|
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
{00030026-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} CITY OF placeCityGARDINER
PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board December 12, 2006
CityplaceCity of Gardiner, StateMaine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Pat Hart Pamela Mitchel Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
Edward Lawrence James Montell Ian Burnes
Absent: None
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Mitchell Rasor, Planner
Jason Simcock, Planning & Development Director
Thomas Reeves Francis Grey Jr. Val Bolduc
Jakob Grey-Purvis Dorothy Washburne Peter Giampetruzzi
Ned Harvey Daniel Bailey
1.) Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM, welcomed everyone and went over the schedule for the meeting.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) There was a question a on the November 14, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes – it appeared to waive all of Section 8. D. 2. h. instead of just the corners of the tract marked by monuments. It was decided to table the minutes until the motion could be checked out on the tape.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept the Site Walk minutes as written. (November 28, 2006). Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. 3 abstained: (Deborah Willis and James Montell were not in attendance and PersonNameEd Lawrence was working for the Applicant). Motion passed.
4.) PUBLIC HEARING – Subdivision Continuation of Preliminary Plan Approval
Valerian Bolduc, II, Applicant, having Power of Attorney for Debra Stone, Owner, is seeking Application Completeness and Preliminary Plan Approval for a 5-Lot Subdivision with Common Open Space named Stonie Acres. The property, located on Costello Rd, is within the Rural (R) Zoning District, City Tax Map 10, placeLot 12B.
Chair Hart introduced the Subdivision Application and asked members if anyone had anything to disclose. Ed Lawrence removed himself from the Board for this Application because he is working with the Applicant on this Application.
Chair Hart went over what had occurred so far on this Application.
The Board reviewed Section 3 Performance Standards and determined that only U is applicable to this Application.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that all of the Performance Standards in Section 3, except for U are not applicable. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board reviewed Section 3 U. Performance Standards.
Skipped Section 3. U. 2. a. for now.
Judy indicated that she has problems with the wetlands in two of the lots. Mitchell Rasor referred the Board members to Section 3. U. 6. a and discussed net residential acreage and how the common space fits into that.
The Board members discussed buffer requirements with respect to wetlands and surface water and what the Ordinance is actually requiring.
PersonNameEd Lawrence said that the Board has done four other subdivisions and has not required them to meet the 100’ of natural vegetation adjacent to surface waters and wetlands. He said that the addressStreetPark Place plan shows wetlands in the building areas and they were not required to be set back 100’. He said these wetlands are very tiny. The State allows them to fill up to 4,300 square feet of wetlands without a Permit by Rule. Mitchell Rasor said that any filling of a wetland would be incumbent upon the person buying the lot. Chair Hart said the Board has learned more about their role and gotten stricter as they’ve gone along.
Ed said that he’s looked every where for a definition for surface water. He read a definition from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mitchel said that, using DEP standards - worse-case scenario, it would be a 75’ setback, but it doesn’t even trigger Shoreland zoning. It is so minor that it’s not even considered a tributary stream. This is far up into the watershed that leads eventually down into the stream and to the placePlaceNameKennebec PlaceTypeRiver. They don’t lead from a great pond area or a resource protection area. It’s not an urban impaired watershed so there are no special requirements in that. At some point it is probably a stream, but at this point is it isn’t.
Ed said that he has changed lot 1. He removed some of the area out of lot 1 - the area near Mr. Hanson’s property has been put it in the Common area.
Chair Hart noted that the plan they have in front of them doesn’t include the changes Ed mentioned, so the Board will have to go with what they have and the changes can be put on the final plan.
Ian Burnes asked if the Board was making a decision about surface waters. Chair Hart said that, procedurally, the Board has some finding of fact that they have to make. The Planned Residential Development Standards are what they have been focusing on at this time and they do have the ability to make reductions in lot sizes, density, setbacks through standards and to use those tools to make sure that they meet the intent. As they’ve gone through Lot Design Standards they’ve come up against the word “surface water”. Chair Hart said she is proposing that they make a finding of fact as to whether the stream on the property is surface water or not and why.
Pam Mitchel said she had spoken with her husband who works for placeStateMaine’s Department of Environmental Protection Agency. It is her understanding from her husband’s definition is that this is surface water. Other reading that she did says that any water open to the atmosphere – it doesn’t even have to flow. Mitchell Rasor said that that is the most conservative definition and is not really supported in writing anywhere. Pam said thinks it is surface water. Judy and Ian said that they agree. Jim said he had no thoughts on it at this time. Deborah said she doesn’t think it is surface water – she wants it bigger. Pat agrees that it doesn’t look like a stream, but meets the definition of a stream; it’s more like a tributary stream.
She doesn’t know if it’s surface water.
Pam Mitchel moved that this meets her definition of surface water and has a scoured mineral bottom. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote 5 in favor. 1 opposed. (Deborah Willis). Motion passed.
