Town of Buxton Planning Board
Minutes
Monday, October 27, 2014 at 7 p.m.
Recorded by Hilda Lynch
Public Hearing:
Board Members Present: Chad Poitras, Jeremiah Ross, III; Keith Emery, Christopher Carroll, Mark Blier, Chris Baldinelli, and Lawrence Curtis
Absent: None
Others Present: Henry Huntley, Fred Farnham, Angela Michie, James Michie, Joseph Iaconeta, Cliff Emery, David Anderson, Nathan Schools, Chris Nadeau, Matt C., Merlyn McLaughlin, Nancy Pierce, Cliff Thomas, Ruth Snyder
Chairman Keith Emery called the October 27, 2014, meeting of the Buxton Planning Board together at 7:01 p.m.
Keith announced the Public Hearing for Zaremba Group, LLC, requesting a conditional use permit for a proposed 9,100 sq. ft. Dollar General at 422 Narragansett Trail. A portion of Tax Map 5, Lot 47.
- Motioned by Chris B., seconded by Chris C, to open the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Chris Nadeau from Nobis Engineering presented. They’re proposing a 9100 sq. ft. general store. They have a 2.25-acre site split from a 16-acre site. They’re proposing less parking - a number of spaces that will be grassed over. They could take the topsoil off in the future if needed. They’re preparing 36 paved spaces. The store will be open from 8 a.m. to 9 - 10 p.m. The hours may be adjusted on Sunday. The site has private water and a well located next to the store; the septic will be located under the parking lot. They will have storm water run into the wetlands behind the site.
The building is pre-engineered metal. The lighting will stay on at night at the sides, but the
sign will turn off about a half hour after closing.
They’ve received a permit for the driveway from M.D.O.T. The driveway has been moved to the south from the previous meeting, and the M.D.O.T. has approved. They have a wide area for a large tractor trailer truck to come in once a week. There is a trash enclosure out back, and they’ll have propane tanks there, also. They’ve talked about the Fire Chief’s recommendation that they sprinkle the building. Chris N. has a letter regarding the discussion of the Fire Chief with John from Zaremba Group. John offered some alternate solutions, but the Chief did not change his
recommendation. Matt of Nobis Engineering is here to answer questions if there are any. They’re still not proposing to install sprinklers as it is not required by the ordinance.
Chad asked if there had been issues of fire hazards. Matt said that any issues they’ve had, have been able to be answered by the local fire departments. They don’t keep much in the way of hazardous materials in their building.
Keith asked for comments from abutters:
Nancy Pierce said that she and two of her sisters own an abutting property. She doesn’t see why Buxton needs this type of store. She finds the building to be very unappealing for the Town. She takes pride in the town’s historical aesthetics. Should this building go forward, she believes there are too many parking spaces. She took a walk down back, and there is a brook that runs through the wetland. She doesn’t see how it could handle any more water than it currently does. Chris N. says the detention basin is designed to
control runoff for a 25-year storm before it is released into the wetlands. They’re required to get a storm water permit from the State which they’ll be doing once they have approval from the Board. Jere clarified a point regarding the permit. They can’t allow any more runoff to abutting properties than there currently is.
Keith asked if Fred had anything: He did not.
Keith asked for comments from the public:
The Fire Chief Nathan Chief referenced his October 7 letter of recommendations. His recommendations will not change. He understands the Board’s position as of the last meeting. The fire suppression system which triggers a fire alarm system is not currently planned for the building. It does have a duct system, Matt mentions. By code, this doesn’t necessarily fit. Nathan reviewed his recommendations that had been given to the Board. He has outlined all of these issues. There would be some significant costs to fight a fire in
this building. He referenced a fire that took place in Texas in a Dollar General store. He referenced another in October. The Chief felt a small town like this wouldn’t have the resources to fight a fire in a building like this. There is nothing to provide protection to this building. It is more about the contents of the building that they would be expected to engage, and the fire fighters could die, the Chief says. He has information regarding the costs of insurance with or without sprinkling.
Mark asked Chief Schools to give him information on how a fire would be fought. The Chief says that if it is occupied, their efforts would go towards rescue. He has 4,000 gallons of water coming out of the Bar Mills Station. The shortest response time is 13 min., so they’d be there in about 15 min. If the fire takes hold fast, the roof could come in quickly. He’s not going to put his people in a building that is replaceable. He mentions the location of various water supplies and says it would be a day-long operation - tying up a lot
of time, people and money. Mark asked what would be different with a sprinkler system. The Chief says the water would generally put out the fire. They’d shut off the sprinkler and secure the building. It is a huge benefit for them not to have to go to a large building fire. Joe Iaconeta’s property is across the street. He is concerned about too much water. He points to the detention pond on the map of the Dollar General property that he asks about for holding water and how much water it would hold. Chris N., after some research, says the pond referred to is not designed to hold a lot of water; but it would hold between 150,000 and 200,000 gallons.
