Town of Otisfield
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 2015
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair - Karen Turino.
2. Attendance: Members present were Chair – Karen Turino, Herb Olsen, David McVety, Rick Jackson, David Hyer – Alternate & Stan Brett – Alternate. (Absent – Beth Damon)
*SB moved up as voting members.
Code Enforcement Officer: Richard St. John (Absent)
Planning Board Secretary: Tanya Taft
3. Announcement of Quorum: Board had a quorum.
4. Approve Secretary’s Report:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes November 17, 2015 *Motion to accept minutes. SB/HO – Unanimous.
B. Site Walk Minutes from December 9, 2015. *Motion to accept minutes with edits. HO/SB – Unanimous. Discussion: Lot 2 and 3, concerned about traffic, PB members would like to see that captured in the minutes. The Board is looking for the Road Commissioner to provide feedback.
5. Discussion & Comments from public:
A. None.
6. Residence - Based Business Applications:
A. None.
7. Shoreland Zoning Applications:
A. None.
8. Site Plan Applications:
A. Tammy Ray DBA Wedding Barn, 439 Gore Rd:~ Tax Map R04 Lot 021. A signed letter from the BOS to applicant stating that the Gore Road has the capacity to serve traffic associated with this wedding venue has been submitted into public record. At last meeting CEO asked for a copy of the sewer report. Applicant will provide that for CEO by next meeting.
Site Plan Review Ordinance: Page 3, section 4B, Site Plan application: PB went through line by line
Site Plan of Development application submitted into public record: (SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT BELOW)
9. Subdivision Applications:
A. Dale Verrill represented by Kenneth Farrar, 4 lot minor subdivision off West Andrew Hill Rd & Bow St. Tax Map R06 Lot 038. The proposed lots are lot 1:10.815 acres, lot 2: 5.00 acres, lot 3: 7.834 acres, and lot 4: 6.145 acres. At Last meeting the PB stated the application appears to be complete with the exception of the scheduled Site Walk. A site walk was held Dec 9th at 1:00 PM.~ *Applicant not in attendance. *Tabled until an upcoming meeting.
10. Upcoming Dates:
A. Planning Board Meeting, January 19, 2015 at 7:00 PM.
11. Discussion & comments from Code Enforcement Officer:
A. Maine; 2015 SLZ proposed guidelines: (CEO handed out at the May meeting PB members were also given a set of questions by the CEO and were asked to decide how they wanted to treat the issues in a revised SLZ ordinance based on the new guidelines.) (SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT)
*NOT Discussed at tonight’s meeting.
12. Discussion & comments from Board:
A. None.
13. Adjournment: With no further business, the regular meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM. HO/SB – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Secretary
Approved by: Karen Turino, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
Approved on: January 19, 2015
SEPARATE DOCUMENT:
Site Plan of Development Application: 12.15.15
Tammy Ray DBA Wedding Barn, PB Review
439 Gore Rd:~ Tax Map R04 Lot 021
The Site Plan of Development Application shall include as a minimum:
1. A map or maps prepared at a scale of not less than one (1) inch to 50 (fifty) feet and shall include:
DISCUSSION: KT: The finding for the map is that the Otisfield/Gore map provided is a little general, but there are 3 other maps of the property that are tax maps and they will suffice. See Otisfield Gore and (3) tax maps attached.
*Motion to waive the map. DH/HO – Unanimous
a. name and address of the applicant or his authorized agent and name of proposed development and any land within 500 feet of the proposed development in which the applicant has title or interest;
DISCUSSION: See REAL ESTATE TOWN INFO MEMO attached *All agree this information has been provided.
b. soil types and location of soil boundaries certified by a soil scientist, geologist, engineer
or Soil Conservation Service medium intensity soil surveys;
DISCUSSION: HO would like to see a soil survey in case changing from a residential to business use requires one. A review of the Ordinance found no such specific requirement for a change of use.
*Motion that we grant this waiver. SB/RJ - (5) in favor of and (1) opposed (HO)
c. municipal tax maps and lot numbers and names of abutting landowners;
DISCUSSION: See Municipal tax maps and a list of Otisfield Abutters provided. *All agree this information has been provided.
d. perimeter survey of the parcel made and certified by a Professional Land Surveyor relating to reference points, showing magnetic north point, graphic scale, corners of parcel and date of survey and total acreage;
DISCUSSION: PB does not feel it is necessary because the property was just closed on and the bank was satisfied.
