TOWN OF BUXTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING
February 11, 2008
Recorded by Hilda Lynch
Board Members Present: Keith Emery, Jeremiah Ross, III, Jim Logan, Caroline Segalla, and David Anderson
Board Members Absent: Harry Kavouksorian, Barbara Elwell
Others Present: Jean Harmon, David Harmon, Janice Laughlin, Alton Laughlin, Rebecca Norling, Alicia Campbell, Joanne Harris, Cliff White, Kristin Uhlig, R. P. Koholl, Harry Schnur, Wayne Fuller, Lawrence Miller, Beth Sturtevant, Navan Leng, Eric Mehnert, Sallie Chandler, A. Chandler, John Pompeo, Eliza Labelle, Dan Collomy, Larry Oliva, Peng Kem, Frank Ruggieri, Peter & Ilse Burns, Max C. Calderwood, Rusty & Lotte Miner, Tom Ashby, Annie Ashby, Paul Bausel, Lisa A. Cox, and Fred Farnham
Chairman Jeremiah Ross, III, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Public Hearing: Allen & Lisa Cox of 7 Warren Road who’ve submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a kennel; Tax Map 1, Lot 197-2.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by David, to open the public hearing. The vote was unanimous in favor.
Jere asked about the number of dogs, and Lisa stated there were six dogs. The Board held a site walk the Saturday before Christmas with Jere, Harry, Jim and Caroline in attendance. Lisa stated that they do have one dog they may breed again. Jere believes that once they’re approved as a kennel that they are allowed to do that. Keith thought that once the dogs reached six months of age, they would need to be gone. The Board then determined that there would be no limits once they’re approved as a kennel.
Jere asked for comments from abutters and the general public, and there were none. Fred, also, had no comments.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jim, to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Jere asked if the Board wanted to pose any additional conditions other than those in 8.2.B. None saw the need.
· Motioned by David, seconded by Keith, to waive the reading of 8.2.B. Jim clarified that the basis for that might be that they’ve heard from other kennel applicants, and the circumstances are those that have been previously heard. The vote was unanimous in favor.
The following are conditions of approval:
1. All elements and features of this application and all representations by this applicant concerning the development and use of the property, which appear in the record of the Planning Board proceedings, are conditions of approval. No changes of the conditions are permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
2. That the applicant is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B. and also Article 11.11.
3. That the applicant is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Section 11, which would be 11.11.
· Keith moved to find the applicant being in compliance with all applicable provisions of 8.2.B.10 and Section 11, seconded by Caroline. All voted unanimously in favor.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by David, to approve the application with conditions stated this evening. All voted in favor.
Public Hearing continued: for Wat Samaki Cambodian Buddhist Temple to be located at 128 Back Nippin Rd; Tax Map 4, Lot 43.
Beth Sturtevant and Navan Leng presented for the Temple. Beth placed the plan on the board and talked about the 50 ft. setback from the edge of Back Nippin Rd. They did make some modifications of the handicapped parking spaces, taking out the 4th handicapped spot. They only needed three. She indicated where the portable toilets would be located for large gatherings. There is room near the parking area in back of the building, and they would build a 6 ft. high stockade fence around three sides of it. The preparation of a list of larger celebrations that the Temple would have was done and attached to the Feb. 4th amendment, which the Board has.
One of Keith’s questions regarding births and deaths and what their ceremonies would be was answered by their new info.
Jim clarified the dimensions of the parking spaces being 8’6” and wondered about 60-degree or 90-degree parking. They look like 90-degree spaces. He read from p.10-8, which he believed Caroline also picked up on, and Section 10.7.C.3. Parking, which indicated the parking stalls would be 9 ft. wide and 18 ft. long and thought they’d covered that a couple of meetings ago. Beth didn’t have that in her notes. Beth said she’d be interested in seeing if the notes reflected this. Jim stated that diagonal parking would be the only thing that would allow a space of 8’6”, which is why he asked if it were diagonal parking or not. Jim clarified that in the ordinance for 90-degree parking, they should be 9 ft. Jim felt that the
Board had made it clear that they couldn’t deviate from the ordinance. It looks like they’re 6 in. short for each space. Beth said they’d like to leave them the size they are so would make the spaces diagonal. Jim read further about arrows being painted on the pavement for diagonal parking. Beth stated that above-grade signage could also be used. Jim asked if she would include it on their plan. In the application, they indicated that they would provide signage as needed. Jim thought they might want to see where they would have signs in the parking lot and asked for them to make it clear on their plan.
Caroline is having problems with the scale of the plan, which Beth clarified that 1” equals 30 ft. She asked about the impervious surface and would like it added to the plan. Caroline felt that it was something that should be on the plan. Her other concern was with the number of ceremonies. She doesn’t think the Board should restrict the number of events, but she is concerned about the traffic because of concerns raised by the residents. She found that there was a high crash location at the corner of Back Nippin Rd. and Rt. 112. She thought that if the Board didn’t limit the number of ceremonies that they do some type of traffic study. She thought it was going to impact the area when they had the bigger
ceremonies. Caroline asked about the buffer for either side as the ordinance requires and made some recommendations.