The Board reviewed Section 3 U. 3. and discussed the building envelopes and wetlands. Judy is concerned that the wetlands run right through some of the building envelopes. Ian said that his feeling in having gone there and hearing Ed talk about the history of this lot; it appears that someone took out all of the topsoil and these could be filled in according to DEP rules. Ed said that when he reads this section, he is wondering if this doesn’t mean wetlands adjacent to the surface waters, which you do want to protect. Chair Hart said that would make a lot more sense. Judy said that she can live with that explanation of the wetlands but rather than saying it meets the intent, say that we don’t think it was intended to apply to the wetlands on lots 3 and 1. She doesn’t
think the 200’ is met. Mitchell Rasor noted that the Board has flexibility on the standards. They are pretty broad and in comparison to the regulations on Shoreland Zoning, which covers areas that are mapped as critical surface water and streams – sensitive resource areas like the Cobbossee, placeKennebec and coastal water, they only require a 100’ setback. He said although the intent here is clear, the ordinance leaves a lot to interpretation. Judy is still concerned about the 200’ setback. Pam said she is pretty happy with the 100’ setback from the surface water. A good vegetative buffer will protect it from the stream. It goes straight to the placeKennebec. She’s basing it on the 100’ setback for the more sensitive areas in the Shoreland Zoning.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that a 100’ buffer from the stream to the buildable part of the lot is sufficient based on the small size of the stream and the fact that our Shoreland Zoning only requires a 100’ setback (Section 3. U. 3). Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board members reviewed Section 3. U. 4. Judy asked if they could take these out of order because she needs to determine 6 before 4. Ian said that they don’t have enough information to evaluate this and asked if they should go on. Chair Hart said that they should go through what they have and then give the Applicant guidance on what is still needed.
Judy Dorsey made a motion that right now, the plan as it stands, does not meet 3. U. 4 as drafted. PersonNamePam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Judy noted - because more than 50% of the open space as the plan is currently constructed is not developable.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board members discussed Section 3. U. 5. It was noted that they need documents creating the road association.
Judy Dorsey moved that as the plan is currently submitted, it doesn’t meet the requirements of 3. U. 5. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board members discussed Section 3. U. 6. Judy asked Mitchell to explain the residential acreage standard. Mitchell explained that this section in the Ordinance is not real clean. He went over the definition in the Ordinance. He said you take your gross land area and subtract out proposed roads, land not suitable for developments - wetlands, brooks, streams, resource protection, etc and that leads you to the number of allowable developable lots. The purpose is to take the over all acreage and not overburden it with more lots than the capacity that the whole parcel can handle. Chair Hart said it means the whole lot, not the building envelope. Ed explained how it’s calculated.
7:37 PM James Montell left the meeting.
Judy Dorsey moved as currently proposed, the plan doesn’t give us sufficient information on 3. U. 6. to make a decision because of item a. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board discussed Section 3. U. 7. Density bonus and what this means. Judy thought that these lots are smaller than they are allowed to be. But it seems to contradict the intent of having cluster development. Ed noted that they are not asking for the Density Bonus.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 7 does not apply. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 3 in favor. 0 opposed. 2 abstained (Judy Dorsey, Ian Burnes). Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that 8 does not apply. A discussion occurred about the proposed private road. Pam Mitchell withdrew her motion.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8 has been met. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart proposed that we ask the Applicant for the changes and start Preliminary Approval at the next meeting. There are so many changes that it doesn’t seem like it would be fruitful to go on to Section 8, Subdivision, General Standards. Chair Hart said that we would have to look into it, but she believes that we could do Preliminary Review and Final Review in the same meeting – that we’ve done it before.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we table this subdivision application pending the next meeting where there will be more information available to us. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
8:00 PM Break
8:10 PM Resume meeting
Ed Lawrence returned to the Board
5.) WORKSHOP – Cobbossee Corridor Zone Change Proposal
Jason Simcock said that they chose to have a workshop on this issue because it was not as formal and the Cobbossee Corridor Committee wanted to hear from the Planning Board members, their thoughts and then discuss them among themselves. Those participating on this Committee are Jason Simcock, Francis Gray, Dorothy Washburne, Peter Giampetruzzi, Ian Burnes, Mitchell Rasor, Ned Harvey, Dan Bailey, Tom Reeves and Rusty Greenleaf.
Jason gave a little background on this Plan, the process they are followed and the proposals. They have had input from stakeholders, property owners and members and the City worked with quite a few consultants on this Plan. He showed Board members the Cobbossee Corridor Vision Statement. The Master Plan was approved by the City Council on 3/10/05. They are now trying to implement it.
Land Use is the biggest issue when you create a new district. They would like to reach a consensus through workshop and move on to public hearing and the Planning Board and then the Council. Jason gave them a list of the Committee’s goals for the project and showed pictures of the Corridor, the properties along the railroad trestle, the redevelopment ideas & open space & recreation areas and the existing zone area. Mitchell Rasor indicated that the zone primarily follows the TIF District.
Jason said that there are a number of items involved in the change: the definition, boundary map, land use table, dimensional table and text changes. The Committee went through the Land Use Table and each use within the Resource Protection, High Density and Central Business Zoning Districts and blended them. There is concern that this might put existing businesses out of business. They are adding a footnote to grandfather those non-conforming businesses. It takes time for an area to change and they are looking to extend the usual grandfathering period. Committee members expressed some of their concerns about being able to sell their property.
Ian Burnes said that the Committee has been looking at the broader goals – trying to encourage higher density usage and the highest and best uses in the future. They will try to build in as much flexibility as they can for existing uses. Dorothy Washburne asked about storage buildings and who will monitor the performance standards.
Jason said they plan to look at industrial and other uses and also a longer grandfathering period as they might take longer to transition.
Chair Hart thanked the Committee.
OTHER
Chair Hart thanked everyone.
6) ADJOURN
Pam Mitchel made a motion to adjourn. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM
| 
