6 Church Street, Gardiner, Maine 04345 Pat Hart, Chairperson
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
{00030026-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} CITY OF GARDINER
PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board February 12, 2008
City of Gardiner, Maine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Pat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
Ian Burnes
Absent: James Montell Pamela Mitchel Edward Lawrence
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
Nick Beaulieu Antonio Genovese Roxane Genovese
Rebecca Marquis Ronald Condon Bridget Condon
Peg St. Pierre Lou Parent Andy Haskell
Wentworth Goodwin Steve Martin David Jackson, Attorney for the Condons
Rebecca Thayer Eugene Thayer Dennis Chadburne
Jill Haskell
1.) Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:09 PM, welcomed everyone and went over the meeting schedule.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes and January 28, 2008 (Site Walk) Meeting Minutes.
Judy Dorsey noted that on page 2, paragraph 7 of the January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes, should read Judy said that she assumed instead of thought and asked that it be amended.
Deborah Willis made a motion to accept the January 8, 2008 minutes with the modification. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed.
Ian noted that on the site walk, there were what some people were calling streams and Nicholas was calling drainage ways on the property and he didn’t see that conversation reflected in the minutes and thought it was pretty significant. He wanted it noted that he believes there are 2 streambeds/drainage ways on the property that were requested that were marked with blue tape on the site walk. He said he thought that it was important to recognize that we’ve noticed those two and notated that. They were as they went down the hill and went north-south and crossed over them twice on the property and the road they were walking on had 2 distinct culverts for them. He wanted it noted that those two were there and they were not on the map that they were given.
Deborah Willis made a motion to approve the minutes of the Site Walk of January 28, 2008 with the amendment. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Mr. Jackson, an Attorney representing the Condons asked to address the Board about a procedural matter. Chair Hart asked him to allow her to continue with the procedural review of the meeting and that she would call on him.
Chair Hart introduced the schedule for the evening as a public hearing and a minor site plan review.
4.) PUBLIC HEARING – Minor Site Plan Review
Nicholas J. Beaulieu, Applicant, is seeking Minor Site Plan approval to develop a 24-lot RV/Campground named Colonial Heritage Resorts RV Park. The property, located on Longwood Dr, is within the Residential Growth/Shoreland (RG/SL) Zoning Districts, City Tax Map 16 Lot 7.
Chair Hart asked if any members felt that they could not be impartial or hear this Application in an unbiased manner. All members said no.
Chair Hart noted that the Board members got an agenda for a Board of Appeals meeting concerning the two lots that we are discussing tonight, which were originally two lots but were merged into one after approval by the Planning Board on December 11, 2007 and that’s being appealed.
Chair Hart recognized Mr. Jackson, the Attorney for the Appellants. David Jackson, Attorney for the Condons said that because this land in question is the subject of an appeal, this Municipality has not rendered a final decision on the joining of those two lots. He said that at this point it would be premature to consider Mr. Beaulieu’s Application with regard to this subdivision. He thinks that at any moment the Zoning Board could render whatever action the Planning Board takes at this point a nullity. At this point it should not be acted upon, but be tabled until the Zoning Board of Appeals finalizes its decision.
Chair Hart asked Dorothy if she knew if the CEO had gotten a legal opinion on this and what it was. Dorothy said that she knew that the CEO, David Cichowski had spoken with legal counsel but did not know what the outcome was. Chair Hart said that when she spoke with the CEO, he said that the Planning Board’s decision stands until it is overturned. So she feels they need to go forward. She asked the Board members what they felt.
Nick Beaulieu spoke up and said that he had talked with the CEO, David about that matter and David did seek the City’s legal council on that and what David stated to Nick is, if the appeal went forward and was approved, it would only encompass that area of land regarding the lot that was omitted. It would effect 1 lot in the proposed campground. Judy asked Nick if what he merged back into the original lot was bigger than one RV lot. Nick said it was about 40,000 S.F., give or take to an acre and a half. He doesn’t recall the exact size of that lot.
Chair Hart said that the Planning Board approved the request to merge the lots and the Applicant filed it with the Kennebec County Registry of Deeds, so right now, those lots are merged until that decision is overturned, so she feels that we should go forward. Ian said that if they have a recorded deed, and we have a copy of the deed, he feels this part of it is complete and we should move forward. Debby asked Attorney Jackson if he had a basis or legal cite on this as to why he feels it can’t go forward. Attorney Jackson said that he was using the principle of Judicial Economy. Judy asked if there was any danger that going forward would give the Applicant something that would somehow sway the Appeals Board. Chair Hart said that all of their input to the process comes
from the Planning Board’s record of that decision, so none of this should affect them. Judy noted that she had read the whole Ordinance when she came on this Board and didn’t recall anything that would prevent them from going forward.