David said that all of his issues have already been raised. Jere asked if Beth had received a letter from Fred Farnham regarding the septic system. He stated that they would have to add some additional septic for the number of people that might attend the Temple.
Fred spoke about issues he’d raised in a letter. Fred first commented on the parking. The parking on the diagram is at 90 degrees, which means they could come in and park and go out the same way they come in; angled parking would mean they’d need an alternate way to get out depending on how they had their diagonals. There would need to be some kind of a loop, he thought.
Fred went on to say that the Temple did get an upgrade for the septic system as requested previously—a replacement for what is there to accommodate what would be going on in the Temple. The site evaluator was basing it on 30 people for 20 gal. per person for the size of the septic system. He subtracted what was there (current septic) and came out with 330 gal. as the size of the bed. Fred supplied several copies of the septic designs for similar places of assembly (Free Will Baptist Church in the village zone, Bar Mills Community Church in the residential zone, the North Congregational Church in the village zone when they put on an addition, Tory Hill Church in the commercial zone when they put in a bathroom, and Living Waters Christian Church in the rural zone). They’re all based on 4 gal. per seat. That should have been the figure used for the capacity of the septic system. It wasn’t used for the Temple assembly. Fred said that the question is what capacity do they need?
The temple area has a larger capacity than 30 people—go back to the 7 sq. ft. per person, which came out to 200 or so for parking. This figure is to be used for the septic system, also. If we took 150 people multiplied by 4 gallons, it would be 600 gallon needed. If there were some other figure, then they would need to know. There is a meeting with the Fire Marshall tomorrow at the Temple. Jere asked if there was anything in the Maine State Plumbing Code to require a certain number of bathrooms per number of persons. The Plumbing Code has different requirements for different uses. For 150 persons, they would need one toilet and one urinal for men; and, one toilet for every 75 ladies, and there have to be equal amounts. There are three units there now. It’s possible to take out one of the fixtures in one of the bathrooms so they could become compliant with that. Jere asked about handicapped accessibility. Fred said since this was an existing facility, he didn’t think so.
He wasn’t sure.
Jere asked the Board members for input. David agrees with complying with the standards of the Maine Plumbing Code. Caroline said that she didn’t believe that the regular ceremonies could exceed the numbers allowed or this would need to be a condition. Jim’s comment is that the Plumbing Code makes provision for places where there are only a limited number of large events a year. He wouldn’t take issue on the use of portable toilets for seven events a year. If the Temple wants a capacity of 200 and they want to have the latitude to use this any time during the year, they would need to install a leach field to accommodate this number. He believes it is allowable to use an existing septic system within reason. It might become necessary to install a system for all 200 people. If there isn’t going to be a leach field installed to handle 200 people, then the safety issue would be of concern in holding them to the seven events per year. Is the existing system adequate to
handle what the use would be on a daily basis? He thought this might require further evaluation by a site evaluator.
Jere’s question is about the reliance of portable toilets for subsurface waste disposal. Could he build a house and have a portable toilet instead of having a bathroom, Jere asked Fred. A brief discussion of outhouses took place. Keith agrees with Jim on some stuff; they should have a septic system that would take care of the daily uses. For the seven special events, he thinks they could use the portable toilets. If they were approved for unlimited special events, then he would want a bed for 200 people.
Beth wanted to comment on Fred’s letter, as she wasn’t sure how he was getting some of the numbers he had. She felt they’d been down this road many times talking about this. There might be 30 people who would be coming in and out of the Temple during the course of the week (or day) and with the monks living there, the current system would be adequate. She stated that Fred had agreed. They’ve never intended for the system to be used for the larger events. She thought some things in Fred’s letter had been talked about and wasn’t sure the figures were accurate. Fred stated that the current system could handle 82 people, which could be supplemented with portable toilets for larger events.
Caroline asked about Tory Hill events and wondered if they had a portable toilet out there. Fred wasn’t sure. Jere knows that there are public assembly places in town now where they have just portable toilets. They don’t have septic systems, which Jere thought they’d have to deal with at a later date.
Fred talked about the runoff from the parking lot. He talked about the wet spot that comes from the bottom of the drainage ditch, where he wanted them to prepare a retention pond which would capture water from the roofs and parking lot to allow the water to settle and evaporate. (He mentioned a similar issue with the Donut Hole.) Jere asked about water that comes across the property now, and Fred agreed there was a considerable amount of water since they’d cleared the ditch. Beth stated that this issue has been talked about and said that they’re not opposed to doing something but she believes that this is already being taking care of with the natural drainage area that is currently there. She said there were other methods of
taking care of runoff and erosion control, and they’d stated in their application that they would do that. If the Board wants to put a condition on this, she doesn’t want to have it to hold up the process. She felt they’d talked about this at length.
