|
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
{00030026-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} CITY OF placeCityGARDINER
PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board March 13, 2007
placeCityCity of Gardiner, StateMaine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: PersonNamePat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis James Montell
Pamela Mitchel PersonNameIan Burnes
Absent: Edward Lawrence
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Jason Simcock, Director Planning & Development
Jeff Corey Charles N. Corey Stella Richard Louis Richard Mandy Darville David Bragg
Mitchell Rasor
1.) Chair, PersonNamePat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM, welcomed everyone and went over the meeting schedule.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) February 8, 2007 Special Meeting Minutes.
Deborah Willis made a motion to approve the February 8, 2007 minutes as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. 1 abstained (PersonNamePam Mitchel was not at meeting). Motion passed.
February 13, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Deborah Willis made a motion to approve the February 13, 2007 minutes as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. 2 abstained (PersonNamePam Mitchel and James Montell were not at meeting). Motion passed.
4.) PUBLIC HEARING – Site Plan Approval
Mandy Darville, Applicant, is seeking Site Plan Approval for a Home Occupation (Salon). The property, located at 147 CityBrunswick Av, is within the High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning District, City Tax Map 31, placeLot 65.
Chair Hart introduced the Application and asked the Applicant, Mandy Darville to describe her proposal.
Mandy said that she is changing her business from an antique/retail type business (Mother’s Attic) to a salon within her residence.
6:08 PM Meeting opened for public hearing.
Charles Corey, an abutter at addressStreet63 Chestnut St, asked how big a business this will be. Mandy said it will be just her. Mr. Corey asked if she planned to put in additional parking as there is already a drainage problem on the property and water drains onto his property. Mandy said she is addressing the situation with the Code Enforcement Officer. She has only owned the building for eight months and the previous owner did not disclose the drainage problem at the time of purchase.
Judy Dorsey asked Mr. Corey if he had the water problems previously when there had been heavy rains and the previous owner still owned the property. He said that it has been a problem since the previous owner graded their parking lot. Mandy said that she plans to do some extensive landscaping on the property and the drainage issue will be addressed.
Jeff Corey, son of Charles Corey said that last fall during the heavy rains, it was like a stream coming down through onto his father’s property – very significant. Mandy said she is willing to address this issue, but the salon is not going to create any more water.
PersonNameDavid Cichowski, the CEO said that he wanted the Board to be straight on this issue. The water problems have nothing to do with what Mandy is doing in the salon. Charles Corey said that the previous furniture company came in and graded the lawn.
Jeff Corey asked about the hours of operation. Mandy said her clients would come one at a time as it is only her working there.
6:16 PM Close Public Hearing.
The Board reviewed the Application completeness. They asked the Applicant when she planned to open. Mandy said April 1, 2007. Currently she has 8 clients. She will be open Tuesdays through Saturdays from 10:00 AM – 6:00 or 7:00 PM.
Pamela Mitchel made a motion to grant the following waivers for this Application: Section 5. H. 5. b.; 5. H. 5. c.; 5. H. 5. d. (street width); 5. H. 5. e. (ground floor elevation); and 5. H. 5. i. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that the Application is complete with the condition that an aerial photo of the location be added to the Application which satisfies the requirement of 5. H. 5. f. and 5. H. 5.h. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart read the purpose of a Home Occupation from the Ordinance. The Board reviewed Section 3. I. Performance Standards/Home Occupation.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 2. a. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 2. b. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 2. c. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 2. d. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 2. e. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board discussed the size of the sign. Mandy said that she has been working on this proposal since last March and was told that she could go ahead with the sign with the same size as what was previously there.
David said that when Mandy came in about this, he thought that she could make a new sign the same size because she was doing less of a business and the previous owner had illegally expanded the business, it had been unchallenged by the City for 20 years. Her realtor had also given her the idea that there was a business. David said he was under the impression and told Mandy that as long as she kept things going within a year, that she wouldn’t need anything, but then as he realized it was a change of use and we wanted to cover any neighbors that would come and have comments or anything like this, he basically said to Mandy that it would be a safer route to run the whole thing as a Site Plan Review. Mandy has been very understanding.
