TOWN OF BUXTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING
March 10, 2008
Recorded by Hilda Lynch
Board Members Present: Harry Kavouksorian, Keith Emery, Jeremiah Ross, III, Caroline Segalla, and David Anderson
Board Members Absent: Barbara Elwell, James Logan
Others Present: Janice and Al Laughlin, J. Hardy, Peter Burns, Susan Chandler, Benjamin Collings, Navan Leng, Arnold Chandler, Jim and Andrea Corbett, Paul Burns, Hannah Dunning, Erin Dorbin, Lawrence A. Miller, Beth Sturtevant, Peng Kem, Bette Robicheaw, Harry Schnur, Jean Harmon, Annie Ashby
Chairman Jeremiah Ross, III, called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
Public Hearing: Andrea & James Corbett of 46 Quail Trail are requesting a conditional use permit to operate an in-home daycare/daycare facility; Tax Map 3, Lot 45-14.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to open the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Andrea Corbett stated that the Corbett’s are applying for a before and after-care daycare program for school-aged children. It will be full-time for vacation and/or snow days and in the summer. They have all of the licenses, have been approved by the State, and are awaiting approval of the Board. The State Fire Marshall has been out to view their property. Caroline wanted to confirm the Board approving for 12 or 24 children. Andrea stated that they’re applying for 12 children at this point. Jere clarified that they would be coming back to the Board when they plan to expand to 24. Jere asked for comments from abutters or the general public, and none were present.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Caroline mentioned that a copy of the State license needed to be on file. Andrea has a conditional license and said she would forward a copy of her license to Fred when she gets it.
Jere read the conditions of approval:
1. All elements and features of this application, all representations made by the applicant concerning the development and use of the property which appear in the Planning Board proceedings are conditions of the approval. .No change from the conditions of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted and approved by the Planning Board.
2. The applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B and 10.
3. The applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Section 11.
4. All outstanding bills will be paid before the permit is issued.
5. A copy of the DHHS license will be on file at the Code Enforcement Office.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by Harry, that based on discussions the applicants are found in compliance with 8.2.B, 10 and Section 11. All voted in favor.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by David, to approve the application based on conditions stated this evening and at previous meetings. All voted in favor.
Public Hearing for: Navan Leng who is continuing the application for the conditional use permit for the Wat Samaki Cambodian Buddhist Temple to be located at 128 Back Nippen Road; Tax Map 4, Lot 43.
· Motioned by Harry, seconded by Keith, to re-open the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Beth Sturtevant and Navan Leng spoke for the Temple. Jere received some info on an updated septic plan, and he confirmed with Fred that this had been received and is sufficient based on Fred’s letter of February 7th. Jere asked about the storm water drainage system and an erosion sediment control plan. Beth stated that they could possibly have these within a couple of weeks, depending on the availability of the engineer they’re working with. Jere referred to the ordinance in 8.2.B.6. He also referred to Section 8.3.B.3 regarding the buffers along the parking lot on each side. Harry asked about the parking lot. Beth stated that they have a whole complete re-design coming to the Board, and they weren’t intending
to be here this evening. They’re not really sure why they’re here.
Jere referred to Bill Plouffe’s letter dated Feb. 26 regarding a reasonable time frame to have info to the Board. Jere asked if the Board wanted to set a time limit, and Caroline thought it made sense so that they would have all of the information to review. Beth stated that at the last meeting they had requested a review of their Dec. 3rd application. Beth stated that the Board wanted to see everything on the drawing, and she didn’t think that was required. She didn’t think it was practical to have everything on the drawing. They’re trying to narrow the list down so they don’t have to keep coming back. Some items they’ve dealt with narratively. Is there something about the application and
what they’ve described that is not acceptable, Beth asked. Jere stated that they haven’t provided all of the necessary provisions of 8.2.B. Jere stated that they had received the updated septic plan, and Beth countered that she didn’t think that was required. Jere clarified that the wastewater plan needed to be included in their packet. Jere asked about the design of a storm water drainage system capable of handling a 25-year storm without adverse affect and the 67-space parking lot--where the runoff was going to go. The Board is looking for the buffering along the property lines. Beth thought they needed more clarification because one neighbor says the buffering is adequate and one neighbor says it is inadequate. The Temple believes the buffering is adequate so doesn’t know where to go with this. Jere read the appropriate section of the ordinance and asked whether Planning Board has waived that, and the Board
members agreed that they hadn’t. Keith stated that Mr. Miller is okay as long as the buffering isn’t disturbed. Keith reminded Beth that Mr. Miller did not want a fence. Keith thinks some additional greenery would be sufficient since some of the lower limbs are gone. He believes there is something in the ordinance referring to two rows of trees two feet apart, staggered. Beth clarified that this would just be to shield the parking lot from the neighbor. For Mr. Miller’s property, the Board could waive the buffering requirement for now; and then if the property were sold, they might need something different. Caroline thought they might need to do the buffering from the start. Beth thought this was confusing, and there was further discussion about the buffering.