Beth wanted to go back to Caroline’s comments about the buffering. The impervious calculations of the parking lot, how would that assist the Board? They’re going to be putting down a quality gravel parking lot. Caroline thought that having the existing and proposed impervious was nice to have on the plan as a note. She clarified the buffering as having to do with the neighbors on both sides. Beth said she believed that Mr. Miller has talked about this; and on the other side, she thought there wouldn’t be much visibility of the parking lot because of the land sloping up. If they needed to put in a 6 ft. stockade fence in, they would do this.
Caroline asked if there would be any landscaping in front; she wants to be considerate of the neighbors with lights shining into their property at night. Beth thought they might want to do something with this. She thinks Mr. Miller is okay as long as they don’t take away any additional buffering. Caroline referred to 10.7.F; she was asking about the front area for buffering – plants and trees. She expressed concern about the aesthetics for the neighbors. Beth thinks the monks are pretty good at making the land beautiful. Jere believes they should provide buffering on both sides of the property lines. Beth asked if the current buffering was not adequate. He thinks they should shield the parking lot from the
abutters. Beth questioned why it didn’t seem a problem at the site walk. Jim says they’re discussing it again because of the comments from the public. Beth asked what would be agreeable. Jim refers to the section of the ordinance (p. 10-10), which is pretty specific. Jim says that evergreens or stockade fence is the Temple’s choice.
Jim feels that the Temple folks should have a copy of the ordinance and should be going by it. Jim stated that the Board is not trying to be adversarial. Beth thinks that the buffering has been discussed before and they believed that it was adequate. She thinks that it’s more of an issue tonight. Jere says that he thinks that as the application evolves that some things will be eliminated and some will be added. Jere thinks it is well within the Board’s prerogative to make conditions that will make the neighborhood better if the applicant is approved. The Board has the right to modify the application to meet the standards of the ordinance and impose conditions to see that elements are enforced.
Caroline asked about the site distances for the exit and entrance being put in the plan as well and refers to a section of the ordinance. Jim wanted to have notations about the entrance and exit on the plan as well, and they may want to make note if angle parking requires another exit. Beth said they’d look at what would be the best fit for them.
Jim refers to another set of standards for conditional uses. Under Section 8.2, it says specifically that the activity won’t cause water pollution, erosion or sedimentation. Erosion sediment control is usually noted right on the plan, so he would recommend that this be shown right on the plan since this plan will be given to a contractor to do. He would like the details added to this plan in order for the Board to make their decision. He also refers to 8.2.B.6. that specifies the need for a storm water drainage system capable of a 25-year storm event being designed. Beth said they didn’t do this because it was an existing facility. Jim said that some part of the parking area is brand new. Jere thought they’d
like to see a stamp from an engineer. Beth said she asked the question a long time ago and was told that it wouldn’t be required. Jim says he doesn’t see a need for an engineer but would like some calculations for a 25-yr storm event and a detail for what Fred is referring to. Beth expressed some frustration that the ordinance requires a lot more than they were led to believe would be required. Jere expressed his frustration that the town has no professional planner to help go through the ordinance step by step with them. He stated that they have to hash through the ordinance item by item, and Beth clarified if this was essentially going to be the requirement. Jere said yes. He said they could send this down to Southern Maine Regional Planning and have them review this application, and they would send a letter outlining all of the things that are in the ordinances that they’re talking about now. He said that they
would then bill them for their services. He says he understands her frustration because the Board is coming up with new things each meeting, but he doesn’t see any way around it with the Board members doing this work as volunteers. He thinks that this is one of the problems they come across with conditional use applications. Caroline recommended that if the 8.2 factors on the conditional use were answered, that would take care of some of these issues—just a little more elaboration. Jere says the burden is on them to convince the Board that the application is complete. Beth asked what it was about this application that is causing a negative impact. Jim says he feels that they’re just trying to get a complete application by having them follow the items in Section 8. Jim wondered if it were appropriate to have a peer review because he thought they were at a standoff or adversarial position, and Beth doesn’t feel that is
necessary. She says they’ve narratively described the sections of the ordinance. She agrees that not everything is on the plan. Beth says they’re just trying to get to a place where they could get a conditional use permit with conditions. She’s worried that they can never get there. Jere says that other churches seem to have these elements on their plan. He understands their financial limitations and doesn’t want them to have to spend money to go out and hire consultants and engineers, but it might have to happen in order to have the plan complete. Jere said that is what they want to meet the conditions of the ordinance and to be fair to everyone. Caroline started to summarize what she thought, but Beth says that she hears that they’re going to have to address these issues. Caroline felt that some of these things should have been addressed in the very beginning so that they would know what they
needed and it wouldn’t have taken so long. She agreed that the Board should have looked at this to see what had been met as it’s not fair to the applicant for it to take so long. She hopes that the next time they meet they’d have everything, and they could grant the approval for the conditional use. She recommended they take a look at other church’s applications in order to see what they’ve done, and Beth stated that she didn’t think they were going to have to do this.