The Board reviewed the section in the Ordinance regarding signs. David said that when other businesses left, their sign size and shape were grandfathered. He referred to Section 3. Y 3. k., Nonconformance and read the section. Judy Dorsey noted that this section refers to signs in the Downtown Area, not the area where this Applicant is.
The Board looked at the term “structure” and determined that a sign meets the definition of structure.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Performance Standard 3. e. of the Home Occupation section has been met with the finding that the existing sign meets the definition of a structure. It is a non-conforming structure and that the non-conforming area is allowed based on Section 4. H. 1. b. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. f. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. g. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. h. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. i. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. j. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. k. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 2. l. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. I. 1. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3. L. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that the following Performance Standards do not apply: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X , Y, Z, AA, BB, & CC. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board reviewed Section 5. Q. Site Plan Review Criteria.
Skipped Review Criteria 1 & 2 for now.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 3 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 4 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 5 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 6 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 7 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 8 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 9 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 10 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 11 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 12 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 13 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 14 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 15 as demonstrated in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 16 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 17 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 18 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 19 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 20 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 21 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that this Application (Review Criteria 1. a. & b.) conforms to the requirements of the district in which it is to be located and to other pertinent requirements of the Ordinance and meets the standards outlined in the Site Plan Review Section of the Ordinance. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that this Application (Review Criteria 2.) meets the provisions of all applicable regulations and ordinances of the City and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept this Application with the conditions that the Applicant provide, with the help of the CEO, an aerial photo of the area and complete a Home Occupation Fact Sheet and note in writing, the estimated trips per day and hours of operation. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7:19 PM Break
7:28 PM Meeting Resumed
5.) PUBLIC HEARING – Subdivision Completeness & Preliminary Plan Approval
The City of CityGardiner, Applicant, is seeking Application Completeness and Preliminary Plan Approval for Phase II of the placePlaceNameLibby PlaceTypeHill PlaceNameBusiness PlaceTypePark, a 12 lot subdivision. The property, located on Technology Dr, is within the Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) Zoning District, City Tax Map 2, Lots 4C, 6B, 8 & 20 and Map 7, Lot 1B.
Chair Hart introduced this item and asked the Applicant to give an overview of the proposal.
Jason Simcock, Director of Planning and Development for the City of placeCityGardiner introduced himself as the Applicant representing the City. He further introduced David Bragg, a consulting engineer. Jason gave a little background on the project. He said that the City acquired the property in October of 2006. The property is located off from addressStreetTechnology Drive, which is currently a dead end street off from addressStreetEnterprise Avenue. They are proposing to add onto addressStreetTechnology Drive and subdivide the property into twelve lots. The Libby Hill Steering Committee has met and received feedback on this phase of the project.
There are four wetland crossings in the project. The project has been designed for the least environmental impact while maximizing building opportunities. Jason spoke with the Fire and Police Chiefs and City Services. They all feel good about the project plans.
The City has approached the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) about the wetlands. Depending on the results of that review, it may require a subsequent review by the Army Corps of Engineers.
There are about 121 acres included in this Phase. The lots are a little larger than those in Phase I to handle larger projects. It borders the Interstate on one side, the placeCityRichmond line on another and the current park on another side. The City will put in the infrastructure and then sell the lots. Both phases have received grants; Phase I around a million dollars and Phase II, around $ 860,000.
Judy Dorsey asked about the five lots from Phase I that have not been sold. Jason said there are five lots still there, but there has been a demand for larger lots.
Chair Hart said that tonight the Board will be looking at the subdivision before us and the sewer and water.