Beth asked to go back to 8.2.B.1. Is anything there that the Board has questions about? The Temple doesn’t believe they’ll affect the abutter’s property negatively. The Board doesn’t see an issue with that particular item.
For 8.2.B.2, they’ve specified what they’ll do for a safe roadway. They describe what they’re going to do in the 12/3 application. Fred spoke about his conversation with the traffic engineer for the Southern Maine DOT. The DOT engineer (Jennifer Paul) based her initial evaluation on the fact that it was a church, and Fred explained the differences that the Temple would be from a church. He asked about the traffic impact permit. She indicated that they would not need one. Fred followed up with a letter and asked Jennifer Paul to acknowledge by stamping or initialing it, and he believes this will be sufficient.
For 8.2.B.3, the Temple is not within a FEMA 100-year designated flood plain. The Board agrees.
For 8.2.B.4, the updated amendment would include the revised septic plan, which would increase the size by 30 gal. per day. Jere asked about the removal of solid waste. For special celebrations, Beth stated that the intention is to contract with someone to remove the waste. Dave stated that it was approved by the Town Refuse Manager that they could use the facilities for the normal resident’s fees.
For 8.2.B.6 and 7, these are works in progress, Beth stated.
For 8.2.B.8 Water Supply. There is adequate water for the use of the property as it currently exists. There is a fire hydrant 950 ft. south of the Temple at the intersection of Back Nippen Rd. and Tall Pines Dr. Jere asked about what needs to be done to make the property in compliance with State Fire Code. They’ve met with the State Fire Marshall, and he’s reviewed what is needed. He was clear that there were to be no gatherings until things were taken care of that were required by the State Fire Marshall’s office. The Temple will bring these things into compliance, and Fred would be able to inspect those items.
For 8.2.B.9 All applicable performance standards of Chapter 10 will be met as applicable.
For 10.1, coming in off Back Nippin Rd, there is a paved driveway and apron. There are no plans right now to change any of that.
For 10.2. There is nothing there. The erosion control plan will be developed in concert with a storm water management plan. There will be no explosive materials stored in the Temple. There was a storage area where the lawn mower was stored, and a storage bldg. will house this in the future.
Beth referred to construction in flood zones, and this is not a flood zone.
For 10.6 – Noise. There may be a little music occasionally, but there are no all-day musical events. Jere mentioned them being in compliance with the decibel readings.
For 10.7 Off-street parking. Based on the State Fire Marshall’s visit, the use of the facility will change somewhat. It’s a mixed use—public and private space. The plan right now is that the private residence will be left private and the public space will be the Temple area, which reduces the number of people that will be allowed to occupy the space. They’re going to show a scaled back plan of the parking area. The parking spaces will be reduced. They’re contemplating 50 spaces in the graveled area, and 2 in the handicapped spaces.
For 10.8 - For trees and vegetation removal, there are no plans to remove any – only at the rear of the property for sedimentation control possibly.
For 10.9. Refuse has been agreed upon.