Mr. Lawrence Miller (Lot 43A) asked for the parking lot plan to be put up on the Board again, which Beth did. He noted where he lived on the plan. He wants to start off by saying that at the last meeting he said that the proposal wouldn’t have an adverse affect on the value of his property. This was based on what had been presented to the Board: three large events, no lighting needed at night, and no disturbance of the landscape. He was relying on those statements and believes those are necessary conditions in order for him to believe that this would not adversely affect his property. If there can be no condition on the number of events, the Temple would adversely affect his property. He thinks there has to be a limited
number of times that you can have a lot of people there. He hopes the parking area stays mostly gravel and would not be happy with it being paved fully. The heat aspect would be considerable; he doesn’t want a big heat sink right next to him. He says he’s happy with the buffering that is there as long as it’s maintained. He says that in the winter it wouldn’t be as good, but most of the events do not take place in the winter. He would not want a stockade fence. He would be okay with additional vegetation but is not sure of the space for it. He wouldn’t want the Board to impose a specific type of buffering; he’d like to work it out with the applicant. This document (parking plan) surprises him in several respects: he points to the property line, the angle of which it intersects Back Nippin Rd. is inaccurate, he believes. It appears that the parking goes away from his property line the
further out it goes, but he doesn’t think that is what would happen. While there was a more casual approach to compliance, he wasn’t going to complain about the accuracy; but now he thinks there is more of a wish for precision, so he thinks it should be more accurately done. Further there is a wellhead, and there was no parking in that area in the plan of Dec. 3rd. He thinks the wellhead might be in the parking area in the new design. There is a bridge over the drainage ditch, but this design shows parking spaces where the bridge is. He questions how people will access these parking spaces because of those two items. Perhaps the applicant can answer these; but if things were going to be redone, he would not ask for a response at this time. If the Feb. 4th submission changes any of the things from the Dec. 3rd submission, he would need to look at that. He has an observation that as this has evolved
before the Board, the Board has been more casual, and now the degree of specificity is getting more detailed as the Board has deliberated. He thought this was unfair to the applicant and thought the Board should have stated in the beginning that here are the ordinances and we can’t waive the requirements—just what was said tonight. He thinks it’s inexcusable to enunciate tighter requirements each time. Jim thought that if he were to go back a year ago, he’d see that Jere asked for a professional plan. Caroline mentioned wetland delineations, too. Jere said that the Board asked for specifics over a year ago. Jim says he recalls Jere waving a copy of the ordinances and saying, “we are not able to waive the requirements of this ordinance.” Jim doesn’t think it is their place to go through the ordinances step by step. He thinks people need to buy a copy and go
through it themselves to see that they meet the requirements. Larry makes a further comment that sometimes individual members of the Board give their personal opinion about something; and if no one comments on these statements, he’s unsure of whether the Board all agrees with a statement or not. He thinks it would be useful if the Board would make a determination by vote on a perceived requirement. Jim suggests that the applicant has the burden of proof on them, so they need to be asking the questions of the Board. The Board can specifically answer from the ordinances, but they can’t go through the ordinances step by step with the applicant. Fred can give some guidance but not complete guidance. He says that the Town is long overdue for a planner.
Jere stated that on 6/12/06, Mr. Miller was in favor of an 8 ft. fence. Jere feels the Board should have the prerogative to make changes over a period of two years as they go through the process. Keith was the only Board member when the applicant first came before the Board. Keith thought this was the third time that this has come up. Keith agreed that Mr. Miller had stated that he would prefer natural buffers.
Alicia Campbell said that from her house they look straight down on the parking lot. She questions whether it is as large as shown. She’s had several realtors (8.2.B.1) who’ve told her that this would adversely affect her property. One put it in writing—a 10 percent affect on the sale of the property. She doesn’t think that this conditional use could be allowed which would adversely affect her property. Jere said this was something they would vote on. Jere asked if buffers would help alleviate this problem. She said that it wouldn’t help because they would be close to ground level. If it appears that there is natural buffering right now, there are brush piles covered with snow, which could
appear to be natural buffering. Under 8.2.B.2, she knows that the word “undue” is a subjective word. She thinks that more than double would be “undue.” She has an estimate from D.O.T. that there would be 127 people, so a traffic movement permit would be required for this use. For lack of any other restrictions, this would be carte blanche to use the property 24/7. They would support the Temple if they had satellite parking. This would make the neighborhood safer and save a permanent scar on the landscape. She thought that busing would be a better option. There was a question regarding a D.O.T. requirement, which applies to any road, Alicia says. Jere requested that she give the info to Krystal, and they’d have it by the next meeting. She thinks all of the concerns in her letter would be addressed if the Temple had satellite parking. She commended the Board for paying more
attention to the ordinances this evening than at the last meeting. Jere asks if anyone from the Temple would like to address this. They weren’t prepared to do this tonight. Caroline questioned this according to the ordinance.
