Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 03/09/2009
Town of Buxton
Planning Board Minutes
          March 9, 2009 at 7 pm

Recorded by Krystal Dyer

Board Members Present:  David Savage, Jeremiah Ross, Harry Kavouksorian, James Logan, Caroline Segalla and David Anderson.

Board Members Absent: Keith Emery

Others Present:  Shawn & Pam Randall, May Schumacker, Walter Stinson and Charles Brun with Sebago Technics.

Call to Order: open the meeting at 7:07 pm

Pledge of allegiance


Public Hearing for Jill & Gregory Roy of Raymond are requesting a conditional use permit for
Animal Husbandry for 68 Cemetery Road, under sections 8, 10 and 11.3; Tax Map 2, Lot 36-5.
  • David Anderson motioned to open the public hearing for the Roy property on Cemetery Road, seconded by Caroline Segalla, with a 6 - 0 vote.
Gregory Roy stated their application includes a conditional use permit for an animal husbandry at 68 Cemetery Road.  Requesting to house up to two (2) horses.  David Savage asked about the covering of the manure?  Mr. Roy said in trying to meet the 300-foot setback from abutting wells, they decided to have a covered manure pile and a trailer with a portable garage cover.   They will remove the manure once a week, not to exceed twice a week.  It will depend on the amount of manure the horses produce.   

11.3b – David S. read that the paddock area has to be 100 feet from a house and 300 feet from the abutter’s wells.     Does this mean the 10 thousand sq. ft. paddock area has to be cleaned up everyday?  David is concerned with the length of time the manure is left on site, in individual piles within the paddock area.

Caroline would like the location of the trailer depicted on the plan and indicate it is 300 feet from the wells. The ordinance indicates the manure pile to be 300 feet for an uncovered manure pile, but says nothing about a covered pile.  This was discussed on the site walk.  There is no ordinance, State or local with the specification indicating the amount of land recommended per horse.  Any existing fence or trees to buffer the abutter’s property to the daycare.  Mr. Roy said there is a wooded area between the pasture area to the fenced in play area at the daycare, the pasture measures 285 feet away from the abutters house.  There is a slight mound in the rear or the property also.  Jim is not convinced the trailer is considered to be a permanent structure.  The Board would make a condition for the manure to be stored in the trailer.  The ordinance has provision for an uncovered pile, but not a covered pile.  Jim reads11.3.b – All uncovered manure shall be kept 150 feet from the nearest dwelling other than the applicant's and 300 feet from any body of water or well.  Manure shall not be stored or stockpiled within one hundred (100) feet, horizontal distance.   The section shall not be stored or stock piled, there is a very distinct difference between a horse walking around and dropping vs. a stockpile of manure.   Jere would like to make a condition on the finding of facts to clean pasture out once a week. The applicant was in agreement.
David Savage referencing 11.3.E odor control – will the trailer help to control the odor.  Ms. Roy stated that at once a week it shouldn’t have that big of an odor unless it was parked next to some ones house.   It will be covered on all sides and roof.    No free air flowing through.   The portable garage will be located between the well and the barn and will be well over 300 feet.  Have you talked to the Transfer Station Manager? It is on the web site that the Transfer Station would accept the manure.

Abutter - May Schumacker – lot 36-14 is extremely concerned with the horse manure odor and flies having a negative impact on her daycare business.  Parents will not want to bring their kids to her daycare if it smells like horses.  This is her lively hood.  The fenced in play area is connected to the house in the rear.  Jim asked if abutter Roger Bean has livestock?  Ms. Schumacker did not believe they did but was not sure.  Very flat land can see the back of her house from their house.  
David A. walked a little ways beyond the barn, but there was too much snow, he could not tell what type of flora and fauna existed and if it would give an adequate buffer. Jere stated that one of the provisions of the conditional use is that the applicant has to be in compliance with all sections of the ordinance, specifically 8.2.B and 10.  If an odor problem occurs then the applicant will be in violation of the conditional use permit and the CEO can take the permit away.  Jere lives next to a horse farm with 50 or 60 horses and does have an odor, but he is not sure if there will be a problem with only two (2) horses.  If it becomes a problem then the CEO or ACO will address it with the applicant.   May is concern with losing customers and clients.  

Similar distance and very wide open and clear with no buffer.  Would be surprised if the horse could make that much of a smell.  On the aerial photo the pasture is closer than the applicant.  Jere said there are additives to reduce the amount of flies.  Jere recommends using product in the food, on the ground and help to control the flies.  The Roy’s would be willing to use a fly control.   The applicant does not want the smell or flies either.  Could make another condition.    The Roy’s are very approachable and willing to work with all neighbors and trying to make everyone happy and contact them if there is a problem.  Caroline suggested another condition for the ACO or the CEO to inspect during the summer (august 1st and 31st).   Applicant proof of how it is ruining the livelihood from the abutting property line.  

David A. motioned to close the public hearing for 68 Cemetery Road at this time, seconded by Jim Logan the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.