*Motion that we waive this. RJ/DM – Unanimous.
e. Existing and proposed locations and dimensions of any utility lines, sewer lines, water
lines, easements, drainage ways or public or private rights-of-way;
DISCUSSION: A title search was done for the bank closing. There are no easements or rights of way. *Motion that we waive this. HO/RJ – Unanimous.
f. location of test pits, and proposed location and design of the best practical subsurface disposal system for the site;
DISCUSSION: CEO requested the Sewer report at last mtg. Applicant will provide this for CEO.
*All agree this information needs to be provided by applicant to CEO.
g. location, dimensions, design and exterior materials of proposed structures, on-site pedestrian and vehicular access ways, parking areas, loading and unloading facilities, design of entrances and exits of vehicles to and from the site on to public streets and curb and sidewalk lines;
DISCUSSION: See Proposed Parking and Fire Pond drawing. RJ: since the driveways are already in place, we don’t need the Road Commissioner for this.
*All agree this has been provided.
h. landscape plan showing location, type and approximate size of plantings and location and dimensions of all fencing and screening;
DISCUSSION: See Proposed Parking and Fire Pond drawing. *All agree this has been provided.
i. existing and proposed topography indicating contours at intervals of either 5, 10 or 20 feet in elevation as specified by the Board;
DISCUSSION: Applicant says she thought CEO was to provide this. All PB members agree this is needed.
*Motion that we not grant the waiver. HO/ - no 2nd. Motion Defeated.
*Motion that we grant the waiver subject to CEO’s review and approval. DM/SB – (5) in favor of and (1) opposed (HO)
j. location of aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, if mapped.
DISCUSSION: * KT wants it noted that for requirements 1. j and k, a review of the Comprehensive Plan maps was made during the meeting and showed nothing applicable for this site.
*All agree this has been provided
k. location of wetlands, significant wildlife or fishery habitats, known archaeological resources, scenic locations as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and historic buildings or sites on the parcel or adjacent to the parcel.
DISCUSSION: See 1A and 1B attached. All agree this information is not needed based on the data in our comprehensive plan.
*Motion to waive the maps because the PB checked the Comprehensive plan maps as noted in 1.j above. RJ/SB. –Unanimous.
l. The location, size and character of all signs and exterior lighting.
DISCUSSION: Applicant states both signs will be lit. PB would like clarification for multiple signs how many signs can be had. *Motion that we would like clarification in writing from CEO on what the total sq. footage for signs is, whether it’s a total of 8 sq. ft. per sign or a total of 8 sq. ft. for two signs. HO/RJ – Unanimous.
m. a storm water drainage plan showing:
1. the existing and proposed method of handling storm water run-off.
2. the direction of flow of the run-off through the use of arrows.
3. the location, elevation, and size of all catch basins, dry wells, drainage ditches, swales, retention basins, and storm sewers.
4. engineering calculations used to determine drainage requirements based upon a 25-year storm frequency, if the project will significantly alter the existing drainage pattern due to such factors as the amount of new impervious surfaces (such as paving and building area) being proposed.
DISCUSSION: HO would like to see the Storm Water Drainage plan and feels it is needed. RJ: Not interested in walkways, but agrees it is needed for the parking lot because of the sloping of the land.
*Motion that we not grant the waiver. HO/RJ – Unanimous.
n. location and elevation of the 100-year flood plain;
DISCUSSION: See 1A attached. All agree this is not needed.
*Motion to waive this. RJ/SB – Unanimous.
o. if the development site is located in the direct watershed of a great pond, the name of that watershed shall be indicated on the plan.
DISCUSSION: See application response. Thompson Lake Watershed: *All agree this has been provided.
p. Where the plan was prepared by an architect, engineer, surveyor, geologist, soil scientist or other professional licensed or certified and issued a seal by the State of Maine, the preparer's seal shall be affixed to the plan.
DISCUSSION: SB feels this needs to stay in place. Someone has to approve this and we will defer to CEO.