Peter Burns lives a few houses down from the Temple. He mentioned the parking discussed at the last meeting. He thought that the maximum number of parking spaces would be 67. He thought this was to be the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. Later he heard that they had permission to park at other places. If the maximum capacity has already been predetermined, he wondered why additional parking at other places would even be considered. He thought this implied that they weren’t going to require the 67 spaces on premise. Jere said he thought they agreed that additional parking spaces wouldn’t be allowed because of the possible sale of property. When the application came up the first time, as a concerned citizen, Mr. Burns stated that he
purchased a copy of the ordinance. Everything is in there, and the requirements are there. He understands that this thing has been going on and on; he recognizes the number of hours and knows they aren’t professional planners. He feels they should be commended for their efforts.
Annie Ashby, of Overlook Drive, read a letter for Tom Ashby, her father. He is concerned about the Buddhist Temple being a threat to the rural character of their neighborhood. After listening to neighbors and friends who live around him, he feels that this type of project would be better suited to an area where traffic would be better suited. Mr. Emery had stated that Back Nippin Rd. was the same width of Rt. 112. Mr. Ashby did some measuring and found that Back Nippin was 18 in. shorter and the shoulders were very narrow. Keith commented that there are 20 ft. of pavement and 2 ft. of shoulder in the ordinance for road construction. Keith clarified his comments made earlier and also that intersections would be a little wider if that were the area measured.
Rusty Miner had a question. He said that he didn’t mind three or four events a year. He wondered if the event would last only one day or longer. He could take his children away if the event were only one day. He would like it specified in writing how long the events would last.
Navan Leng said they had no events that would last for two weeks. They would send letters to the neighbors to make sure they know when events would start and end.
Eric Mehnert, an attorney who has represented the Temple in the past from up Orono way, spoke. He was here about a year ago, and they were given a number of forms (other applications) from which they worked through at that time. Their frustration has to do with being asked to make additional modifications every time they come back to the Board. As he understands it, is the Board still prohibiting any large Temple gatherings? Does the town have any mass gathering ordinance? No, it doesn’t, Jere stated. He asked about the pre-existing commercial use and why didn’t it have to have buffering? Jere thought it was grandfathered because it was established before the ordinance was written.
Janice Laughlin lives across the street from the Temple. The printing business owners came forth to the Planning Board prior to buying the property. The concerns were the same, about the traffic. They had only four parking spaces so no need for a buffer. The neighbors wouldn’t know there was a business there. She says this doesn’t mean that this new business would be the same type as the one before. The people who had the printing business came before the Board before they bought the property.
Mr. Mehnert feels that the Temple people would like an up or down vote because they don’t feel that they can keep coming back.
Mr. Miller comments on the previous use; and since he could see the business from his house, only three or four cars were the most he ever saw. A truck would come only infrequently and parking was previously contained in the existing parking area.
Jere asked the Board what they would like to do. Caroline would like to see some of their items addressed. Speaking for herself, she doesn’t feel she can make a decision on this project without a million conditions listed. These items should be on the plan that the Board is going to sign. Keith stated that only the Findings of Fact are signed by the Chairman. There was some question about whether the plan should be signed. Caroline wondered if they could have a workshop with the applicant. If the plan is complete, then a decision could be made. Jim feels that if he’s forced to make a decision tonight, there is a parking stall that is in direct conflict with the ordinance—a section that has been pointed out three or four times.
There’s no erosion sediment control specified on the plan. Any site plan he’s looked at shows some of these details on the plan. It sounds like conditions of approval would be the method Beth would like to deal with these, and he doesn’t think this is the way to address these ordinances.
Steve Anthony believes that the Board can vote and make the decision to not approve this application. The applicant has come forward numerous times and has presented all the evidence that they could, so he thinks it’s time for the Board to vote on this application the way it has been presented. He doesn’t think it could be allowed in this area without conditions: to promote the public health and well being of this area, the safety of the children, and the appearance (parking lot). He thinks it might be tabled indefinitely until the applicant comes back more prepared.
Keith doesn’t see that they need another exit if they have angle parking.
Title 42, a Federal law, has been brought to Jim’s attention. These folks have come to the Board and are trying to comply with the ordinance. He refers to protection of religious land use. Jim says it clearly states that no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that totally excludes religious assembly from a jurisdiction, and he thinks this applies to any zone. He doesn’t think they can prohibit a religious group from any zone. No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assembly within a jurisdiction. He points out that there are other forces that need to be used as part of this application.
Fred’s review process started back in 2006. Fred would like to suggest from tonight’s meeting that all of the requests by the Board be written in a list and sent to the applicant as well as to the Board members so they have a written record of what the applicant is being asked to do. When they come back to the next meeting, they’ll be dealing with what is in writing. He’d like to see the subjects of the ordinance on a list; and as the Board talks about each item, write how it is met and that the Board votes on each item. The Board has a work in progress and items are voted on and accepted. This would help with the process for both the applicant and the Board.