- Motioned by Jere, seconded by Larry, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor.
Larry mentions the checklist in the packet today with four items that have not been received. Chris N. brought in plans after talking with Krystal on Thursday afternoon. Jere reviewed the items, and Chris said he had provided all of them this evening. Keith says they have a driveway waiver (permit). One of the conditions is that they’ll have to close off the old driveway, and that will be done.
Keith asked what conditions they would need. These are possible considerations:
5. Something inside the building that would allow for a fire alarm.
6. DEP Permit
Chris B. asked about an alarm for fire. Matt said that the strobes would go off. Jere asked about a security system. Matt said it could be monitored by a security company. They could talk w/Dollar General about involving the security company.
Chad does have a lot of concerns about the building not being sprinkled. To not address one of the town official’s concerns is of concern to him. He wants to have a condition for sprinkling and mentioned Dunkin’ Donuts‘ plans for a sprinkler system. Keith says that the ordinance does not require it for this building and Dunkin‘ Donuts agreed to do this voluntarily. The Fire Chief spoke again because he says the Board can agree to an internal alarm but not to a sprinkler system? He is getting a little bit of a mixed message. Chris
C. asked if the building materials were something of concern. The Chief says it was the materials IN the building that are of concern - not the building material.
Keith asked about polling the Board in regard to a sprinkler system. Larry says yes, Chris B. said yes, Jere says yes, Chad says yes, Mark says no (because the ordinance doesn’t require it), Chris C says no for the same reason and Keith says it falls under the State recommendations, which say that this building isn’t big
enough to require sprinkling. He doesn’t think they can be made to do it. Jere says they can contact town counsel to see if they can require it. Chris B. says that if they can’t get it sprinkled, why can’t they have some water on the site - a storage tank and dry hydrant.? Jere says it’s still going to take the Fire Dept. 13 min. to get there. Jere says that, in the future, there will be more pressure on the town’s resources. Keith asked if they could put this off in order to consult town counsel. They could re-open the public hearing.
- Jere motioned, seconded by Larry, to reconsider closing the public hearing. All voted in favor.
- Jere motioned, seconded by Larry, to continue the public hearing to research the Town attorney‘s opinion. All voted in favor.
Fred would like to know if there were to be a sprinkler system, what would be the cost for this size of store? Matt says it is tough to speculate because it hasn’t been designed. Jere asked if this could be a deal breaker. Matt said it could be, and John would have to speak with Dollar General. Wells, pumps, tanks and things like that could be $100,000. He would go back to the reason for the Code. The 12,000 sq. ft. threshold is what has been agreed to. This is a building that Dollar General would own.
Stephen Heroux, a member of the public, says he is by no means a public safety expert. He mentions a fire wall and fire-rated ceiling panels as options.
The meeting would be continued in two weeks, on November 10, 2014.
CEO Report: No report
Approval of Minutes:
October 27, 2014 -
- Motioned by Jere, seconded by Chris B., to accept the minutes as amended. All voted in favor.
Approval of Bills: none
Communications:
DEP notice for the Hannaford complex for Dunkin’ Donuts
Certificate of Good Standing for Old Port Realty
Build Maine - approach to growth in Maine on November 5 - 6 - 8:30 p.m.; November 6 - 7:30 a.m. - 4:15 p.m. - Cost is $55
Saco River Corridor Commission - 2 applications: Peter and Darcy Leavitt for a garage with apartment above and Patricia Packard requesting an amendment to construct a 6.8” x 36 ft. addition on the Salmon Falls Rd. - the meeting was held on October 22
Other Business:
~Review proposed “Fire Protection Ordinance” with Chief Schools.
Chief Schools mentioned the copies that were given to Board members. The zoning ordinance is the only place that references fire protection in the Town for subdivisions. What he is proposing is in line with what other communities have. He doesn’t have the dollar figures for ISO ratings. He mentions some figures he has provided. Insurance Services Office (ISO) sets ratings. Class 10 has no organized fire department. Buxton is a Class 9.
Do insurance companies base their homeowners insurance on the ISO ratings? The Chief says they do. Chris B. asked if he would propose bringing the standards up to at least the towns around us. The Chief says his proposal would cover everything. Scarborough and Gorham have ordinances very close to this. Any buildings currently up would not be affected unless making a substantial change in the building.
