. Hazardous, Special & Radioactive Materials

 

  1. Hazardous, Special and Radioactive Materials - The handling, storage, and use of all materials identified by the standards of a federal or state agency as hazardous, special or radioactive must be done in accordance with the standards of these agencies.

N/A - Construction issue.

  1. No flammable or explosive liquids, solids or gases shall be stored in bulk above ground unless they are located at least seventy-five (75) feet from any lot line, or forty (40) feet in the case of underground storage. For the purposes of this section, bulk storage shall be considered one thousand (1,000) gallons or greater.  All materials must be stored in a manner and location which is in compliance with appropriate rules and regulations of the Maine Department of Public Safety and other appropriate federal, state, and local regulations.

N/A – Construction issue.

CMP provided details for refueling.

  1. Air Quality

N/A

The proposed development will met the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards.

 

  1. Water Quality

N/A – Construction issue

  1. Stormwater – Adequate provisions must be made for the collection and disposal of all stormwater that runs off proposed streets, parking areas, roofs, and other surfaces, through a stormwater drainage system and maintenance plan, which must not have adverse impacts on abutting or downstream properties.

N/A due to ratio of developed to undeveloped areas. 

  1. Sedimentation & Erosion Control

 

  1. All building, site, and roadway designs and layouts must harmonize with existing topography and conserve desirable natural surroundings to the fullest extent possible, such that filling, excavation and earth moving activity must be kept to a minimum. Parking lots on sloped sites must be terraced to avoid undue cut and fill, and/or the need for retaining walls. Natural vegetation must be preserved and protected wherever possible.

The Board agreed that it should be a condition that meets CMP requirements which are based on Maine guidelines approved by the State.

  1. 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.

Shippen made motion to waive standard, because CMP will be using other methods as was approved by MDEP. Baines seconded the motion. All voted in favor. VOTE 5-0.

  1. Noise

N/A – Construction issue.

Use Specific Performance Standards

    17. Non-Roadside or Cross-Country Distribution Lines (greater than 34.5kV) and Gas Transmission Pipelines

 

 

  1. The application must demonstrate:

 

 (i)   the proposed cost and benefits of the proposed project

Information provided.

(ii)   potential impacts on abutters, the environment and wildlife habitat

Condition that additional information to be provided regarding construction means and methods for approval.

(iii)  how potential impacts on abutters, the environment and wildlife habitat will be minimized

Condition that additional information to be provided regarding construction means and methods for approval.

  1.  The proposed poles/towers shall be located so that it will have the least affect on abutters, the environment, and wildlife habitat.

Information provided.

  1. The construction of non-roadside or cross-country distribution lines or gas pipelines must be scheduled so that the construction will have the least impact on abutting property owners, other persons that may be directly affected by the construction, the environment, and wildlife habitat.

Condition that additional information to be provided for approval.

 

The Board discussed issues relating to construction. The Board agreed that it should be a condition of approval for CMP to provide the Board with the requested construction related information for the Board’s approval prior to construction. Drummond indicated that June through September was peak times for most farmers. CMP has not sent the one-year notice to farmers as stated in the application. CMP estimates timing to consist of clearing this winter and construction during the fall of 2013.

 

The Board reviewed the updated Shoreland Zone Performance Standards:

 

 

D)Performance Standards

 

1)Minimum LotStandards.

 

 

 

Minimum Lot-   Minimum Area (sq. ft.)    & Shore Frontage (ft.)

 

  1. Residential per dwelling unit  40,000  & 200

N/A

  1. Governmental, Institutional, Commercial or Industrial per principal structure

 

  1. Within the Shoreland Zone Adjacent to Tidal Areas, Exclusive of Those Areas Zoned for Commercial Fisheries and Maritime Activities-

Meets

                         40,000                                      200

 

  1. Within the Shoreland Zone Adjacent to Tidal Areas Zoned for Commercial Fisheries and Maritime Activities

N/A

  1. Within the Shoreland Zone Adjacent to Non-tidal Areas-             

N/A

  1. Public and Private Recreational Facilities

N/A

  1. Land below the normal high-water line of a water body or upland edge of a freshwater or coastal wetland and land beneath rights-of-way and/or easements serving more than two (2) lots shall not be included toward calculating minimum lot area.

 

  1. Lots located on opposite sides of a public or private road shall be considered each a separate tract or parcel of land unless such road was established by the owner of land on both sides thereof after September 22, 1971.