For 10.10 Setbacks and Screening. It sounds like the south side of the property would require some screening. It will likely be near the parking area. Caroline referred to the 10.7.F part of the ordinance. She thought this could be amended or waived by the Board. Keith thought they’d had buffering placed near the parking lot in the past so headlights would hit the buffering first. In this case, he thought they could add to the existing. Beth understands that the neighbor’s house on the south side is constructed quite high. She thought the house and the Temple area will provide a lot of visual barrier to the parking lot. Jere concurred with what she is saying about this. The plan right now is
that between the existing leach field and the future one proposed is to have a visual barrier along that side of the parking lot towards the back. If the home is up high, she doesn’t know what more could be done. Dave mentioned the 6 ft. requirement in the ordinance. Keith mentioned another property with this problem.
Sign – they’ll meet the 10.11 ordinance. The setback is 12 ft.
Soil suitability – they believe that their proposal for wastewater is adequate for daily use and are not sure what more will be required for daily use. Beth mentioned that gravel would have to be brought in for compacted gravel. Jere asked about their engineer providing info about the suitability of wastewater and soil suitability. This is indicated on a form provided by Mr. Toothaker.
10.13 Storm water Mgmt. They’ll get clarification on this, and she referred to Fred talking with them about catching water coming off the roof right away. They’ll get clarification on this.
They don’t anticipate impacting any water quality issues or groundwater in any way.
10.15 - They’re not aware of any archeological sensitivity or historical site.
10.16 – They’re not proposing any exterior lighting other than what is there. They might possibly put a flood on the rear parking lot if someone wanted to put it on. Caroline asked if it could be a full cutoff so that it might not disturb the neighbors. Beth stated, yes.
Harry asked if the application was going to be changed to a mixed use now. Beth says this is not part of a conditional use application anyway. If someone sleeps there overnight, it ratchets up the life safety issues with the Fire Marshall. They’re creating a fire barrier between the resident’s area and the Temple area. The public will not be permitted into the residence. Harry asked where the water closet and restrooms would be located. The water closet for daily use will be in the public space.
Caroline wanted to make sure that they’ve received Fred’s letter of Feb. 26 in which he asked about north arrows and setbacks. Beth stated that this will all be on the new plan. Beth asked about 50 at the side and front and rear. Fred clarified that this was a structural setback. Beth wondered if the parking setback could be closer than 50? Keith and Jere stated that it was 5 ft. Jere asked if the major modification was going to be the construction of the parking lot, and Beth stated that was correct. She could include the info that will be going to the State Fire Marshall’s office. Caroline asked about the shed, and Jere stated that a building permit for the shed could be issued by Fred.
Dave says they’ve been very conscious of the screening along the sides, and he reminds them of the frontage along the road on the plan.
Keith wanted to remind them to place any buffering far enough away from the power lines. Jere wanted to be sure anything planted was not within the town’s right of way.
Beth thought she might be able to pull everything together by next Monday. Jere stated that they would wait until everything was in before putting them back on the agenda, and Beth was okay with that. Jere stated that they appreciated them coming in this evening.
Jere asked for any comments from the public. He asked to limit the items to those just spoken about. Beth talked about the property and its relationship to Back Nippin Rd., and she stated that they’ve corrected this.
Lawrence Miller doesn’t want the buffering waived but wants it as it is written in the ordinance now. If it ceases to exist, he wants it replaced according to the ordinance. When Fred mentioned talking with DOT, he talked about certain aspects of the Temple being different from a church. He wondered if Fred told them about the limited number of occasions when there would be a lot of cars there. He thought this might be a factor that the DOT didn’t think would be a problem in their decision. He wanted to be sure this became a condition if this were the case. If that description in the Feb. 4 letter is still the applicant’s representation of the use, then he’s happy. Jere clarified if he was referring to a
specific number of meetings. Mr. Miller refers to the number of occasions mentioned in the letter. He mentions the Board’s completion of an approval by stating “all representations made by the applicant considering the proposal are understood to be conditions”, and he wants to make sure the applicant is still planning to have only seven meetings as part of the deal. Jere doesn’t think that the number of meetings can be legally limited in his talking with the Selectmen. Caroline mentioned the limitations of the septic system only accommodating a certain number of people. Beth says that they don’t want to limit the events but feels that what has been given to the Board is an adequate representation. Mr. Miller asked if the limitations would be enforceable if the applicant offered it. Beth doesn’t think it’s necessary for them to voluntarily limit the events or to say that there will only ever be three
events with X number of people.
