PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board June 16 2004
City of Gardiner, Maine Regular Monthly meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Deborah Willis, Acting Chair Allie Vigue Pamela Mitchel Edward Lawrence
Absent: James Montell Pat Hart Susan Crawford Bob Moody, Alternate
Also Present: William Najpauer, Planner, Kennebec Valley Council of Government (KVCOG)
Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
Shirl A. James Raymond L. Ayer Haywood G. May Hazel Ferland Kenneth Gardner Billie Ellis
Arlene Emery-Kaufman Scott Kaufman
Michaela Firlotte Rebecca A. Fuller David E. Fuller
1.) In the absence of Chair, James Montell, the meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM by Deborah Willis
A motion was made by Pam Mitchel and seconded by Ed Lawrence to elect Deborah Willis as Acting Chair.
Vote: 3 in favor. 0 opposed. 1 abstained (Deborah Willis). Motion passed
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) Acting Chair Willis read item 3 from the Agenda
Applicant: Ray Ayer, Owner of Ayer European Auto Restoration
Proposal: To construct a 36 x64 storage building
Location: 512 Brunswick Avenue, City Tax Map 19, Lot 34
Zoning: Planned Development
Final Site Plan Review
and indicated that the Applicant had standing as evidenced by documentation provided by the Applicant. She asked if any Board member felt that they could not avoid the appearance of impropriety with respect to the application. All Board members indicated no.
Bill Najpauer, (KVCOG) and acting staff to the Planning Board indicated that the application showed that they met the setbacks and the Application requirements were met with a modification to the Application and a request for a waiver.
Acting Chair Willis read the request for waivers.
Allie Vigue made a motion to approve waivers for Section 5, Subsection H b, e, i & r. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Applicant Ray Ayer introduced himself and his business manager, Hayward May. Ray indicated that the area where the proposed building would be was heavily wooded on both sides and the rear and the land is flat. This building would be behind the current buildings and used only for storage of cars during the winter.
6:14 PM Acting Chair Willis opened the public hearing for public comment. No comments.
6:14 PM Acting Chair Willis closed the public hearing.
Acting Chair Willis read the Finding of Facts
Acting Chair Willis read each of the Review Criteria, a. through t. and the Applicant s response to each of them. Each Review Criteria was voted on separately.
Review Criteria A.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria A. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria B.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria B. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria C.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria C. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria D.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria D. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria E.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria E. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria F.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria F. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria G.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria G. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria H.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria H. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria I.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria I. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria J.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria J. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria K.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria K. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria L.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria L. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria M.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria M. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria N.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria N. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria O.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria O. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria P.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria P. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria Q.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria Q. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria R.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria R. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria S.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria S as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria T.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria T. as written by the Applicant. Allie Vigue seconded the motion
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review Plan of Ayer European Auto.
Allie Vigue seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
4.) Acting Chair Willis read item 4 from the Agenda.
Applicant: Hazel Ferland, Owner of Sun Spot Tanning Salon
Proposal: To conduct a Tanning Salon Business in a two-family residence
Location: 73 Cobbossee Avenue, City Tax Map 22, Lot 35A
Zoning: Planned Development
Pre-Application Conference
Bill Najpauer, KVCOG, instructed the Planning Board that this workshop should be informal and informational in nature and there is no fee for the pre-application review. The review shall not cause the plan to be a pending application or proceeding - it doesn t have any standing because there is not an application. No decision on the substance of the plan shall be made at the pre-application conference, again, because there is no formal application. The Applicant should state what she intends to do and the conversation should be limited to questions about the requirements of the Ordinance. No merits of the proposal can be discussed because there is no application or issues to discuss. It s just informational. The purpose is to understand the nature of the proposal and for the
applicant to understand what s going to be requested and what the Board looks at in terms of the Review Criteria & Site Review process and also making sure it meets all of the requirements of the Ordinance.
