X N/A div>
Conclusion of Law:
6B. 8 Fences and walls
X N/A ves, breakwaters, causeways, marinas, bridges more than 20 feet in length, and permanent uses projecting into fresh water bodies from normal high water level shall require Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board. The Planning Board may issue guidelines to insure compliance with state laws.
X N/A sp;
6B. 10 Home occupations and home offices Home occupations and home offices (except those of a temporary or casual nature) shall require a permit from the Code Enforcement Officer to insure compliance with the following standards: …
X N/A bsp;
6B. 11 Lots X N/A
1. Lots abutting more than one road …
bsp; ;
Conclusion of Law: Access from the shore to the marine structure will / will not be developed on soils appropriate for such use and measures will / will not be taken to minimize soil erosion both during and after construction.
2. The location of the marine structure shall not unreasonably interfere with access to existing marine structures or points of public access, nor shall it unreasonably interfere with the use of other marine structures and landing places.
Findings of Fact(s):
Conclusion of Law: The location of the marine structure will / will not unreasonably interfere with access to existing marine structures or points of public access, and it will / will not unreasonably interfere with the use of other marine structures and landing places.
3. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on significant wildlife habitats or unique natural areas including, but not limited to: fin fish and shellfish fisheries, salt marshes, eel grass beds, shorebird and nesting habitats, critical fish spawning and nursery areas.
Findings of Fact(s):
Conclusion of Law: The marine structure will / will not be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on significant wildlife habitats or unique natural areas.
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Interference with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters shall be minimized during the construction and subsequent use of the marine structure.
Findings of Fact(s):
Conclusion of Law: Interference with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters will / will not be minimized during the construction and subsequent use of the marine structure.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed so as not to encroach upon officially designated navigation channels.
Findings of Fact(s):
Conclusion of Law: The marine structure is / is not designed, and will / will not be sited, and constructed so as not to encroach upon officially designated navigation channels.
___ _______ _______________________________________________________
6. The Planning Board shall request comment from the Harbor Master in cases where the applicant proposes to build a marine structure in an officially designated mooring area.
N/A X Applicable – comment requested
7. The marine structure shall comply with the dimensional limits listed below. The facility shall be no larger than necessary to accomplish the purposes for which it is designed. Its size and construction shall not change the intensity of the adjoining land use, and by no means shall exceed a total distance of more than one-third the width of the water body, when proposed for coastal or inland waters. Notwithstanding the dimensional limits below, in areas where the horizontal distance from the normal high water line to the mean lower low water is in excess of 160 feet, no permanent structure will be allowed seaward of the normal high water line.
Marine Structure Dimensional Requirement
Max. length of entire marine structure (i.e. pier, ramp and float combined) 225 feet 1
Maximum length of all permanent structures 150 feet
Maximum length of all non-permanent structures (i.e. ramp and float) 75 feet 2
Maximum width of pier walkway 6 feet
Maximum width of ramp 6 feet
Maximum square footage of floats 400 square feet
Max. square footage of floats for communal marine structures (see 8 and 9 below) 800 square feet
1 Or length needed to obtain six feet of depth of water at mean lower low water, whichever is less.
2 In cases where no permanent structure is proposed the applicant will be permitted to install a ramp and float extending no further than 75 feet into the water body.
Findings of Fact(s):
Conclusion of Law: The marine structural dimensional standards have / have not been met. The facility is designed for the purpose of . The facility will / will not be larger than necessary to accomplish the purposes for which it is designed. Its size and construction shall not change the intensity of the adjoining land use
8. If two or more shorefront lot owners choose to share a communal marine structure the applicant may request additional square footage of floats.
X N/A sp;
10. There shall be no more than one marine structure on a lot.
X N/A bsp; Availability of public sewer. All plumbing systems within two hundred (200) feet of a public sewer shall be connected to public sewer where available in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The Planning Board may waive this requirement if all other standards of Section 6A and the applicable standards of Section 6B are met.
X N/A
not met
6B.17 Sign Regulations
3. Signs Permitted: Temporary Signs:
X N/A ;
4. Signs Permitted: Permanent Signs:
X N/A ; stered No more than two (2) unregistered and/or uninspected vehicles may be stored on any residential lot, unless said vehicles cannot be viewed from any public way.
