Regular Meeting
The regular meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM.
Members present were Chairman Rick Micklon, Vice Chairman Stan Brett, Dan Peaco, Win Webster, Maureen Howard, Alternate Mike McAllister, & Recording Secretary – Alternate Shirley Hamilton
Board had a quorum.
April 19th, 2005 Regular Board Meeting - Secretary’s Report: Motion to accept minutes as amended. DP/SB Unanimous.
May 3rd, 2005 Workshop Meeting - Secretary’s Report: Motion to accept minutes
DP/SB -Unanimous.
Discussion & Comments from Public:
1. None.
Shoreland Zoning Applications
1. Kathryn Sahrbeck, represented by husband Bruce Sahrbeck, U8, Lot 2:
Applicant seeks approval of summer camp with bedroom and bath on second floor. Camp also needs a roof, with an increased pitch. This will not change the footprint of the house. This would increase the camp by 16% area and 26% volume. RM asked CEO if he thought that this application would present any problems. RS said none. MH made a motion for approval of application to make an addition to the camp as proposed. RM asked for any discussion. DP asked if any improvements had been made on the camp before? Applicant stated 18 years ago some work was done. RS said it was before 30% rule. Unanimous Approval.
2. Robert Guy – R6, Lot 43 (Crooked River on West Andrews Hill Road)
RM asked if there had been a cement slab put in for the garage, prior to permit approval process. Robert Guy stated that Richard Bean said that if he could get it poured to go ahead. He only had a small window of opportunity, so he had the slab poured. RM stated the regulation is that anyone who’s within the shoreland zone must come before the Planning Board. Outside of the shoreland zone they only have to go to the CEO. RM asked for the missing elevations, which were to be brought before the PB prior to approval. Mr. Guy provided hand drawings to PB. RM asked the CEO if he had seen these plans? CEO stated, “ No, I did not get anything, this is the first I have seen of this plan. The permit fee will be doubled because work had started without permit
approval.” Motion to approve the application to build a garage in the flood zone. MH/SB. Discussion: RM stated he would be more concerned if this was raftered, but the roof is an engineered truss and he feels ok with the hand drawn plans. Unanimous approval.
Residence Based Business
1. None.
Site Plan Applications
1. Dan Simoneau – R7, Lot 16
CEO stated that Dan left a message that he would not make the meeting.
.
Subdivision Application
1. None.
Miscellaneous
1. None.
Discussion & comments from board:
1. RM asked RS if Oxford County Soil & Water Conservation District had assisted Garry Dyer with an Erosion Control Plan for a project he brought to the board last month. RS stated that yes they had and DOT did come and clean the drainage, culverts etc., as there was some backup with the water. RM stated that the stakes should be checked because they are not staked properly. RS agreed to site check.
2. MH stated that she would like to visit an approved site within the shoreland zone, regarding the site conditions and learn about Erosion Control Plans being utilized on-site. She stated she would learn a lot if someone could explain what is going on with this site. More discussion took place about erosion control measures and MH wanted to know if PB could use these for learning purposes. PB agreed to look into this as a future training workshop.
3. PB discussed the Land Use Application with RS. RS input was that on page two is the total volume and cubic feet. They mean the exact same thing. Tanya needs to strike the line after cubic feet on page two of the “Town of Otisfield Land Use Application. Other than that, CEO was fine with this application.
4. RM asked if Ordinance Committee (Maureen Purdy and Win Webster were present to discuss)
had met and discussed the “overhead vs buried electrical service”. Discussion: There should be a memo coming to the Planning Board. The consensus from the Ord. Com. was for “one pole in the right of way and one pole on the applicant’s property”. The first (and only) pole outside of the right of way can be installed, but then the wire shall go underground to the building. Continued discussion about “why the ordinance was instituted to begin with”. SB said that the reason was for safety. There would not be a criss-cross of wires when emergency vehicles arrived and that he always felt the ordinance was “one pole and then you had to go underground to the house”. RM stated that we need it clearly defined what is going
to happen after that one pole on the property?
5. An e-mail submitted for public record, from RM to Dan Simoneau, see attached. RM would like all of the Board members to treat any and all attempts to discuss any applications in this way.
6. The letter that the PB agreed to have RM write to the Board of Selectmen; subject definition of “Driveway” in the Town Road Ordinance has been submitted for public record.
7. SB mentioned that the copies of the applications that applicants brought when they came before PB has to be 9 copies. SB asked if this is written anywhere. RM said no, it is currently an oral policy only, and should be a written one. CEO and PB Secretary tell the applicants they should do it so we can approve their application without postponement or rescheduling another month. PB feels that this is standard operating procedure and all applicants shall abide until further notice.
8. RM noted that we did not have any Residence Based Business Applications on the agenda, but he thinks PB needs to look at the procedures. Discussion between RM and WW about how to proceed. CEO could have the application and decide if they have to go to the Planning Board. WW said that all applications should come to the Board; CEO could make the recommendations to the Board. DP asked if PB hasn’t always gotten these applications before the Board? RM thinks that sometimes the applicant gets approval without going before the Board. SB, RM and DP thought it would be good if they came before the Board so that there are records kept, in case
there is a problem in the future. SB stated that we have to establish guidelines. RM stated that we have no “list” or records of any businesses in the home. WW stated that we should have only the CEO handing out information, where is the power, with the CEO or the Board? RM stated that he thinks this is good discussion and said PB needs to get all this out in the open on procedures. WW wants all requests to come before the Board. RM stated that the CEO would give out the Home Based Business applications with instructions that they fill out and bring it back to the CEO and then he decides when they will go before the Board for review of application and details if application applies. RM stated that PB should put Residence Based Business on next workshop meeting.
9. Memo from WW to Selectman, Mark Cyr was submitted to RM. RM read out loud & Board submitted into public records. .
10. Upcoming Dates – Next workshop June 7, 2005
Next meeting June 21, 2005 at 7:00PM.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. DP/WW – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Recording Sec.
Approved by: ____________________________________
Rick Micklon, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
Approved on: ___________________________________
| 