Alicia wanted to address the religious assembly. No one is opposed to that. She mentions that the parking lot would destroy their rural neighborhood and the value of her home.
Jere would like to see the Board seek some legal counsel on the matter—what they can and cannot do, consult with town counsel—speak directly to what Jim was speaking about concerning the protection of religious assembly. He would feel more confident if he had the town’s attorney comment on it. He would like to see the Temple come up with a list of the items they’ve talked about. He asked if they’re willing to do this.
Mr. Mehnert thinks the issue for the Temple has been that they’ve come in and answered one question; some members have changed, and then revisited some items that have been discussed before. Over two years, he acknowledges that some of the time has been due to the Temple and their lack of resources. Navan Leng says they’ve been working with the town for two and a half years. He’s completely a volunteer and has four children. He thinks a lot of people have volunteered their time, and the Board seems to need more and more. They care about safety and put it 100 percent because of their own children. They’ve tried to be good neighbors. He admits they’ve made some mistakes and have come back to try to change that. He wants to
know if their application meets the Board’s requirements. Jim asks if they want a formal decision tonight or are they willing to make some revisions, and they’ll try one more time. Beth wanted to know if they would have to go through the ordinances one by one. The Board said they would have to. This Board and this application have only been reviewed since 11/26/07, David said. If history is there, it really doesn’t apply to a decision being made now. Mr. Mehnert quoted from a law that couldn’t really be distinguished (he was not at the microphone) which disagrees with David’s analysis.
· Dave moved that the public hearing be closed and they make a vote, Jere seconded. As requested by the applicant, they go to a vote at this time, David stated. Jere removes his second because he doesn’t agree with the last sentence.
Keith doesn’t agree with any of it. He stated that they look at the book and go by it most of the time; he feels that they’ve varied from the ordinance at times. He agrees with Fred that they should have a checklist and check things off as they cover them. Keith stated, “If we go by the book for this one, then we’d best be going by the book for every one.”
· David moved to close the public hearing, and Jere seconded it. Four voted in favor and Keith voted against.
Jere suggested that they seek legal counsel. Keith stated that they would have to start over once the public hearing is closed. Some question was raised about this.
· Keith moved to send a letter to legal counsel for his opinion and see if he would like to meet with them to discuss this application and give the applicant more time, seconded by David.
Caroline hopes that they will come back with a revised plan. She knows it has been a long process, but she feels this would create a more concise plan for the Board to make a more informed decision. Beth asked if they could take their application of Dec. 3rd and go through this point-by-point. All voted in favor.
Beth asked if they could go through and make a list from the Dec. 3rd submittal and the amended Feb. 4th. Jere stated that the Fire Marshall would be there tomorrow to meet with them at 10 a.m. He thought they’d be able to get some additional clarification from him. Caroline has a copy of both of the above and will make a checklist.
Public Hearing: John Pompeo has submitted an application for a wood waste processing facility at the 262 Webster Road gravel pit; Tax Map 7, Lot 23.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jim, to open the public hearing. The vote was unanimously in favor.
John stated that he was here for the stump grinding operation public hearing—wood waste recycling (hauling stumps in and grinding them to make mulch). Caroline wanted to know if it were going to be just tree stumps—not pallets, construction debris or anything like that. Tree stumps, brush and trees, John said it is stated with the D.E.P.; and they have inspections every year. Jim asked if John had made application with the D.E.P. yet. John stated he was waiting for this permit first. In light of that, Jim thinks that some of the requirements aren’t indicated on the plan. For the evaluation of this particular use, it would help if some of this info were shown on the plan. John stated that the nearest well
exceeds 500 ft. and also says that any building not owned by them is well over 500 ft. David went down the list on the D.E.P. standards and operating requirements and through all of our discussions and public record he believes that Mr. Pompeo has met all of these from the notes and minutes.
Jim asked about the storage pad. The DEP was talking with Eric Hamlin, and he thinks the top three ft. of that material would meet the requirement. Caroline asks if there will be two stockpile areas. John says “no.” One is from the original pit approval. Jim asks if there is a dry hydrant, and John says there’s no dry hydrant out there. One of the requirements is the fire control plan. John stated that they have a water truck on site. Caroline asked if there were enough buffers with the properties on the side. Keith went in and looked, the bermes were plenty, and the only house he could see was John’s. Jim thinks that if they haven’t drawn any negative comments, that an additional
use is not going to be of concern.
No comments from abutters.
Larry Oliva, commenting for the public, said that most of what he’s heard is pretty consistent with what John says. Today, it sounds like this is an additional process, and Larry says this is something that has already been going on and that John wants to comply with regulations. Jere explains that he’s applying for a permit from DEP and asks if he’s ground stumps from the pit previously. John says “yes.” Larry feels it is a great use of the stumps. He feels this is appropriate use. He believes that John will back up what he says. Larry doesn’t think that fire suppression is the issue; he thinks that the pile should be kept wet and fire prevention should be the issue. If John is away on a
weekend, this could be a problem. From his perspective, he thinks this is an appropriate spot; it is sufficiently far from the neighbors, but his concern is the number of times he would be processing. He thinks there should be some kind of conditions on the days and/or hours—not on Saturdays. He thinks some reasonable restriction would be in order.