David Bragg shared additional information about the project. He described the land, the drainage issues, the stream that meanders under Weeks Road and the road layout. He showed a drawing of the project and where the setbacks from the stream will be. They plan to maintain a tree canopy near the stream to keep the stream cool for fish. The property will be served by public water supply. There will be overhead telephone and cable lines and retention ponds for water run-off.
Mrs. Richard, an abutter, thought that a culvert under Weeks Road would be a benefit.
Jason said that Mitchell Rasor has reviewed the Application and the road design standards. They would like to request a waiver when they get to that part.
7:50 PM Chair Hart opened the meeting to Public Hearing.
Stella Richard, an abutter has concerns about her water if the City has to dynamite some of the ledge. It could re-route her water or flood out her land. The house is 50 – 60 feet from the edge of the property. She is also concerned about lights from the development shining in her back yard and the development of the lots for the construction of buildings might re-route water onto her land.
Chair Hart told Mrs. Richard that even if is this project passes, each business that wants to develop a lot would have to come to the Planning Board, at which time, she would have an opportunity for input. All they are talking about here are the lot lines, not buildings.
Mitchell Rasor added that at Site Plan Review, it also deals with buffering and other standards.
Judy Dorsey asked about paving within the lots. Dave Bragg said that they would be paving the road area and not the lots. Dave talked about the catch basins and DEP’s requirements and that there are some areas that will require conservation easements for low impact development techniques to lessen the effect of storm water run-off.
8:03 PM Close Public Hearing.
The Board discussed going on a site walk of the property. David Bragg said he has photographs of the area. It covers a large area and the terrain is pretty rugged in addition to the snow. Board members decided that each one could go out on their own if they wanted to.
The Board reviewed the Application for completeness as specified in Section 8. D. of the Ordinance, Subdivisions – Preliminary Plan.
They looked at the letters submitted by the Fire and Police Chiefs and asked that, in the future, they could be more specific in stating what they are approving. They also asked the Applicant for some documentation showing financial capacity for the project.
The Board discussed monuments at the corners of the subdivision and lots. David Bragg said that they have been unable to get in there this winter. Pins will be set as soon as they are able to get in and the roads and catch basins areas are approved by DEP.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that the Application is complete with the condition that some of the corners of the tracts need to be pinned and we need a letter of financial capacity from the City. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Jim Montell asked if the side roads are not required to be 30’, why a waiver is needed. Jason said it is important to have a paper trail. Technology Drive is 24’ wide currently and they are proposing to maintain the 24’ width as it continues. It is a dead end rather than a through road. They propose this to preserve as much of the wetlands as possible. Judy asked if Jason saw these as potential businesses not having truck traffic. Jason said that all of the development could handle truck traffic. Mitchell Rasor said that a 30’ road is really over done.
Chair Hart asked about walking areas for employees. David Bragg said that in other places, he has seen trails between buildings, but it would be hard to determine at this point. PersonNameIan Burnes asked about the area between lots 22 and 28 and could anything be put in there. David Bragg said that area is pretty rugged terrain. Mitchell Rasor said trails are not a part of this Application.
The Board looked at Section 8. K. Subdivisions – General Standards and began by looking at Standard 2.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 2 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 3 has been met with the condition that a note be put on the final plan preventing further subdividing of the lots. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 4 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board discussed the letter from the Fire Chief. It did not address fire hydrants. PersonNameDavid Cichowski will get a letter from the Fire Chief addressing this issue.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 5 has not been met. We require, to meet Standard 5. c., a letter from the Gardiner Water District addressing the location of mains, gate valves, hydrants and service connections and a letter from the Fire Chief addressing fire hydrants. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 6 has not been met. The City will review their monument preferences and apply for a waiver. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 7 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNameIan Burnes said that all of the abutters probably have wells. Some areas will require considerable moving of land. In one area about 20’ of elevation will have to be flattened out. What would that do to the groundwater?