*Motion that we grant the waiver with the stipulation that if any soil is moved the CEO must approve the Erosion Control Plan. KT/SB – Unanimous.
2. A written statement by the applicant that shall consist of:
a. evidence by the applicant of right, title or interest in the land that the application covers;
DISCUSSION: *All agree this has been provided.
b. a description of the proposed uses to be located on the products to be manufactured, descriptions of and volume of manufacturing by-products and wastes, types of products to be warehoused and types of products to be sold.
DISCUSSION: *All agree this is N/A.
c. total floor area and ground coverage of each proposed building and structure and percentage of lot covered by each building or structure;
DISCUSSION: *All agree this is N/A.
d. a copy of existing and proposed easements, restrictions and covenants placed on the property;
DISCUSSION: There was a title search done w/ no easements found. *Therefore all agree this is N/A.
e. method of solid and hazardous waste:
DISCUSSION: Dumpster on site. *All agree this has been provided.
f. erosion and sedimentation control plan;
DISCUSSION: All agree an erosion and sedimentation control plan is needed.
*Motion that we deny this waiver. HO/RJ – Unanimous.
g. copies of letters to the abutting landowners and selectmen, notifying them of the proposed development by certified mail return receipt requested Copies of the receipts to be returned to the Board;
DISCUSSION: TT will check with CEO and review the list provided and insure that we meet legal requirement for notifying abutters. *All agree this has been provided.
h. list of applicable local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, laws, codes, and regulations;
DISCUSSION: *All agree this has been provided.
i. a municipal service impact analysis that includes a list of construction and maintenance items, with both capital and annual operating cost estimates, that must be financed by the Town of Otisfield or quasimunicipal districts. This list shall include but not be limited to: street reconstruction, maintenance, and snow removal; solid waste disposal; and fire protection. The applicant shall provide an estimate of the net increase in taxable assessed valuation upon completion of the project.
DISCUSSION: See application response. * All agree this has been provided.
j. a statement from the Fire Chief as to the availability of fire hydrants and/or fire ponds, or provisions of fire protection services;
DISCUSSION: See email from Fire Department Chief attached. *Kyle Jordan will provide something when requested from PB.
k. a statement from the Selectmen that the road or street that will serve the project has the capacity to serve traffic associated with the project;
DISCUSSION: See email from Selectmen attached. * All agree this has been provided.
l. the size, location and direction and intensity of illumination and method of installation of all major outdoor lighting;
DISCUSSION: See application response. There will be no major outdoor lighting. *All agree this has been provided.
m. the type, size and location of all machinery likely to generate noise at the lot lines;
DISCUSSION: * All agree this is N/A
n. traffic data shall include the following when required by the Planning Board;
1. the estimated peak hour and average daily traffic to be generated by the proposal;
DISCUSSION: * All agree this has been provided. (letter from BOS)
2. existing traffic counts on surrounding roads;
DISCUSSION: * All agree this has been provided.
3. traffic accident data covering the most recent three-year period for which such data is available.
DISCUSSION: * All agree this has been provided.
o. if located in the direct watershed of a great pond, a phosphorous control plan prepared in accordance with Section 5.14 .
DISCUSSION: Information about phosphorous control will be included as part of previously required soil erosion plan.
*Motion that we do not grant a waiver. HO/RJ – Unanimous.
p. the type of any rare or endangered species found on the project parcel as listed by the Natural Areas Program of the Maine Department of Conservation:
DISCUSSION: * All agree this is N/A
q. an estimate of the date when construction will start and when the development will be completed;
DISCUSSION: See application response. * All agree this has been provided.
r. Cost of the proposed development and evidence of financial capacity to complete it. This evidence should be in the form of a letter from a bank or other source of financing indicating the name of the project, amount of financing proposed and interest in financing the project.
DISCUSSION: See 2B attached. * All agree this has been provided.
s. any additional information that the Board deems necessary.
DISCUSSION: PB members do not feel any additional information is needed at this time.
*MOTION THAT WE DEEMED THIS APPLICATION COMPLETE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NOTED ABOVE. RJ/DM-UNANIMOUS.
*Motion to table this till an upcoming meeting.
| 