Hazel Ferland indicated that she has operated a tanning salon on 73 Cobbossee Avenue since January 1, 2004. She said that there was a mix up with Jeff Hinderliter, who she already went through a whole process of a building application permit and filling out an application to have the tanning salon. He came up with a couple safety issues and a parking problem, but she said that he said she could still open on January 1st and then she never got a Certificate of Occupancy from him. She said he knew she was open, but she never received a Certificate of Occupancy. She said that during the first five months there were no problems or issues until she started digging up her driveway and making it wider to account for parking. The parking plan that Jeff had worked out for the
tanning salon wasn t a good parking plan. She didn t have enough space, evidently, as he d thought, to do the parking plan that she and Jeff had discussed and agreed upon. When she started making a new parking driveway for the parking, she had problems with the neighbors on both sides. She said her house has a horseshoe driveway that goes up and around and all the businesses that have been before, Elliot Office Products, Home Vision Video, Webster Power House that have all been at that house, the business driving has gone around the house with the whole horseshoe. Hazel showed the Planning Board members a new plan for parking that she had come up with.
Hazel indicated that the neighbors on both sides have young boys and she has a young boy and they all play in amongst the area. The neighbors to the right are concerned with her having business people driving up and down their driveway because they have two little boys. So she said that she has come up with a parking plan where she doesn t have to have her customers drive out their driveway. Hazel indicated that the neighbors on the left are concerned about the buffer zone. When she and Jeff came up with a parking plan she thought she had more feet and she started making a new driveway. Now the neighbor and she are not in agreement on how much feet there is and where the line is. So she came up with a parking idea where she can park behind her house and not be on that side where there is
a 5 buffer conflict with that neighbor too. Hazel indicated that there is a lot of space in behind the house, especially with the new drive that she has put in back so she feels that there is an adequate amount for parking. Hazel showed this new information to the Board members. Bill Najpauer cautioned that it hasn t been reviewed and may or may not meet the conditions of the Ordinance.
Hazel said she was told through Dorothy that she had to have 3 business parking spaces and Hazel indicated on her map where those were. And Hazel also said she was told also by Dorothy that she needed to have 4 parking spaces because it is a 2- family home. Hazel indicated on her map where those 4 parking spaces were. Hazel showed the Board members where she has 2 turn-arounds. Hazel indicated that the reason she has two is because often she has only one person come to tan at a time and sometimes 2 people come together and most of her customers are mother/daughter or grandmother/granddaughter customers. She said she has two tanning beds and 1 stand-up so most of the time it s convenient for the one car to park in the driveway next to the walk and walk in to go tanning and they turn
around in the turn-around in front of the house and drive out. Hazel said that she knows that, she believes, that when she talked with Jeff Hinderliter, technically she can allow people to back out, but now where this has gone to a different level, it could be that she can t allow people to back out. Either way, she said, she has this turn around where if one person comes they can just back right in and drive out and if they are up in the back, they can back in that turn-around and drive out. She says she has a lot of her dimensions with her which shows her property line (referring to property/parking plan she distributed to the Planning Board members), Map 22, Lot 35A. She said that this shows what she has tried to come up with and thinks that there is definitely enough room in the back for 3 cars to park and not to have people coming up and down the shared driveway where there are little children around and trying not to cause issues with the boundaries on the
left side as well.
Hazel said that the driveway is on the other side of that boundary line (her neighbors). She said it s a shared driveway, but it s on the neighbor s property. She said she has a personal easement. She said that she can park her cars out back and in the garage and there is still plenty of room for three cars. She said about 90% of the time she had 1 or 2 customers at a time. One is a 10-minute bed and 1 is a 20-minute bed and 1 is a 10-minute booth so a lot of cars aren t there for a long time, ½ hour max. She encourages appointments.
Hazel referred to a packet she distributed to Planning Board members dated 6/2/04 and said that the first page is another letter requesting to open a tanning salon at 73 Cobbossee Avenue with 3 tanning units. Hazel said that all building, landscaping and safety issues have been met. She said the Fire Chief said all the safety issues have been met except for shrubbery in the buffer zone of the west boundary line. She said that she understands that she needs to put 3 buffer hedges so that headlights of cars won t shine on the property when they are coming at night. Hazel said she put in the letter (dated 6/2/04) that everything has been met except the shrubbery in the buffer zone on the west boundary line, which will be planted when agreement is made with neighbors on the West Side.