Keith thinks a request could be made to do this somewhere else where there isn’t a pit. He feels that the Town is lucky to have people who have pits who are willing to do this. John has 7 a.m. – 8 p.m. on M-F and 8 a.m. – 2 p.m. on Saturdays for operating hours. Keith is not in favor of limiting the hours for stump grinding. Larry asked if he has any restrictions on rock crushing. The DEP has a 1-acre limit of processed or unprocessed material. Larry thinks John would be fine but is concerned if someone should buy the pit later on. He would like the Board to support the people who live near some of these operations.
Jere asked if they would be willing not to grind on Saturdays. John says they won’t crush on Saturdays or till 8 o’clock at night. He would like to keep the current hours, though. David feels that they can be assured that a commercial operation wouldn’t be possible with the amount of area allowed. John thinks that some of the bigger operations take a lot more stuff. He thinks that more people will be obtaining these permits. During his annual inspection, he found out about the permit that he needs for handling the stumps. He was unaware of it. It’s a permit by rule; and if they meet all of the qualifications, he would like to have the permit.
Caroline asks about what would happen if someone else comes in and is not as respectful of the abutters. She thinks 8 p.m. is really late for the time of operation. She’d like the Board to look into the future of the operation. She asks if other people were to want to take their stumps there, would that be allowed. John states that he is a small contractor and won’t be taking more than he can handle. Caroline asked about the traffic flow. John explained it. John says they don’t use the pit later but doesn’t want to change the hours. The hours have been a big issue, and he’s concerned about others. The operating hours are a big deal for all of the pits in Buxton. There is a pit where
the hours are limited for the crusher, Jere stated. He thinks that just like any conditional use application, he thinks the Board might have the purview to limit these applications because of the abutters and neighbors. Jere talked about the development that has taken place on Webster Rd. since the road has been paved about 10 years ago.
Larry doesn’t want his words mistaken. He doesn’t want the Board to limit John’s operating hours. He understands what is in place. He’s just talking about this additional thing. What is the harm in putting some kind of reasonable cap on this—to John and the public? He knew John was there when he moved into the area nine years ago, but now there is talk about increasing the noise. John says his plan for grinding will be running a lot less than the crusher. Jere says a limit would only apply to the grinding of the stumps. Jim stated that he knows how benign this activity really is. It’s not really a new use as most contractors have them. He hasn’t heard any comments to the
negative relative to his gravel pit operation. He would be inclined to let the stump grinding proceed as it is. David concurs. He has limited exposure to the stump grinding; he’s found it to be lot less noise than the rattling of stones in a crusher or separating. He doesn’t think noise would be an issue. They have decibel readings anyway. John says the grinder is the same one used for public works.
Larry wants to know if it were going on in your backyard on a Saturday and you were having a picnic, wouldn’t it be annoying. David and Larry clarified their words about this. Jim stated that under the basis of the Buxton ordinance, it may come under the definition for what he’s previously proposed. Larry says that the material is not coming from the site—the 25 yds. of material coming from the site. He thinks it makes a lot of sense, but he likes to have picnics on Saturdays. Keith doesn’t like limiting gravel pit hours as we don’t limit store hours. Larry stated he understood that.
Jere asked Fred for any comments. Jim talked about expansion of use, which is addressed in the ordinance. He’s using an area, which is a permitted gravel pit. If the stumps don’t all originate from the lot, it wouldn’t be covered under this definition. It is not an expansion of use but something the DEP requires a permit for. 11.7.D.7 covers the hours, Caroline says, unless otherwise specified. It talks about weekdays and not weekends. John states that it makes it hard if they have to spend a lot of time thinking about when they can do certain things. He thinks all of these hours should be allowed and that they have their noise levels they have to adhere to.
· Jim moved, Keith seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Jere read the conditions:
1. All elements and features of this application and all representations by this applicant concerning the development and use of the property, which appear in the record of the Planning Board proceedings, are conditions of approval. No changes of the conditions are permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
2. That the applicant is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B. and 10.
3. That the applicant be in compliance with Section 11 if applicable.
· Keith moved that the applicant is in compliance with Article 8.2B.10 and Section 11, seconded by Jim. 4 voted in favor and Caroline was opposed.
· Keith makes a motion to approve the application with conditions stated this meeting and previous meetings, David seconded. 4 voted in favor and Caroline opposed.