Dave clarified that the MDOT permit would be required if there would be 100 car trips per hour to the Temple. Fred clarified that 100 cars coming within an hour or 50 coming and going within an hour. Jere clarified that the traffic flow wouldn’t be all at once.
Janice Laughlin asked about the buffer for the front of Back Nippen – how far back will the parking lot have to go? Jere clarified that the road is 50 ft wide, so they would have to go 25 ft. back from the center line. Beth stated that the parking area would be back closer to the building.
Jean Harmon asked about the revision of the parking plan and the number of vehicles, will this change the occupancy of the building. Dave asked Beth for a number. Beth said that she thought that there would be allowed 110 people inside the building. Jere thought it was well within the Board’s jurisdiction to limit the number of vehicles on the property at one time.
Caroline mentioned that a condition could be if the scope of the project changes in any way that it does increase traffic, then they may have to apply for a traffic permit. She appreciates the provision of the number of gatherings and numbers of people, but she doesn’t feel they have the right to limit these because they don’t limit these for other churches. Dave enthusiastically concurs. Harry clarifies that they may limit the number of people attending events but not the number of events. Jere also agrees with Caroline regarding any other denominational church and the lack of limitations about gatherings.
· Motioned by Keith to continue the public hearing until they have the additional information they’ve requested, seconded by David. All voted in favor.
· Motioned by Keith, seconded by Jere, to take a 5- minute break at 8:04 p.m.
CEO Report – None this evening.
Approval of minutes:
February 25, 2008
· Motioned by Harry, seconded by Caroline, to approve minutes as written. All voted in favor.
Approval of bills: No bills pending at this time, stated David.
Communications:
~Flyer “Planning for Success…” March 28th workshop in Portland.
~Flyer for writing an effective grant application – March 26th in Augusta.
~Dave mentioned a flyer he received at home which seemed like a great program but the
cost would probably be prohibitive – regarding planning of subdivisions.
~Cutout from Fred – Chicago, Ill., where they were charging $6,000 fee for a Cul de Sac
to offset the cost of 20 years plowing etc. compared to a regular street.
~Letter from Fred – University of Maine Co-operative Ext. Water Quality – Thurs.,
March 1st in Hallowell, Maine – Jere thinks it is free – see Fred or Jere if interested –
need to be registered today
~Letter from the Gorham Town Planner regarding the DOT meeting for the Gorham
Elementary School which has gone by
~Maine Townsman
~Nomination papers for public office are available with the Town Clerk on March 19th.
There are 2 Planning Board positions open for three years.
~Jere drafted a letter for proposals regarding the updating of the existing Town of Buxton zoning maps and shoreland zoning. Jere asked if they wanted to put these out to bid or have SMRPC do this. Keith and Harry thought it should be put out to bid. David thinks the Board should go with SMRPC because they have all of the Town’s data in their files. He thinks the best, easiest and economically efficient program would be to use their services. Keith wants them to do this under the hours that they owe the Town or be credited for these hours. David said this would be a stipulation going in that the Town would expect to be credited for hours due them. Caroline received an estimate from Jamie for $3,000 for zoning and about $6,000 for shoreland.
Caroline was going to get an official quote from Jamie and will follow up with this and try to get it to David and Jere before the Selectmen’s meeting. David mentioned the realignment of the 2008 budget to get this done. Jere thought that the Board might want to put their shoreland zoning out to bid. David thought that the Charter stated that a certain number of bids were required for a project over a certain amount of money.
The Board agreed that they need to provide exact written descriptions that were written into articles and the dates they were done. Jere also stated that they needed the private roads and the newly accepted roads. Harry wanted to know if this would require going out and surveying. David said that descriptions are pretty specific. There was some discussion about how this would be done. David said that Krystal would be helping them with this. From what David understands, SMRPC would accept any materials that the Town can provide. Jere asked if the Board wanted to vote on this or put a proposal out to bid. Jere thought they should have a firm estimate first to see if it’s over the amount that needs to go out to
bid. Keith thought the Charter might specify whether this would need to go out bid. David asked whether the calendar or fiscal year would be the determination for the services of SMRPC. Keith stated that the bill used to come in the first of the year, but when the next fiscal budget came in, the bill was paid. Caroline wanted to know if the dues would be paid based on what was submitted a month or so ago. Keith stated that the Selectmen would decide on this, and others agreed. Caroline will e-mail Roxanne Elfin regarding the questions raised above—calendar/fiscal and amount of local dues.