N/A

  1. The minimum width of any portion of any lot within one hundred (100) feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high-water line of a water body or upland edge of a freshwater or coastal wetland shall be equal to or greater than the shore frontage requirement for a lot with the proposed use.

N/A

  1. If more than one residential dwelling unit, principal governmental, institutional, commercial or industrial structure or use, or combination thereof, is constructed or established on a single parcel, all dimensional requirements shall be met for each additional dwelling unit, principal structure, or use.

N/A

  1. A cluster subdivision may be allowed as permitted in the underlying district provided that the overall dimensional requirements, including frontage and lot area per dwelling unit, are met. When determining whether dimensional requirements are met, only land area within the Shoreland zone shall be considered. 

N/A

2)Principal and Accessory Structures.

 

  1. All new principal and accessory structures shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet, horizontal distance, from the normal high-water line of water bodies, streams, or the upland edge of a coastal or freshwater wetland, except that in the General Development I District the setback from the normal high-water line shall be at least twenty five (25) feet, horizontal distance, and in the Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities District there shall be no minimum setback. In the Resource Protection District the setback requirement shall be 250 feet, horizontal distance, except for structures, roads, parking spaces or other regulated objects specifically allowed in that district in which case the setback requirements specified above shall apply.

Essential service structure.

  1. The water body, stream, or freshwater/coastal wetland setback provision shall neither apply to structures which require direct access to the water body or freshwater/coastal wetland as an operational necessity, such as piers, docks and retaining walls, nor to other functionally water-dependent uses.

 

  1. On a non-conforming lot of record on which only a residential structure exists, and it is not possible to place an accessory structure meeting the required water body, stream or freshwater/coastal wetland setbacks, the code enforcement officer may issue a permit to place a single accessory structure, with no utilities, for the storage of yard tools and similar equipment. Such accessory structure shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in area nor eight (8) feet in height, and shall be located as far from the shoreline or stream as practical and shall meet all other applicable standards, including lot coverage and vegetation clearing limitations. In no case shall the structure be located closer to the shoreline or stream than the principal structure.

N/A

  1. Principal or accessory structures and expansions of existing structures which are permitted in the Resource Protection, Limited Residential, Limited Commercial, and Stream Protection Districts, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. This provision shall not apply to structures such as transmission towers, windmills, antennas, and similar structures having no floor area.

N/A

  1. The lowest floor elevation or openings of all buildings and structures, including basements, shall be elevated at least one foot above the elevation of the 100 year flood, the flood of record, or in the absence of these, the flood as defined by soil types identified as recent flood-plain soils. In those municipalities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and have adopted the April 2005 version, or later version, of the Floodplain Management Ordinance, accessory structures may be placed in accordance with the standards of that ordinance and need not meet the elevation requirements of this paragraph.

Will need to meet Floodplain Management standards.

  1. The total footprint area of all structures, parking lots and other non-vegetated surfaces, within the shoreland zone shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot or a portion thereof, located within the shoreland zone, including land area previously developed, except in the General Development District adjacent to tidal waters and rivers that do not flow to great ponds classified GPA, and in the Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities District, where lot coverage shall not exceed seventy (70) percent.

 

  1. Retaining walls that are not necessary for erosion control shall meet the structure setback requirement, except for low retaining walls and associated fill provided all of the following conditions are met:

N/A

  1. Piers, Docks, Wharves, Bridges and Other Structures and Uses Extending Over or Below the Normal High-Water Line of a Water Body or Within a Wetland.

3 towers will be located within a wetland: 81-109, 375-416, 375-417

  1. Access from shore shall be developed on soils appropriate for such use and constructed so as to control erosion.

 

4)Campgrounds.

N/A

5)Individual Private Campsites.

N/A

  1. Commercial and Industrial Uses.

N/A

7)Parking Areas.

N/A – Construction issue.

  1. Parking areas shall meet the shoreline and stream setback requirements for structures for the district in which such areas are located, except that in the Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities District parking areas shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet, horizontal distance, from the shoreline. The setback requirement for parking areas serving public boat launching facilities in Districts other than the General Development I District and Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities District shall be no less than fifty (50) feet, horizontal distance, from the shoreline or stream if the Planning Board finds that no other reasonable alternative exists further from the shoreline or stream.

 

  1. Parking areas shall be adequately sized for the proposed use and shall be designed to prevent stormwater runoff from flowing directly into a water body, stream or freshwater/coastal wetland and where feasible, to retain all runoff on-site.