Debby said that in looking through the Ordinance Administrative Appeal procedure, looking at whether or not the underlying action has to be stayed, she didn’t find that it has to be stayed. She feels that this should go forward, subject to appeal.
The Board members agreed that they should go forward with the Application. Chair Hart thanked Attorney Jackson for bringing the matter to the Board’s attention.
Chair Hart went over the history on this Application. She noted that the Board had gone through the Site Plan checklist from the last meeting and found that there were some items missing. The Applicant provided additional information and the Board has gone through that. They also went out to the property to conduct a site walk on January 28th and walked the site. Some of the Board members have been out to the property before when the subdivision was reviewed, so they’ve been there in different types of weather. She noted that they have now received the new map, a document called “Additional inserts”, a packet called “Natural Drainage ways”, and letters from the Fire Chief - Fire and Rescue, from the Police Chief and the Cobbossee Watershed District.
Chair Hart said that the Board will go through the completeness review to ensure that they have all of the requirements. After that, they will start the public hearing.
The Board reviewed their notes to determine the sections where they needed additional information.
Section 5.H.4 is ok.
Section 5.H.5.c. Need the culverts and widths on the map.
Ian said that he didn’t see on the new map where the drainage ways are or where the culverts associated with them are. Nick said that there are two drainage ways located on the plan. One is near the Martin property and the second one is located next to the common area. He pointed them out on the map. There will be a culvert where the wetland to be filled is located. He has proposed four other culverts for the proposed access ways, but won’t be able to tell exactly where they need to go until they get out in the field. Ian noted that when someone surveyed the property they put in blue flagging along the drainage ways that were there. Ian said that what he is seeing on the map are two straight lines exactly where the lot lines are and they stop where the road
stops. Ian said that is not what he recalls. What he recalls is that there were natural drainage ways that reached pretty far up into the property flagged with blue tape, which tells him that there’s probably a surveyor out there that has them on a map somewhere unless he was just flagging them for his own reference. Ian said that, especially in light of what he is seeing with the Cobbossee Watershed letter, he wants to know where the water goes on this. Nick said that in his Application there is a letter from a soil scientist that references the drainage ways – a general statement and he also has a copy of a soil test from when he did some work for some folks on the Northrop lot.
Chair Hart noted that they do have a letter, as Ian pointed out, from the Cobbossee Watershed District saying that they think because of the amount of impervious surface proposed with the RV park, and they specifically cite the road, driveway access and other gravel areas for locating RVs on each site, including access parking areas associated with the service buildings and pool area, that this project will exceed the 1 acre threshold and would likely require a stormwater permit.
Nick said that he doesn’t know where they got the plan from. He feels they’ve made an assumption because his plan depicts all of the impervious area inclusive of everything. He said he could have his surveyor, Ed Lawrence check for him but he is pretty confidant that he meets the requirements. He said that in his application he did state that he does need a DEP Stormwater Permit-By-Rule. He said that once he gets Planning Board approval, he still needs to get State approvals and State licensing.
Ian said that what the Board is asking for here is the location of the drainage ways and what he is finding is a general statement saying that there are unsuitable soils on the drainage ways running from east to west on Cobbossee Stream. He said there were two of them and they seemed fairly significant. They are three feet deep in places from the grade. He thinks that they are a significant natural feature on this property and knowing where these things are and how Nick is going to deal with them is going to help in the consideration of this requirement in the Application when they get to it.
Nick read a statement he got from Vaughn Smith Associates regarding the second drainage way that they crossed, which is more significant than the first drainage way that they crossed. It says that the wetlands appear to be limited to the close vicinity of Cobbossee Stream. From the Stream, the wetlands extend about 70 feet up the drainage way and the remaining portion of the drainage way is narrow and devoid of wetland hydrophytic vegetation, hence there is a 75 foot setback from Cobbossee Stream, which would be no impact or disturbance of this small wetland on this parcel. Nick noted that those two drainage ways are not in an area that he is developing. One of them runs down the border between the common lot and what was the Northrop lot and the other one runs down what was
the nee lot is in between the nee lot and the Martin lot. Ian noted that it’s hard to know that because he doesn’t see them on the map. Nick said they are.
Chair Hart said that we need to focus on the requirements that we need and then have a discussion about the drainage ways. To get back to what Ian said, what this asks for is the location and size of things and we just have words on here that just say drainage ways and a line. She read the requirement from the Ordinance (Section 5.H.5.c.) and noted that some of its purpose is for the water that you put in and some of it is natural things and culverts you put in to divert water. She asked the Board if they felt they had enough information.