CEO Report
Fred talked about a follow up with an itemized list of the ordinance items. He thought that the minutes would help provide the itemized list. It would keep the process moving. The conditions of use would all be done when the Board reached the end of the discussion. Jere thinks some of the abutters’ concerns need to be addressed. He thinks the applicant believes that once they get to the public hearing they will be approved or denied. Things don’t really come out until the public hearing, so the Board has to go back. He feels for them 100 percent when they have to go back and fine-tune the plan. Jim didn’t think Beth had done her homework. Jere thinks they need to work on a checklist and talk with the
Selectmen about some kind of professional planner and explained his reasoning. Fred says that since we can’t get a planner, he thinks this might help (to generate a list). Caroline wonders if the public hearing shouldn’t be held until they know the application is complete. She knows there will always be comments from abutters, but at least all of the items in the application have been completed. This Board has two professional people on the Board, which is a definite asset. Jere believes that it takes a long time to learn for volunteers about the ordinances. David feels that he’s learned a ton of info in the two years he’s been on the Board. The things that are raised at public hearings are things that we’ve overlooked or eventually think of. David said that they realized at the last minute that there were some things that needed to be in compliance with Mr. Sawyer. The person who has the
most seniority (Keith) stated that he wouldn’t be running again.
Approval of Minutes:
January 21, 2008 - postponed
January 28, 2008 - postponed
Approval of Bills:
No bills are to be paid this week.
Communications:
a. Benjamin Cowen letter regarding the temple, which didn’t come in time to be included in packets
b. Introductory workshop to be held on March 13th 2008 at the Holiday Inn Express
c. Annual town meeting dates – two Planning Board seats are open – nomination papers available on March 19, 2008 – have to be back by April 28 to the Town Hall – the seats of Barbara Elwell and Caroline Segala are open
d. May 12th 2008 is the drop-dead date for ordinance changes. There is one that really needs to get done.
Other Business:
Budget
David says there are two major issues that need to be kept in mind. The first is historic experience and utilization of monies. The second is articles that will be requested at the town meeting in respect to mapping and printing. The third is the re-allocation of the current funds to accommodate the immediate printing of an official zoning map for the Town of Buxton.
The Selectmen don’t need to approve the budget, but they would like to be kept informed. There will need to be some specific numbers for the Board’s articles that they’ll be asking the taxpayers to vote on in June. In respect to the 2009 budget, it asks for a slight reduction, which will come primarily from the account used for monies in, and monies out – consultant fees. It is a blank account for which money is taken in and then spent because the town is not actually paying but the applicant is. He suggests reducing it a little bit. For supplies, they’re really not using the things purchased, so he thinks they can reduce this. He hasn’t reduced anything that would not allow the Board to spend what
they’ve needed to historically. Keith objects to cutting consultant fees. David says the Board hasn’t spent any money in two years out of consulting fees. Caroline asked about the attorney, but Keith stated he was on retainer with the Town. Keith mentioned having something done at Southern Maine Regional. David would like to let the taxpayers know that they’ve put the money to good use.
SMRPC is asking for $2,000. David says this money would come from the general fund. David says he could add $200 back in. The consulting fees went from $1000 to $650, and David suggested $500. Keith’s afraid that they might run short. Jere asked if they’ve ever overspent their budget. David says “no.” David says they’re significantly under the proposed salary basis. Jim asked if they could come up with a part-time planner. Keith thinks they could come up with a part-time planner answering to the Board. Jim would like to think about this since he doesn’t think the Town is really aware of the need for this. David says they’d have to be willing to
determine what they would pay and what the market would bear. If he had to add $25,000 to an $8,000 budget, he doesn’t think it would happen. Jere thinks that the issue needs to be continually raised. Keith thinks that the public needs to be educated as to the money spent for a part-time planner would eventually save them money. Some discussion was held about why this item didn’t pass last year. Jere mentioned the many things that have been built since he’s lived in this town and how the need continues to grow. The salary would come from a different budget, David stated.
David says the budget is about 12.5 percent down. Jere said that this might be good since the zoning maps estimate is around $3200 (for the warrant) and probably another $6 or $7,000 for shoreland zoning maps would be included for multiple copies. If this year’s budget could be brought forward, it would cover the estimate that Caroline presented for the zoning maps. Keith thought they would need three estimates in writing. David says that the money is available this year for the maps. He will bring the consultant fees back up to $650. David will get an appt. with the Selectmen and the Budget Committee, and he will notify the entire Board. He tried to look at historical use as well as this year’s budget in particular. Jere thanked David for his time and effort.
Keith commented on the roads that he was going to put on a map. He thought he might get to it this week. Sue Shyler has some of this on revised disc. Krystal has done some work. Krystal thought Wanda might have the aforementioned disc, but she does have a list of the roads accepted since 1999. Dave says there is a map that was done by a private contractor, which is very accurate. He doesn’t know what he used as a database. Keith asked where it was. David says it was never an official map that was solicited but was done by a company in Massachusetts.
· Moved by Keith, seconded by Jim, to adjourn. All voted in favor. Adjourned at 10:11 p.m.
Approval Date: __________________
_________________________________ _______________
Jeremiah Ross, III, Chairman Signature Date
| 