Mitchell Rasor said that DEP may ask for a blasting plan. It would require a higher level of review. Jason said that they are only clearing for infrastructure, not individual lots. David Bragg said that if we look at the road profile, it follows the existing topography, but they might have to blast for the sewer trench. If so, they would have to give DEP a blasting specification. There is a chance that it might have some effect on the neighbors and is something to be taken into account. PersonNamePam Mitchel said she is concerned about changing the water path when blasting and moving rock. Judy Dorsey asked if DEP will look at protecting the neighbors’ property with a hydro geologic assessment. David Bragg said the study is not a perfect study and the
Richard’s property is more likely to be effected when a building is put on the lot.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8 has been met with a note that DEP will be reviewing this in much more detail and consider the blasting on the groundwater. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 9 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Ian shared his concerns about lot 20. Ian said that the lot is surrounded on 3 sides with wetlands and it will require an enormous amount of land moving to build anything there. He is hearing from Jason that small lots are not selling and we still have a number of lots from Phase I not sold. We are preordaining the selling of all of these lots is going to happen by giving them the permit to go in there and dig all of the catch basins. He would rather see someone deal with this in a way that would phase in the catch basins so if this lot doesn’t appear to be economically viable, we haven’t disturbed all this land. In driving around the area, what struck him the most was the catch basins. And if we’ve misjudged the market and 40 years from now there’s
still no market for these, we’re stuck with these big disturbances in the ground and there never going to come back to the way they were.
David Bragg said that he understands what Ian is saying and in some respects, he agrees with that, but the justification for this comes from DEP. What they’re saying is they don’t want 12 different people coming to them for permits for each of the lots. The idea is to market lots and tell the potential buyer that the permits are in place. If you don’t do the retention basins, you have to tell the potential buyer that you have to go to DEP and get a permit and they’ll go to the next town if they already have the permits in place. The retention basins can be any shape you want, but they have to have the volume for the runoff. And we have to do our best guess as to where they are going to fit on the lot. Someone may come in and have a concept or a design that
may change the whole factor. Since 1999, DEP has changed the regulations and could say, after looking at this plan, that we need to alter, move or don’t do this. What we’re giving the Board is a concept of where the catch basins should go.
Ian said that he understands the concept here of what we are doing with the business park and is supportive of the whole concept, but he just wishes that there was a way that we could do the subdivision without digging these big catch basins. Judy asked if we could exclude this lot. Jason said that there are already a lot of restrictions on the property that is shrinking the amount of land that can be developed. They are trying to do the minimum to get this infrastructure in place and he’s afraid if they put more restrictions on this – it’s pretty close right now – trying to have a balance here so we can still have a feasible project. Any area that is outside the buffer area or wetlands they are looking at as a possible site. We knew going in that there were a lot of wetlands,
but we still felt that there was enough creativity with the road layout and the lot layout that we could still have a feasible project. We’ve tried to be as conservative as we can to be protective of the environment. A lot of these sites are topographically variable. None of the lots are flat land. We’re either going to be cutting or filling. That’s the way the land is in the first phase and in this area. Everywhere you’ve got site challenges, but the more success that we are able to extend to the park, the more people are going to be willing to make those investments and deal with the different site challenges that each lot has. One site will have more fill and another site will have more digging. We’re trying to be real sensitive to the wetlands.
Chair Hart asked what the total acres are that are developable. Jason said that there are 120 acres and 53 acres are wetlands. So 67 acres are developable.
David Bragg said that if we also minus the buffers and minus the roads, and if we deduct the areas for the catch basins and the setbacks, the developable land will be about 52 acres.
Chair Hart said that this put the whole thing into perspective. When she looks at this, there is so much wetland that we’re leaving open, it’s unfortunate that the things that we see from the road happens to be the pits because there is all of that backland left open. It’s a trade off. It’s a business park. What do we want to do with #9? We have a motion and a second.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 10 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 11 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board looked at Standard 12, Storm Water Management Design Standards. David Bragg said that DEP laws have changed and because it is over 20 acres they do have to have the basins, in some respect, to contain the increased water runoff on the lots. On the roadways, we’re trying to use vegetative buffers and run the swales into vegetative buffers which then removes the nutrients and other things before it goes back into the stream rather than put that water into another retention basin. We may having retention basins in some places, but are attempting to get the water into the buffers.