Ian said that there are two culverts that are associated with this that are not on the map. They are somewhere in general relationship to the drainage ways drawn on the map that go under the road that is indicated on the map. Chair Hart said that we need those and the width of those so that we can understand the size. She didn’t know if the scale is such that a single line indicates the size. Judy said that culverts are required here, but drainage ways are in 5.H.5.j. Ian said that 5.H.5.c. includes drainage ways that drain onto the property to be developed. If there are going to need to be culverts on this road, the Board should know where they are going to be. Other Board members agreed.
5.H.5.f. ok
5.H.5.j. Need major natural features on property. Ian said that the drainage ways looked more like streams to him when he was there, these were major depressions in the land. Nick asked for a definition of a stream. They looked at the definition in the Ordinance. Chair said it is still a major natural feature.
5.H.5.r Need location of 12” caliper trees DBH.
The Board discussed the request for location of trees. Chair Hart said that going there in the winter gave them a good idea of the canopy. She asked if the Board were alright with the information that they had. Judy said that the Board had asked for that information because there are a lot of big trees in there and they’d like to know which ones are coming down and which one aren’t. Chair Hart said that they have a picture and a request for a waiver and she asked if that is sufficient for existing conditions. Judy said that she wants to know how many there are just to have a sense if they will all be gone or not. Ian said that one of his concerns about the Application is that it is a major change to the landscape and they have received only a minimal
amount of information. He would like to see the location of trees 12” caliper DBH. The Board discussed the request for a waiver and whether the picture is enough. Debbie said that in their initial discussion, the Applicant said that there were not many trees – on the site walk she noted that there were a lot. She said that the picture is not enough. Judy said the picture and waiver are not enough. Ian said that he would like to see the location of those trees.
5.H.6.c, d, & e. Need
Chair Hart said that we don’t know where the driveways and other things are going. This is just a grid overlaid on a map. We need the information. Nick said that he plans to go out and place the site features on each grid to benefit the site and not cut down trees unless they have to. He has put a general layout picture on the map. He said that Lot 12 is a tent site and Lot 10 could be either.
5.H.6.k ok
5.H.6.l. Need materials, height
5.H.6.n Need buffering to include type of vegetation
5.H.6.p Need car trips per day.
Chair Hart noted that the MDOT has traffic count estimates in a book that is available.
Nick said that he took the previous list and went over it with David and thought that everything was ok. Nick said that his past experiences with the Planning Board have gone well. Chair Hart noted that this Application is very different than those Nick brought in the past. Part of what we approve is the land.
Ian asked if the plan included a marina - a dock with 6 slips. Nick said that he has plans for 4 docks. The boats would have to be launched at the public access at Pleasant Pond. The campers could use the docks to swim off from and to tie a boat to.
Debby noted that the additional inserts and the dock system raised additional questions. Chair Hart asked if the employees would be there 24/7. Nick said no, during regular business hours only. Chair Hart noted that they would need the hours of operation. Nick said that the dates that the operation would be open would be flexible. It would probably be open from May to October if the weather permits.
Judy asked about Rule 13 on #10- General Rules in the Additional Inserts. Nick said this means that it limits one visitor per campsite and the total number of people to one site is 10. Judy asked about ATVs & 4-wheelers.
Ian noted that nothing in the Site Plan Review prepares the Board for review of docks. We would have to go through the Shoreland Requirements in Section 6 of the Land Use Ordinance.
Chair Hart said that they would like a picture of the development itself, a visual of what the site will look like. Nick said he could do a typical lot layout and paste it onto each of the lots on the plan. Nick said that he finds it out of context to take a surveyor out and note where each tree is. Ian said that they are asking to have each lot laid out in such a way that minimizes impact to the surrounding area and give us the assurances that we’re doing it. We can’t say go ahead we trust you. He is concerned about how this fits in with the landscape of the area. Nick suggested that he could give the Board a signed affidavit and work with the Code Enforcement Officer after the roadway is in prior to going in and cutting down the area where the
individual sites will be. He asked if that would be acceptable. Chair Hart suggested that they need to go ahead and finish the Application Completeness.
Judy said that in order to finish this completeness review, they have to decide whether they want all of the trees 12” DBH caliper located. Chair Hart said what she would like to see is the squares on the map to get a visual sense of what they are doing on every site a driveway and a pad.
Ian said that in order for him to be comfortable with this, he would want to know where these are going to be, to know where the driveways are going to be and once that’s done, it’s done in such a way that it will continue to be shielded from the area.