She said that after talking with Jeff (Kobrock), the City Manager, he said the City doesn t get involved in boundary issues. Hazel said she doesn t know if the Planning Board does.
The 2nd page of her packet is a parking plan; 3rd a sellers certificate; 4th a tanning facility registration; & 5th is a letter from a customer that comes to her tanning salon a lot and who would like to put her two cents worth in as to how she likes to come there. Hazel said that as far as an application, it kind of sounds like through all the legal talking that Bill was saying about an application, maybe I m supposed to have one here tonight. Acting Chair Willis said no; this was a pre-application conference. Hazel said she filled out an application last September for Jeff Hinderliter, so there is an application on file and she guess she ll fill out another one. Pam Mitchel asked if she had filled out one. Dorothy indicated that it was a Building
Permit Application, the one for Planning Board Consideration is a Site Plan Review Application.
Hazel said she is fully willing to plant in the buffer zone when the boundary is agreed upon. She said where she put a new driveway in, she had talked with the neighbors before and they were in agreement where the boundary line was and where the driveway would go. And after she got the driveway all dug up they said that is not where the boundary line is. So now she has gravel where the shrubbery is probably going to go. In order to plant shrubbery there, she ll have to dig up the gravel and put in loam or dirt and she said she doesn t want to put that in until she knows for sure where it has to go. She said she is promising that she will put that in when it is agreed upon where the boundary is.
Acting Chair Willis said that the letter that Hazel got from Jeffrey Kobrock, City Manager, stated that she had two options, to open it as a home business or as a business and asked Hazel if she was going to open it as a business. Hazel said yes, as a business. Hazel said Jeff Hinderliter thought she should open it as a home business because it has to be under 500 square feet and her tanning salon is 465 square feet. She said that Jeff Hinderliter said that he thought that it would be less rules and that she would be a lot better off to open up as a home occupation. Hazel said that the problem is that with the rules of a home occupation you can only have 10 customers a day and that is what was messed up about the whole process that started last September.
Bill Najpauer spoke to the applicant that there were certain sections of the Ordinance that she needs to be conscious of when she pulls together her application. In the Performance Standards, particularly, sections are: Access Management where it refers to Driveway Location and Sight Distance; the section on Buffers. Hazel asked if Bill wanted her to tell him now. Bill said no, but it needs to be addressed in her application. He continued with the section on Lighting as it applies to your signs; Off-Street Parking, obviously; Non-Residential Development - that would apply because this is considered a business/commercial use and it abuts other residential uses, so there are some provisions in that section that would apply to this particular application. Bill clarified that the lighting he
was referring to was exterior lighting and the same thing with the sign. Hazel said she could let him know about it now if he wanted. Bill said to address it in the application. Bill said to Hazel, as you are aware in the submission requirements for Site Review, there is in Section 5. H., items 1 through 6, a whole laundry list of items that you will be required to address so you have to make sure that you provide information that addresses each one of those. Hazel said that she believes that she has already.
Bill explained to Hazel the next steps in the process. He said next would be to submit an application to Dorothy (CEO Office) that would get reviewed for completeness. He said that the Code Office reviews only the Performance Standards for completeness and then may make comment to the Site Review Standards, but it s her (Hazel) job to review the Site Review Standards. If the application meets all of the Performance Standards in the Zoning Ordinance, the application could come before the Planning Board as an application. The CEO Office would schedule a public hearing and the application would get reviewed like the application that was heard here tonight. Bill said he wanted Hazel to know the process. Hazel said she thinks she s got it. Bill advised Hazel to fill out the application and
make sure it s as complete as possible. He said she needs to address all the items required by the Ordinance, submit it to Dot (Code Office) where it will get reviewed for completeness. The Code Office will notify her if there are any missing items Hazel would have to amend her application and then the Code Office would mail out a notice for public hearing and schedule the application for a Planning Board meeting. He told Hazel that this process is driven by her - by when she gets the application in the next Planning Board meeting is July 21, 2004.