The Board discussed whether to continue tonight. There are a lot of things to review in the storm water section. They have Standards 12, 13 & 14 and those are the standards with the most detail.
Jason said that the one issue that he asked about on the waiver would actually influence the City’s application with DEP. If the Board is looking at trying to rap things up tonight and table this until the next meeting, the one thing that would be a big help to keep the DEP application process going would be a waiver for requirements in Standard 14.
The Board discussed street design standards and Jason’s email that explains the situation. It is Standard 14. d. 5.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that we grant a waiver of the requirement for a 30’ minimum pavement width and allow the City to build a 24’ minimum pavement width road with a note that intersections will be widened to accommodate large trucks and it will be indicated that all large lots will have large enough entrances to accommodate large trucks with 4’ shoulders. (Standard 14. d. 5.) Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion to table this Application to our next meeting. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
It was noted that the next meeting of the Planning Board will be held on April 10, 2007 at 6:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers.
OTHER
Jason gave an update on the Cobbossee Corridor. At the last public hearing, he mentioned that there were some issues that DEP was going to look at and we didn’t really know what their response was going to be. He now has their response and one of the issues that came out was the issue to do with the language in Public Paths under Performance Standards. It said that the Planning Board could waive certain development standards for public paths and DEP said that this is suggesting that the Planning Board has a variance type of authority that should really only be allowed for the Board of Appeals. Jason spoke with the City Attorney about this and he agreed. Jason took the text out of the Performance Standards but the City Attorney said that we can keep it in the Site Plan and
Subdivision Standards. It’s still in there, but it’s in the correct location. By keeping it in the Performance Standards, we would potentially have had conflict.
The other issues are fairly minor. They talked about screening and we didn’t say screening from what. What we intended was screening of parking lots – that the parking lots be screened from the road. It was added to the text.
DEP complimented the City on how nicely this proposal fits in with the Master Plan.
Another issue was the 5 year grandfathering period. Jason hasn’t heard back from DEP yet, but is hoping that we can keep the grandfathering at 5 years. There are really two uses in the Use Table where this would apply. Jason said he doesn’t know what kind of leverage DEP has on this, whether they can over rule us on this. We need the DEP’s support to change the Resource Protection area.
The City got a nice letter from the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department (INF & W) approving reducing the Waterfowl Wading Bird habitat buffer boundary on the map. The INF & W are going to make a change on the map and we’ve received notification of this in writing to send to DEP.
Another item is that Rich Baker from DEP has questioned whether we can designate a maximum lot size for residential single family dwelling. The proposal is for a maximum lot size of 20,000 S. F. Mitchell Rasor said that he thinks it is more of a philosophical issue, not a planning and design issue. We’re trying to communicate with DEP about this. Mitchell feels that DEP understands our intent more clearly now, but we also understand that maybe we need to better articulate in writing what the intent is and what the end goal is. Rich had not heard of this as a way of implementing smart growth.
Jason said that the last item is something that was brought up for discussion at the last Planning Board meeting concerning the section on Variances and he had to listen to the tape to see how it was left. There is a statement in the new text that the Planning Board felt might have duplicated something already in place and as Mitchell was the author of that, the Board asked Jason to talk with Mitch to see if it was a duplication and if it was not, it would remain in. Jason talked with Mitch about it and Mitch said that he hadn’t found where it is duplicated and asked the Board if they knew where it was. The Board members couldn’t find it, so it will be kept in.
Jason said that the Council gave the proposal a full review and that Chair Hart was very helpful in that process.
Chair Hart thanked everyone for being at the meeting.
6.) ADJOURN
Pam Mitchel made a motion to adjourn. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:43 PM
| 