Harry read the conditions for approval:
  • All elements and features of the plan and all representations made by the applicant concerning the development and use of the property which appear in the record of the planning Board proceedings, are condition of approval.  No changes from the condition of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B and 10.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Section 11.
4.    All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.

Additional conditions:
  • Covered manure pile.
  • Remove all manure once a week.
  • To inspect by Animal Control Officer during the summer  (august 1st and 31st).
  • A fly control program will be administered.
  • Limit to a maximum of 2 horses.
  • Jere motioned to wave the reading of 8.2.B, seconded by David S. the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.  David agreed to waive the reading of 8.2.b to
  • Motioned by Jere, seconded by David S. based on previous discussions that we find the applicant ion in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B, 10 and Section 11, the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.      
  • Motioned by Jere Ross, seconded by David Anderson to approve the application with the conditions stated from this and any other previous meetings, the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.         
Jere encourages the applicant and the abutter talk with their neighbors.

PUBLIC HEARING:  Pam & Shawn Randall of Westbrook are requesting a conditional use permit for Animal Husbandry for 314 Line Road, under Articles 8, 10 and 11.3; Tax Map 2, Lot 36-5.
Harry motioned to open the public hearing for Pam and Shawn Randall’s animal husbandry, seconded by Jere to open the public hearing, the motion passed with a 6- 0 vote.
The Randall’s gave an overview of plan stating they would like 2 horsed, 2 cows, 2 sheep and 2 pigs mostly for 4H purposes.  They have the potential for overlap and may not have them all at once.  David S. How are you going to clean it out?  On the backside there is a half door diagram she forgot to include.  There were no abutters in attendance, but abutter Kristy Howard who attended the site walk, did call and said she is fine with the application.  David S. asked how big is the paddock? Pam said she could not measure the existing fence due to the amount of snow, But the paddock will be on the left side where there are no houses.  Jere asked if they would be willing to implement a fly control program and to contact Longhorn for more information.  David S. asked planning on bringing the manure to the transfer station?  The applicants agree and will contact Greg at the Transfer Station.  Jim suggests a similar set of conditions that was just cited for the previous applicant.  They have one calendar year to get at least one of the listed animals or they would have to come back to the Board and re-apply.

Section 11.3 does not list pigs but they have been part of the discussion.  Caroline questions the distance form the lot that was sol d in the rear.   It is quite a distance away.
Jim motioned to close public hearing for Pam & Shawn Randall, seconded by Jere, the motion passed with a 6-0 vote.

Conditions
Harry read the conditions for approval:
  • All elements and features of the plan and all representations made by the applicant concerning the development and use of the property which appear in the record of the planning Board proceedings, are condition of approval.  No changes from the condition of approval is permitted unless an amended plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B and 10.
  • That the applicant be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Section 11.
4.    All outstanding bills paid before building permit is issued.

Additional conditions:
5.    Covered manure pile.
  • Remove all manure once a week.
  • To inspect during the summer  (august 1st and 31st) ACO or CEO.
  • Fly control program.
  • Limit to a maximum of 2 horses, 2 cows, 2 pigs and 2 sheep.
  • Jere motioned to wave the reading of article of 8.2.b, seconded by David A. the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.
  • Motioned by Jere, seconded by David S. based on previous discussions that we find the applicant ion in compliance with all applicable provisions of Article 8.2.B, 10 and Section 11, the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.      
  • Motioned by Jere Ross, seconded by David A. to approve the application with the conditions stated from this and other previous meetings, the motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.
Narragansett Business Park, LLC pre-application sketch plan for a industrial business park off Route 202 (across from Waterman Road); Tax Map 8, Lot 20A.
Board member Jere Ross apologized to the applicant and the Leavitt’s for the procedure misunderstanding at the previous meeting.  Walter Stinson on behalf of Narragansett Business Park, LLC – The land located on the southerly side of Route 202 (Narragansett Trail) across from the Waterman Road.  The total area of the parcel is approximately 26 acres proposing to develop the 9-acres located in the business/Commercial zone, which extends southerly along route 202, approx 500-feet back. The remaining land in the rear is currently in the rural zone.  They are proposing to develop 3 lots along the access road with a T-turnaround at the end. The road would be constructed to town standards; they have done a complete boundary survey of the 26 acres, showing all the abutters.   Along with the wetland investigation, DEP has been to the site twice.  MDOT entrance permit has been approved at the current location due to site distances on route 202.  A tier-one wetland alteration permit will be needed due to the driveway location, having to cross a wetland to reach the lots.  Soil tests have been performed on each the lot.  All lots will have individual wells and septic.   Mr. Stinson asked what the next step is.  Charles Brown, the surveyor of record for the project.  David S. asked how assessable is the property for a site walk this time of year?  Mr. Stinson suspects to wait for the snow to melt, hopefully only 3 weeks.  Jere mentioned the ordinance requires two test pits per lot for a subdivision.  Harry asked if they have to Subtract out the road from the density.  Mr. Stinson said the road would be built to town standards, having an estimate for the road and improvements included in the packet at $60,000. Additional items needed are; either a performance bond, letter of credit or escrow.  Jere set tentative site walk for Monday April 6th at 6 pm.  
  • Jere motioned to have a tentative site walk scheduled for April 6th at 6 pm for Narragansett Park, LLC, seconded by
Have them on the agenda for April 13th to schedule a site walk
Caroline would like more information on the plan before the next meeting on March 23rd.  Section 13.3 include the building envelopes and etc.    Lot one is very wet is the back eastern corner   Jim would like to see the proposed wetland impact to verify at least 40,000 sq.ft. contiguous upland on each lot as referenced on 9.6 of the ordinance and the dimensional requirements table.  If there is a wetland impact proposed would like all noted on the plan.  Also the soil test pits would like to see the profile logs where submitted.  Mr. Stinson suggested the best parking for the site walk would be right along the edge of route 202.