Chris C. says that the Dollar General would be 9100 sq. ft. so wondered how this ordinance would affect them. The Chief mentioned cubic feet which would trigger a building the size of the Dollar General. Mark asked about a two-story colonial home with a basement as a single-family home. Nathan says it would not require a sprinkler system. He gave examples. Mark asked about the average cost, and Nate did not have that in front of him. Keith says that if a developer wants to sprinkle a building, they wouldn’t have to provide a storage tank.
There are minimum changes to Article 8. Article 6 - under building additions - a single resident home doesn’t trigger a sprinkler system. An apartment building renovation of over 50% would trigger the sprinkler system. Jere asked about the ISO rating in Scarborough. Nathan believes it is a 3, and he spoke about all of the things that go into it. Mark asked if the NFPA has these standards. If so, why are you coming in and saying “no” that this building (Dollar General) needs to be sprinkled? Their ceiling is 12,000 ft. They don’t take into account everything that is put into the building, current fire trends, safety concerns to the public, and up-to-date information. ISO is driven by the industry. Jere says that in a perfect world everything
would be sprinkled, and there is a need to strike a balance. Nathan says his job is to come here and tell them the effect on his department.
Jere asked if he knew the process for the zoning amendments. In April or March, they’ll have some workshops to go over the changes. The Board will make a decision whether to put them on the ballot in June. If they’re forwarded by the Planning Board, they will be put on the ballot for June. Keith says they may ask him to come back. Jere thanks the Chief for the work he’s done so far.
~Review proposed ordinance amendment from Board of Appeals Chairman Stephen Heroux.
Stephen Heroux addresses two ordinances. State Statute requires a change for 4.2.F.3. To summarize, it’s an ordinance allowing boundary relief to residences with pre-existing properties (pre 1976), when the ordinance came into effect, can propose a boundary change and meet the requirements. As the Board of Appeals, they take those factors into consideration in making the best decision to re-configure these lots. If you had two or more contiguous, non-conforming lots (non-conforming lots of record), they wouldn’t be absorbed into a single lot if there were two separate uses on the two lots. The minimum lot size is 20,000 sq. ft. Waste water disposal standards would have to be met. He mentions some cases that have come before the Board of Appeals. The
recommendation brought forward is to split the sections of Article 4, and he went over them.
Keith’s issue is that if you own two lots side by side and nonconforming, they need to stay separate. He believes there always will be nonconforming lots. Steve says they don’t have to be absorbed if there are two principal uses on the contiguous, non-conforming lots.
Chris C. asked if it had to be a residence. Steve says no, if it is two separate uses. The key word is “principal use” - one use is completely different from the other. Keith clarified that this is only if they meet the minimum lot size. Chris C. asked how many potential properties in town would be affected by this. Steve says it is just a clarification of the wording.
The Board of Appeals have a letter before them - a piece of it. It addresses through State Statute, the only governing body that can make any changes in setbacks, boundaries, etc. is the Board of Appeals. The only place he’s found anything is in 9.6 - outlines the various zones, lot sizes, setbacks, etc. Under footnotes, the CEO is allowed to give a reduction in 4 and 5. He gave some examples about how it would need to be addressed. It is the Board of Appeals’ opinion that it should be more specific. Jere asked if they eliminated CEO and put Board of Appeals in, would that work?. They’d be better off saying they want X amount of space for a small building. There are three different definitions for “accessory buildings” so some clarification may be
needed.
They’ve looked through the book as individual Board members and these are the things they’ve come up with. Larry asked about removing those two footnotes altogether? This might be a possibility. Steve thinks a specific number might be needed. Keith says they may call him back when they’re ready to discuss these possible changes at length. Jere says they appreciate Steve’s work.
Attendees may address the Board on the evening’s business:
Cliff Emery, Selectman. Did they get the copy of the draft of the changes for the road acceptance? The Board has not. Jere asked for a synopsis. Cliff would not like to have any more roads built until they upgrade their standards. When he saw two big pieces of land with the “under contract” signs on them, it triggered him to look into this. He pulled up Saco, Scarborough and Gorham’s requirements. He didn’t realize how “out of whack” ours was. He’s spent some time going through them and what makes sense for
Buxton. Keith says they can put it on the Agenda for the next meeting. There was some discussion about what is needed for the construction of roads.
Keith will mention the checklist to Krystal. They’d like to have it complete when they set the public hearing. They thought there were four things that could have been missing tonight.
- Motioned by Chris B., seconded by Larry, to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m. All voted in favor.
Approval Date: _11/10/14_
________________________ ___________________
Keith Emery, Chairman Date
[type or paste agenda here]
| 
