 |
Regular Meeting
The regular meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM.
Members present were Chairman Rick Micklon, Dan Peaco, Win Webster, Maureen Howard, Alternate Mike McAllister, & Recording Secretary – Alternate Shirley Hamilton. Stan Brett was absent, Board moved Shirley Hamilton up as a voting member.
Board had a quorum.
May 17th, 2005 Regular Board Meeting - Secretary’s Report: Motion to accept minutes. DP/WW Unanimous.
June 7th, 2005 Workshop Meeting - Secretary’s Report: Motion to accept minutes as amended.
DP/MH -Unanimous.
Discussion & Comments from Public:
1. None.
Shoreland Zoning Applications
1. Gary Saucier R5, lot 33/1 Evergreen Drive on Moose Pond. Wants to build a garage.
RS stated everything seems to meet code. RM asked about soil and erosion control plan, silt fencing w/ hay bails, you’ve gone beyond 100’ setback, why is that? Gary stated he was directed that way, that is what they wanted when they built the house. RM “You’re going beyond the set- back”. Gary stated they wanted him to do that. Suggestion to move that outside the 100’ setback. RM are you doing the excavation? Gary stated that he was not, but that the Day Boys would be. RM explained the burden of compliance is still on
the applicant. He stated he wanted to impress upon Gary that you are protecting the resource. RM stated if Gary had any questions, he could get them back to RS. WW asked if this was a garage, what will the second floor be? Gary stated it will be for storage. Board asked about plumbing. Gary stated no plumbing in garage, just electricity. The garage is bigger then the house. Earl Dickinson will be building it. Moose Pond Shores. Motion to accept the application as presented before the board. DP/MH – Unanimous.
.
Residence Based Business
1. Verna Chamberlain – R8, Lot 5C, Home based business’s (Peaco Hill)
Verna explained all she will be doing is assembling different types of metals into different lawn and garden sculptures. She will be selling on ebay or on consignment. RM, Will the metal it’s fabricated from be visible from the road? Verna stated it would not be visible from the road. RM, Will you accept people seeing your sign and pulling in? Verna said if someone sees the sign, yes they can come in. She stated she has an Ebay address for displaying the items. If things progress they may go out on consignment. RM, do you consider this retail? Verna, not sure how to classify. Verna stated they will have a sign, but they will not be inviting the general public to come in and view. She said she would basically be selling everything off site. Might have several things to sample. RM, if someone puts up
a sign, board was concerned about general public going on that property. You might not realize people will come to property. You may create hardship on yourself. People may just drive by, view and stop in. WW asked if only the sign will be visible. Verna said yes. RM are there any chemicals involved? Verna said no, nuts and bolts for assembly only. No hazardous waste, MH will there be noise? It will be cut inside garage. Verna explained it will be battery-powered lighting and it will only shine on the sign. She has not purchased lighting yet. DP any employees? Verna stated, No, just myself and I consider myself the owner, not an employee RM stated he thinks she does have room for off street parking. Verna agreed. Board asked if she would mind striking out N/A on question # 8. Verna said she had no problem with that. RM will you dispose of any waste? Verna said yes if we have waste, but we don’t anticipate any waste. MH, if you did it would go to Casco transfer station? Verna
said yes. DP, how did you come up with the name? Verna stated, we live on Peaco Hill Road and if I had said Peaco Hill Junk Works, she didn’t want someone saying there is a junkworks on Peaco Hill. She stated she didn’t want anyone in the town to think that it was the association. It is spelled differently, Peeko not Peaco. SH questions parking, number of vehicles. MH thinks that if she didn’t have the space, parking might be a problem. RS each business is going to be different from one another. Address it as it comes up. Site plan Review. RM reason for site plan review is for other applications that may come before the board in the future. In the interim, we want the applicants to all be treated the same. Under site plan review, we should administer this ordinance and the purpose of it. RM; Reviewing this application, is there any part of the site plan review we need to review? WW: no need to have site plan review, because there is no problem. MH agrees. Verna
has one question, she’s confident about the business but wonders if the town will have a permit that will show the applicant went to PB and it was granted. RM to this date, we have not discussed that. He stated the Boards goal is to reach out to the entire town, with a letter similar to what was sent for the junkyard, notifying all residents that we would like their residence based businesses defined and on file. RM will be submitting a letter to the selectman for approval. RS & TT will have a list of all Residence Based Businesses at some point. RS stated if you need something, you can get a copy of the minutes stating it was approved on such and such a date. WW states when we get a list together we can make this application retroactive and she can be permit #1. Motion to accept this application as submitted. WW/MH. – 4 yes and 1 abstain. DP abstained