Jim asked for any info from DEP, would like a copy. There is nothing in writing.  He is also requesting a letter stating there are no vernal pools of significance and indicates what type of wetlands.  Show the second test pit per lot and on small lot we ask for the location of the well exclusion zone.  It is up to the subdivider to be responsible for the drilling of the wells, may want to make the applicant aware.  The Board could also require a hydrogeological assessment and a stormwater management plan.  Does the Board want to request a high intensity soil survey?  There was no response from the Board.

Caroline – On the general notes 4c – The boundary survey was done according to colonial states dated October 23, 1999 do we have to amend the previous subdivision, would like clarification.  Have more in depth information – Any proposals for what will be done with the remaining 16 + acres, wetland impact, etc.   The applicant is petitioning the Town for a zone change.   The result will determine what happens with the request.  Show the trees remaining towards the back. Jere said there is no buffer left in the back corner of the rural zone.  Show buffer requirements for the commercial zone – front and side.  Responsible for all applicable provisions for a 13 etc…    If the zone change is approved should there be location for fire protection plan, the applicant will have to amend the subdivision if remaining land is developed.  

Jim feels the medium intensity verification done by a professional would be adequate for this type application.  More information is best.  A possible ordinance change may be required.  Well exclusion zones should be shown on the plan and subdivider is responsible for the drilling of wells.  Mr. Stinson said one of the advantages of a high intensity soil survey is that it calls out all the drained areas.   A site-specific wetland study which, provides the wetland information required by the current ordinance.  They need to do one additional test pit per lot while there; they will take additional boring to satisfy the medium intensity.  Jim agrees this would be satisfactory, since the ordinance does not make it a requirement.  Caroline would like to see the setbacks on the plan also.
David A. indicates the plan would have to have an actual hammerhead at end of road rather than the flat end of road or temporary turn around.  Provide the calculations and building area to show all impervious space on the plan.  The parking will depend on the type of business.  All buildings will have to come before the board if larger than 2,000 sq. ft.  Caroline asked if the board can make a condition for each applicant to come before the board allowing them the review each business and how the elements lighting, drainage, driveways, etc. that would affect the abutters.  As is it would be leaving it all to the technical details to the code enforcement office.  Now if there is a significant change it has to come back to the Board.   Harry said they had check with town council if the Board can condition them to come back for Planning Board review.  

CEO Report:  not in attendance

Approval of Minutes:  February 23, 2009 as amended Jere motioned to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by David A. the motion passed with a 5 – 1 vote with Caroline abstaining.

Approval of Bills:   
  • Motioned by David A., seconded by Jim to pay Portland Press Herald in the amount of $20.01 for the Martin application.  The motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.
To pay SMRPC for review of shoreland zoning and mapping:
  • Motioned by David A., seconded by David S. to pay SMRPC for a total of $2,630.00.  The motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.
Communications:
  • York County Town Officials and planners – water resources meeting on March 16th.
  • Maine Townsman March
Other Business:  
  • Section 13.2 Submission of Plans. Discussed previously at the workshop on March 2nd.
  • Discuss town report submission
  • Jim motioned to approve the town report submission, seconded by Jere.  The motion passed with a 6 – 0 vote.
  • Review proposed ordinance changes
  • Motioned by Jim, seconded by Jere to accept the ordinance revisions as amended to and Send to town attorney for a legal interpretation on the proposed zoning ordinance.  6-0
Caroline stated the Board of Selectmen need to reconvene the comprehensive planning committee.  She would also work on an ongoing file for ordinance changes.

Nomination papers are available at the town office on March 18th, 2009.  There are three positions available, two 3-year positions and one two-year position.

Adjourn by:  motioned by David S, seconded by Jere to close the meeting at 9:30 p.m., the vote was unanimous.    

Approval Date:  ____3/23/09______________


_________________________________                  _______________
    Harry Kavouksorian, Chairman               Signature Date