Jere put down what he thought would be needed for the shoreland zoning maps. Caroline talked about the “text” being started now, but the maps wouldn’t be available until October. Caroline mentioned that all maps could be scanned to put on the website. Jere asked if this could be done, and David said he believes it could be. Harry stated that pdf files could be converted to other formats. Jere asks for history of experience, list of personnel who would be doing the review, insurance and liabilities, budget and time frame in the letters he’s composed. Jere thought he would meet with Krystal and get this approved and sent out. Caroline asked about reviews after a year. Jere stated that the needed to add
that maps must be in compliance with State and Federal regulations. He thought that the peer reviewers should be available to do any revisions. Nothing can be done about the voters accepting the maps.
Other Business:
Budget – Jere and Dave spoke with Peter Burns who doesn’t require their presence at the meeting. The Planning Board is scheduled to meet with the Board of Selectmen tomorrow at 6 p.m. The 2009 budget is a 9.4 percent decrease below the previous one.
Caroline brought info on applications for the Board’s review, and they started with anything related to Article 8 – say something in the ordinance that refers someone to a checklist. She noticed there was no real time limit for reviewing items, which she thinks might drag certain applications. They might need to put something in there. They would need to deem the application complete and then set the public hearing; then the clocks start ticking. State approvals are beyond their control, so there might need to be conditions set on these.
The last page has a submission requirement, which we don’t have. This is similar to what we have in the subdivision regs --little more detail of what should be provided. They might say that “submission items shall include the checklist items attached to the application itself and any other pertinent information that we come up with.”
Waiver of submission requirements – it may be obvious, but it might be appropriate to have something in there.
David likes this part of the application. This would be helpful to people who might be nervous in the public eye. This could be helpful to this person as well as the Board. Jere talked about the Board not having the ability to amend the ordinance. Dave mentioned having this checklist to assist people in preparation of their application. Keith thought the Selectmen were not going to allow any waivers. Caroline mentioned certain things that should be drawn on the application. Caroline thought that the application is really vague, which is why people might be lost. Jere thought the application could be made any way they wanted since there is nothing in the ordinance that even mentions the application. Caroline says that
8.1 mentions a generic application. Caroline thinks it would be beneficial to have time limits. Jere refers to 8.1.C to filing an application; he thinks this gives the Board some leeway as to the type of application they wanted. Caroline mentioned having a checklist attached. Jere stated that they couldn’t change the ordinance without putting it before the voters, but they could change the application.
The checklist (Article 8; Submission Checklist) would be given to the applicant when they come in to run through and see what applies. The first part refers to the application itself. The second part tells what should be on the actual plan. Items in bold Caroline added in. Did the Board find this complete or not? If it wasn’t complete, then it would be forwarded to the applicant so they’d know what was missing. If complete, they could advance to the public hearing. There were some other pages included that she thought would be beneficial. Caroline refers to another form that would be more for Fred so that he could go over this when meeting with the applicant. Caroline was kind of using the form
tonight to see how usable it was for the plan presented; kind of a cheat sheet that the Board could use to determine if everything is complete.
Jere stated that he’d like the Board to look at this information that Caroline presented and make a decision at the next meeting whether to amend the current application. The Board agreed that there was nothing in the ordinance that explains how the application needs to be. The Board agreed that Caroline’s work was outstanding. Some of the people need to be guided through the process, which would make the use of this paperwork very beneficial. Fred or the Board could go over these things with the applicant to determine which items are related to them. The Board thought these should be gotten to Fred, and they’d vote on this at the next meeting. They had a checklist at one time, but it hasn’t been used.
Ordinance Changes
Workshop Monday, March 17th with peer reviewers for the Buxton Elementary School
· Adjournment – Motioned by David, seconded by Caroline, to adjourn at 8:51 p.m. All voted in favor.
Approval Date: __________________
_________________________________ _______________
Jeremiah Ross, III, Chairman Signature Date
| 