Acting Chair Willis asked Bill, before she let s the applicant go; so we re looking at Non-Residential Development, Subsection P? Bill said yes, some portions of that apply to the application because Hazel is opening up a commercial operation and that commercial operation abuts other residences. He said it was permitted but there are rules that go with that use in the Performance Standards.
Hazel asked if she understood it that she was in the Planned Development Zoning. Bill said that it is that Zoning District. Allie Vigue asked why she couldn t use the turn-arounds as parking spots? Hazel said they (Code Office) won t allow her to park in front of the house and one is in front and the other is too close to the buffer line.
Pam Mitchel asked if Hazel had to wait for the boundary to be established before the Planning Board can deal with this. Hazel said from her understanding, she would have to wait if she were putting parking close to the neighbor s buffer zone, but she tried to arrange it so the buffer zone would not be an issue.
Bill said to Hazel, keep in mind that in your Site Review application submission, 5. b., bearings and distances of all property lines of the property to be developed and the source of this information, prepared by a registered land surveyor as a Standard Boundary Survey. Hazel asked, what was that again? Both Allie Vigue and Acting Chair Willis told Hazel that the requirement are in the Ordinance requirements for Site Plan Review.
Acting Chair Willis said it was unfortunate that Hazel saw the Planning Board conduct the Site Plan Review just ahead of her, because that applicant had already gone through this process with a building before and the new building was on an existing known piece of land. Hazel said, but that s what you re talking about, all of those things. Acting Chair Willis said the Board had gone through that other application very quickly because the Board had already been through it on that same lot. But for Hazel s application, it would be different because the Board hasn t gone through a proposal like this on her lot before. Acting Chair Willis said that the Board went through the Site Plan and the Review Criteria a little bit quickly with the previous applicant. But Hazel s proposal is all brand
new. Hazel will have to settle those boundaries and set where all those are and Hazel address all of the requirements. Acting Chair Willis said that some of the things that are going to be important, that Hazel heard Bill talk about, the Non-Residential Development, and the Board does this with everyone, and there are issues that Hazel has already talked about; landscaping, standards for parking and the buffers those are always very big issues for any applicant. Those are some of the issues that you will need to address.
Bill said that he tried to hit those sections of the Ordinance without going through in detail, but it is your (Hazel s) responsibility to put that application together and then we ll review it. Bill told Hazel he would write those sections down again and Dot would give it to her. (Bill gave Hazel those after the meeting)
Acting Chair Willis asked if that was it we don t open the meeting up to the public? Bill said not unless there is an application. He said the reason for that is you can t discuss the merits because there is no application in front of you and it would be a disservice to the applicant. If the public has comments it is apropos to make those at the next meeting. Bill asked if there were items submitted to the Board. Dorothy said 1 letter. Bill said that Dorothy could submit it to the Board but they would just hold it until the application gets filed. Bill asked that the applicant be given a copy.
An individual (did not identify herself) from the audience asked if she could ask a question. She said that she was just thinking opening a business in the City of Gardiner and was wondering did she have to get a license with you guys before she opens her business or can she open the business and then come in and see you after six months or so? Bill referred it to Dorothy who replied that she would have to apply first so that the CEO Office could determine what kind of business it was, whether it might be a home occupation, minor home occupation or a business that requires Site Plan Review. Acting Chair Willis said that some businesses get approved by the CEO and some require Planning Board approval. The individual from the audience then asked if Hazel was running her business without the
Board s permission. Bill said that he doesn t know the entire story but apparently there was an issue about what kind of permit exactly was required. Acting Chair Willis explained that there was a misunderstanding. The Planning Board didn t see the application the first time so now they will. Some things come under the Code Enforcement Officer and some under the Planning Board and this just came under the wrong one.
Acting Chair Willis thanked everyone for coming and said that she expected she would see them all on July 21st.
OTHER BUSINESS
Allie Vigue asked if the storage buildings next to Vagabond Village were only to be accessible from the middle, not the outer area. The Board agreed. Allie thought they were not being built to specifications agreed upon. Dorothy said we would have it checked it out.
5.) ADJOURN
Pam Mitchel made a motion to adjourn. Allie Vigue seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6:50 PM meeting adjourned.
| 