 

  1. In determining the appropriate size of proposed parking facilities, the following shall apply:

 

  1. Typical parking space: Approximately ten (10) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long, except that parking spaces for a vehicle and boat trailer shall be forty (40) feet long.

 

  1. Internal travel aisles: Approximately twenty (20) feet wide.

 

8)Roads and Driveways.

Use of existing access ways and temporary access ways is proposed.  All areas used should be restored to original conditions.

9)Stream Crossings.

No stream crossings are proposed.

10)Signs.

No permanent signage is proposed.

11)Storm Water Runoff.

 

  1. All new construction and development shall be designed to minimize storm water runoff from the site in excess of the natural predevelopment conditions. Where possible, existing natural runoff control features, such as berms, swales, terraces and wooded areas, shall be retained in order to reduce runoff and encourage infiltration of stormwaters.

The impervious area for this project will be spread out throughout the property.  After construction the corridor will be maintained in a vegetated shrub-meadow and/or agricultural cover.

  1. Storm water runoff control systems shall be maintained as necessary to ensure proper functioning.

No systems are proposed.

12)Septic Waste Disposal.

N/A – Construction issue

13)Essential Services.

Board to make finding for 3rd tower.  See b).

  1. Where feasible, the installation of essential services shall be limited to existing public ways and existing service corridors.

The work will take place in an existing corridor.

  1. The installation of essential services, other than road-side distribution lines, is not allowed in a Resource Protection or Stream Protection District, except to provide services to a permitted use within said district, or except where the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative exists. Where allowed, such structures and facilities shall be located so as to minimize any adverse impacts on surrounding uses and resources, including visual impacts.

As proposed the following would be constructed within the Resource Protection District:

  • Tower 375-416
  • Monopole 81/377-161A
  • Tower 81/377-164

 

The Board previously approved the first two.  Baines made motion that there is no other location for this tower (Tower 81-377-164) and must be Resource Protection District. VOTE 5-0. Board stated that as a condition of approval they wanted a detailed site plan showing construction impacts (i.e. work area, equipment area, improvements, vegetation clearing, disturbed areas, etc) be submitted for these areas to ensure that the impact within the Resource Protection District is minimized.

 

 

  1. Damaged or destroyed public utility transmission and distribution lines, towers and related equipment may be replaced or reconstructed without a permit.

N/A

14)Mineral Exploration and Extraction.

N/A

15)Agriculture.

N/A

16)Timber Harvesting.

N/A

17)Clearing or Removal of Vegetation for Activities Other Than Timber Harvesting.

CMP will submit separate application and will be condition of approval for clearing that is necessary for the existing infrastructure. CMP will retain as much vegetation as possible and may require re-vegetation. CMP indicated they have a 3rd party inspector through DEP to address these issues.

18)Erosion and Sedimentation Control.

This standard should be a condition of approval.

19)Soils.

The Board asked about the status of test pits and when that information would be submitted.

20)Water Quality.

See SPR

 

 

No activity shall deposit on or into the ground or discharge to the waters of the State any pollutant that, by itself or in combination with other activities or substances, will impair designated uses or the water classification of the water body, stream or coastal or freshwater wetland.

 

21)Archaeological Site.

See SPR

22)Marinas.

N/A

 

Briand will draft materials for attorneys review and bring back to the Board for public hearing.

 

Item 4:            Other Business

  • Annual Ordinance Review – The Board reviewed the proposed changes in connection with the Annual Ordinance Review provided by Briand.

 

Motion made by Baum to approve the changes to the ordinance. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor. VOTE 6-0-0.

 

  • CPC Presentation – The Board briefly reviewed the Comprehensive Planning Committee Goals – Approved February 7, 2012. Briand asked the Board to pick two items for the Board to review. The Board agreed to review forestry and housing. This item was tabled for further discussion at the March meeting.

 

Item 5:            Agenda Addition

 

                        Re-Elect Vice Chair

 

Baines made a motion to remove Bill Shippen as Vice Chair because he is not able to take on the responsibility at this time. Baum seconded the motion and all voted in favor. VOTE 6-0-0.

 

Baines made a motion to elect Brent Zachau as Vice Chair. Shippen seconded the motion and all voted in favor. VOTE 6-0-0.

 

Item 6:            Adjourn Meeting

 

                        Baum made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Zachau seconded the motion and all voted in favor. VOTE 6-0-0.