Town of Otisfield
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2013
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting following the Public Hearing was called to order at 8:05 PM.
2. Attendance: Members present were, Chair- Dan Peaco, Vice Chair - David McVety, Secretary - Karen Turino, Herb Olsen, Beth Damon & Alternate -Stan Brett. (Absent – Alternate Rick Jackson)
Richard St. John – Code Enforcement Officer
Tanya Taft – Secretary
3. Announcement of Quorum: Board had a quorum
4. Approve Secretary’s Report:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 2013 *Motion to accept minutes. HO/KT– Unanimous.
B. Workshop Minutes August 6, 2013 *Motion to accept minutes. SB/HO – Unanimous.
5. Discussion & Comments from public:
A. Evergreen Woods Subdivision: Jane Frazier Brown: 108 Evergreen Drive; Requesting path be on the other side of lot 8. This path will encourage public access even though it’s only intended for the 6 lots within. Moose Pond Road Association, is there going to be a fence bordering the path and if so, how do you control people staying on the path? What about storage of water craft? Where do people park? Will the lot owners walk down w/ canoes and kayaks? With regard to 6 lots, they would like new owners to get official documentation acknowledging that they are to participate in maintenance of road. Shirley Fielder, Real Estate Agent for Len Kennedy: is there any reason why the other lot can’t be included? Path needs at least 100 feet. She believes 20 feet is going to
cause major concerns. 20 feet is not that wide. Dick Joyal: 106 Evergreen Drive; there is no public boat launch on this lake and we want it to stay that way. It’s just a walking path and that’s the way we would like to keep it. KT: no dock? DP: that would be under CEO direction. CEO: There will be a 6 foot max meandering path and that will be shared among the 6 lots and lot 8. Only one dock permit is going to be issued. How far they have to go out, is a different issue, of course 200 feet can’t be violated. HO: does the town set what can go on that pond? Or is it state? CEO: All water bodies over 30 acres belong to the State. This pond is 160 acres, so this belongs to the State. If dock is touching dry land it then becomes town land and CEO would have control.
6. Residence Based Business Applications:
A. None
7. Shoreland Zoning Applications:
A. None.
8. Site Plan Applications:
A. None.
9. Subdivision Application:
A. Russell Ouellette, Represented by Rick Rhea - Tax Map R-5, Lot 033-18 off Evergreen Drive, a FINAL plan is now under review for a (6) lot subdivision being called Evergreen Woods Subdivision. CEO: Did you get a letter from Ross Cutlitz? R.Rhea: Nothing received as of yet. DP: At last meeting we made a motion to wait and hear from Engineer, Ross Cudlitz concerning the discussion on the driveways and
clearing standards before deeming this application complete. CEO: I do have an email from Ross agreeing to everything. A check went out last week. You have in the past deemed an application complete once the requested information comes in.
R.Rhea: I have been waiting to hear from OCSWCD, I’ve done my part. DM: what did you think about path being on other side? R.Rhea: Applicant and engineer think its best on this side and in the future he may reconsider sides, but as of now he would like to proceed as is and if it needs to be modified it will come back before Planning Board. DP: We can put conditions, such as fence. KT: also concerned about bridge being necessary. It’s not in any plan and I’m also concerned for whose responsibility it is to
make the meandering path? DP: Who does meandering path normally? Would it be the applicant? CEO: I can’t state for jobs in Otisfield, but in other towns it’s usually the Association or the Developer. DP: We can put a meandering path, to be built as a condition either with or before the sale of the first lot. PB members: All agree before first lot is sold a meandering path should be in place. SB: would like to see markers placed along the boundary between the access easement on Lot 8 and the abutting lot. Not necessarily a fence, but something to separate the lots. Perhaps a stake. BD: I think it would be a good idea for both sides of path to be marked. CEO: 391 feet along that sideline, so is that every 20 feet? PB members: All agree that the stipulation of Boundaries and path should be in place. DP: Do you, CEO have the authority to
oversee meandering path? CEO: yes and they need to build a structure to cross steep or slippery slopes that will be limited to 4 feet. Any dock system must be temporary. A permit can be obtained through my office. CEO requesting that it is through Association not individual owner of lot 8. HO: suggests developer doing this, not the 6 lot owners. R.Rhea: I would propose the conditional of approval that the applicant constructs the meandering path and clearly marks the boundaries prior to the sale of the lot. DP: Once an association is formed, will they be responsible for the upkeep costs of the meandering path or will the owner of lot 8 be responsible? CEO: Lot 8 has a vested interest in keeping this up. SB: at this time. Marie Coons: 90 Evergreen Drive; having meandering path built ahead of time may create easier public access and give the public the impression that it is
public access. DP: we understand that, but we need to protect our resources and look at what would be better. BD: Everyone is worried about trespassers accessing their land. Dick Joyal: 106 Evergreen Drive; Currently there is no public access and this is what we are trying to ensure won’t happen. HO: Is there anything in Moose Pond Association by-laws that says “you can’t allow others to have access to moose pond”? Otis Brown: 108 Evergreen Drive; Our friends, relatives and visitors are allowed access. DP: Are we comfortable that he has a complete application, we requested 3 things before. The only thing not received is the approval letter from OCSWCD. They would only release until they got paid. The balance of his review fee was going to be paid directly through them to save time. OCSWS did confirm in an email to CEO. Not sure why letter has not been released. KT: the issue is if we have Ross’s approval? CEO: Yes and I have an email, but I don’t have it in writing; the letter was
supposed to go directly to the town. PB members: All agree they are comfortable with Condition of approval. *Motion to deem this application complete with the condition that we receive the letter from OCSWS. BD/KT – Unanimous. DP: Would the PB like to go through Findings of Fact tonight or wait till next meeting? *Motion that we wait till next meeting for FOF. HO/DM – Unanimous. R.Rhea: Offered to have applicant clearly mark the boundaries with the help of CEO, so if applicant does decide to move the access to southerly side, it will still need to come back to PB to approve the line change on plan. *Tabled until September 17th.
10. Miscellaneous:
A. Planning Board Manuals: TT has printed copies of items discussed during the workshop. All information has been handed out. TT will make (8) new copies of the Parking Ordinance.
11. Upcoming Dates:
A. Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2013 at 7:00 PM.
12. Discussion & comments from Code Enforcement Officer:
A. In our Subdivision Ordinance, it talks about a final fee, but we have nothing on our fee schedule about a final fee. Does this board wish to bring it to the BOS’s attention or do you want it out of the Ordinance. PB would like to discuss with BOS. Escrow may need to be raised. Bring it up to $200 a lot from $125.00. Would also like to know if postage come out of escrow? DP will discuss with BOS tomorrow night.
13. Discussion & comments from Board:
A. Historical Society: There will be a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the old town house on October 6th @ 2:00 PM. PB members have been invited.
14. Pending Applications:
A. None.
15. Adjournment: With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. BD/SB – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft
Recording Secretary
Approved by: Dan Peaco, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
Approved on: September 17, 2013
| 