X N/A 0000" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">September 22, 2008:
Page 1, line 34 should read to the effect that “South of Jock Williams there is a small cove between the two points.”
Page 1, Line 42 – “waterfowl” should be one word.
Page 3 “ACE” should read “AEC”
Page 5, Line 3 should mention access for private boats.
Page 6, Line 14 should not have a question mark near “15’”.
Page 9, Line 22 reads “proposed use will not cause nuisances or”. It was suggested to cross out “or” and include “as”
Page 17, Line 22 a period is missing.
Mr. Tracy noted that the Board merely has to make the Minutes defensible and members should not dwell on such errors as punctuation or spelling.
By unanimous consensus the Minutes of September 22, 2208 were approved as amended, 5-0.
Ms. Reilly noted that these Minutes were uploaded to the Town website. In light of that, it was important they were grammatically correct and spelled correctly. Mr. Tracy felt the Board Members were not responsible for their writing, and maintained the Minutes only needed to be legally defensible.
October 27, 2008:
Mr. Andrews noted he had reviewed this set of Minutes and found nothing of substance requiring amending. By unanimous consensus of the Board Members who attended the October 27th meeting the Minutes of October 27, 2008 were approved as submitted, 3-0.
November 11, 2008:
Mr. Andrews noted he had reviewed this set of Minutes and found nothing of substance requiring amending. By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the November 11th meeting the Minutes of November 11, 2008 were approved as submitted, 4-0.
January 12, 2009:
Page 3, Line 28 and 29 it was agreed to remove that sentence.
Page 2, Line 19, it was agreed to strike that particular paragraph.
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the January 12th meeting the Minutes of January 12, 2009 were approved as amended 4-0.
January 26, 2009:
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the January 26th meeting the Minutes of January 26, 2009 were approved as submitted 3-0.
March 9, 2009:
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the March 9, 2009 meeting the Minutes of March 9, 2009 were approved as submitted 4-0.
March 23, 2009:
It was requested to include the fact that Mr. Andrews was acting secretary in Ms. Reilly’s absence for the March 23rd meeting.
Page 20, Line 27 should real “hotel”, not “motel”.
Page 22, Line 33 it was requested that a referral be made to the taped Minutes to determine whether the hour noted as acceptable for quiet was as stated in the Minutes.
Page 21, Line 45 and 46 it was agreed to add the sentence “Mr.Tracy interjected this may be due to futility the neighbors felt”.
Page 23, Line 20 the word “or” should be “and”.
Last Page, Line 15 it was agreed the sentence should read, “Mr. Andrews added that if measured by number of neighborhood complaints that would make the restaurant owners hostage to the other neighbors.”
By unanimous consent of the Board members who attended the March 23rd meeting the Minutes of March 23, 2009 were approved as amended 4-0.
December 15, 2008:
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the December 15th meeting the Minutes of December 15, 2008 was approved as submitted 4-0
January 22, 2009:
It was noted that “Patty” should be spelled “Patti”.
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the January 22nd meeting the Minutes of January 22, 2009 were approved as amended 3-0.
March 16, 2009:
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the March 16th meeting the Minutes of March 16, 2009 were approved as submitted 5-0.
April 8, 2009:
Page 1, Line 22 Ms. Reilly had meant to question not Mr. Martin’s availability for the ordinance work, but whether he had already completed some of the work being discussed. The sentence would be rewritten to reflect that.
Page 1, Line 37 and 38 should read “to all of the property within the shoreland zone”
Page 2, Line 6 the word “scribe” should replace the word “secretary”.
By unanimous consensus of the Board members who attended the April 8th meeting the Minutes of April 8, 2009 were approved 5-0.
Mr. Bright inquired as to whether the Board of Selectmen had approved the expenditure of the shoreland zoning ordinance rewrite. Ms. Keene noted they had tabled the decision until a Board member and the CEO could be present to defend the decision. Mr. Bright requested Ms. Keene try to get the item onto the next Board of Selectman agenda. Mr. Clunan inquired as to who on the Board of Selectman was the Planning Board liaison. Mr. Bright did not know of any liaison for the Planning Board.
Ms. Keene inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to set any further meeting dates to work on the shoreland zoning ordinance. Mr. Bright suggested waiting till after the Selectman’s meeting and feedback from that.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Bright moved, with Mr. Clunan seconding, to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