Site Plan Applications
1. Dan Simoneau - R7, Lot 16 - Appearing for Site Plan Review for Camp on Saturday Pond.
Board reviewed two documents submitted by Dan Simoneau. RM asked if the company National Church Planting in the submittal is a lending institution? Dan said yes, their focus is on funding churches. Dan stated this is the first focus outside of churches. Dan stated this is a home mission project. Sent from that church organization. National Church Planting office is a lender, providing a commitment letter to PB. RM stated the commitment letter is with conditions and the board does not know if the commitments have been granted. RM has no problem passing it to the attorney to review. DS said no, last time it took attorney three months to get him some information. RM stated his concern, which is, if you were in front of us tonight saying Richard bean had approved something, we would ask for the approval from
Richard Bean. He would like the same thing from the National Church Planting Company stating it has been approved. According to the town ordinance, we have to have this information. WW agrees with RM and states that a firm commitment is needed. RM said Dan can submit the letter at a workshop. PB Workshops are posted and made known to the public therefore it is acceptable to receive information. Dan said he could have the letter tomorrow. Everything is in order. RM explained that he believes Dan, but he needs documentation. PB’s next workshop is July 5, 2005. Dan Simoneau will be put on that agenda. Board agrees that he can submit letter at next workshop. MM, what is your estimated cost of what is remaining to be done. Dan said $450 (thousand) to $475 (thousand) left to be done. Dan said the things we have paid for to date are the land, the building, soil erosion control, and professional services. He stated that road construction will be done by a professional. SH,
let’s state for Dan what it is exactly that the board wants and Dan said he knows what the board wants and will be at next workshop to submit information.
.
Subdivision Application
1. Dave Fowler R10, lot 26, Wants to ask PB members some questions.
Dave Fowler Works with Hancock land company. Tom DuBois from Mainland Development is in attendance with him. They explained that what they are looking to do is a 28-lot subdivision. Location is route 121 right before Casco line. They have provided a cover letter, which explains what they propose to do. They are in the data gathering stage at this point. They would like to get a sense of contour interval requirements and set some sort of site walk agenda. RM couple questions, why didn’t you put more road frontage in? Are they all the same size lots? No, topography plays a huge role in the lot sizes. RM we try not to give advice, lead or direct applicants as a board. RM as a sketch plan, I care more about what you’re saying, rather then what I am seeing. The back lots will be looking over Mount
Washington, which will determine costs. We know the road will loop around. Tom wants to know if pavement is required, because that will increase the cost of the lot? He explained it’s doable, but it makes him go to a different level of affordability. PB explained that will be looked at individually. Tom asked who provides the abutters list? RM stated town provides the list, we mail certified letters and the client pays. PB secretary and Marianne join together to provide list. PB will need a location map. Any land to be retained by owner must be numbered. Tom said the intent is to go into conservation easement. PB asked at what stage do you think you’ll be back. Tom stated 2 to 3 months from now, late summer early fall. Tom stated he will be selling them as lots, not as buildings. RM, how will they be marketed? Tom said through Hancock with luck. RM, will you have subdivision lots? Tom explained he may put a permanent sign out there and then a temporary sign. DP Any
covenances? Tom said he is working on those now. RM what is the road configuration? Tom said it’s pretty well locked in at this point, but if the board wants input on that, they can come a month ahead and discuss. Board explained they will have professional assistance on environmental issues. RM stated that if they could give PB heads up on road configurations, it could help them. Fire Dept. issues? Board explained that they are based on site-specific issues. DP states as few entrances or exits on town roads to keep traffic limited is usually an issue, but we can bring it to a town professional for review. They may be requesting a waiver for pavement. Tom asked if at this stage should they be doing a site walk or setting a
date? Board stated that will happen in the future. Tom asked about proposing (five) 5’ contours, or (two) 2’ contours, because they are both sited. RM suggested proposing something that is justifiable and unless someone tells them differently the board can go with it.
Miscellaneous
1. None.
Discussion & comments from board:
1. Residence Based Business Applications – Future workshop. Paper trail needed.
Board reviewed question #6, how many employees will there be? Board would like to strike will there be) Next workshop TT will bring original application along with new application. Motion to accept the revised form with the edit on # 6. MH/ DP – Unanimous.
2. Memo to Otisfield Planning Board from Otisfield Ordinance Committee, submitted from WW to RM. RM wants to make sure that everyone understands it to be read the same way. RM thinks we need to workshop this item some more. Board still finds it to be confusing. RM thinks we need to invite the ordinance committee back to hash this out. WW stated he is no longer the Ordinance Committee Chair person, and that Beth Damon is. TT will contact Beth to invite them to the next PB workshop. RM submitted memo into Public Record.
3. PB manuals - MH would like to make sure we have the latest and greatest of the subdivision laws. Board decided to ask Marianne about new manuals for everyone and to take it out of the PB budget. TT will call to discuss this.
4. Retaining records - RM would like to have everyone on same page. He has a concern with too many originals floating around. Board discussed that TT will have a copy of all originals and MM will keep a second copy in case TT should need one. Board decided that a date stamp is needed. TT will discuss with Marianne.
5. Upcoming Dates –
Next workshop July 5th, 2005 at 7:00 PM
Next meeting July 19th, 2005 at 7:00 PM.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. MH/WW – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Recording Sec.
Approved by: ____________________________________
Rick Micklon, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
Approved on: ________________________________
| |