Chair Hart asked Nick if the risk to him as a developer is that he has to pay somebody to go out and mark out all of those lots. If this is approved, you’d have to go out and do this, but you don’t want to do it now. Nick said it would cost a lot of money to go out with a surveyor and mark every 12” tree that is out there. That’s why he would rather give the Board his word through a legal document and work with the CEO to put these in place. Chair Hart said that you’re asking the City to pay to go out and do something instead – you’re asking the CEO to go out and site 24 lots. Ian noted that it’s asking the Board to ignore the spirit of what they’ve been told by these Ordinances that these need Planning Board
approval, not CEO approval. By asking us to allow you to do that, not only are we taxing the City’s resources, we’re not really also following the rules and he thinks that there are a lot of people who would like them to follow the rules.
The Board talked about what to do here. Debby said that what we’re asking the Applicant to do is burdensome, but it is a unique piece of property with a unique use. With the respect that an owner of a property has a right to develop and use that property, then the Planning Board has an obligation to make sure that it doesn’t have a huge negative impact on the surrounding areas and that’s what we’re really talking about – we’re talking about sending a lot more water down onto that land and how to minimize that so it’s not overly burdensome. It’s going to change – any development is going to change it. Chair Hart noted that it is a commercial use in the middle of a residential area.
Nick said that he will be working the Maine Dept of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and thinks that it will fall under a Permit-By-Rule – it may fall under Stormwater License – if it does, there is a general set of rules that they follow and he knows exactly what he has to do. Judy asked how, not having more detail that this here, would they be able to know. Nick said that they only thing MDEP will require him to do is a stormwater assessment based on what he provides them – the calculation of the impervious surface along with stormwater calculations. They don’t look at what’s defoliated or getting rid of the trees – just total square feet of impervious surface, total area of what’s disturbed and total area of the development.
The Board members talked about staging a few of the layouts as an example with an agreement to not cut down certain trees. Judy suggested maybe they needed a workshop to hash out what to do here.
The Board discussed what was still needed. Debby noted culverts, major natural features, 12” caliper trees, not enough information with a, d & e which is really the site plan would be where and how to set up the sites, sign materials, buffering to include types of vegetation, estimate of traffic and then on the additional inserts we need something added on #8 about general business hours, on #10 something that clarifies the rules of who visits when and where and this will need a Shoreland Zoning Permit if they do the docks. Chair Hart noted that if the Applicant does do the Shoreland, he will have to talk with his surveyor about the additional information that will have to go on his plan – high water marks, setbacks, etc. Judy noted that we need to know what
the site is going to look like when it’s done. Ian noted that the drainage ways might very well run through some of these lots and would have much less flexibility on those lots unless they fill in those drainage ways and the Board would have to know that as well. He said he doesn’t want to be unreasonably burdensome, but at the same time he feels a responsibility to the codes to be able to have some of this information.
Chair Hart noted that when they review a subdivision they look at the building envelope and so they get a sense of the big picture. And that’s what they’re missing here.
Deborah Willis made a motion that the application is not complete - that we need further information regarding 5. H. 5. c.- add the culverts; 5. H. 5. j. major natural features including the drainage ways; 5. H. 5. r. the 12” caliper DBH trees; 5 H 6 a, d & e we feel that we do not have enough information regarding the site plan and how it will be laid out and how these sites are going to be set up; 5. H. 6. l. the sign materials; 5. H. 6. n. buffering to include the types of vegetation; 5. H. 6. p. the estimate of traffic, contact MDOT regarding traffic count information; regarding the additional inserts that we received for tonight’s meeting - #8 add general business hours under the number of employees; #10 under the general rules – need # 13 clarified; # 12, visitor
vehicles – are ATV & 4-wheelers going to be excluded; additionally, # 12 under the additional inserts regarding a dock, which means that this is subject to Shoreland Zoning – there’s an application that the Applicant will need to fill out and also talk with the surveyor about what has to go on the plan now that we are in Shoreland Zoning. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart offered a workshop to the Applicant to look at additional information. They set it for March 6, 2008 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers.
Someone from the audience asked what a workshop was for. Chair Hart explained it to her – it’s not a public hearing. It’s informal and nothing is pending and no decisions are made. Mrs. Condon asked if the Planning Board gets the information prior to the meeting and has a chance to review it but a member can’t be there, can they present information in written form – their feelings, ideas – simply because they have been involved up to that point. Chair Hart said we haven’t done that before. Mrs. Condon said that all of the Board members have very legitimate questions and concerns. If you take one person out of this dynamic, some of those concerns might not be addressed as intensely. Some said that they would be
reluctant to put their opinions out there for all to see and to have someone else to deliver them. Debby said if she had an issue, she wouldn’t mind letting them know about that to discuss that, but not an opinion. Mrs. Condon said she just wanted to ensure all of these areas are covered because they might not be pertinent to someone else and might not be brought up. They felt that they could give a note expressing concerns that they want addressed if they weren’t going to be there because this is just a workshop.
OTHER
Dorothy noted that there is training available through MMA – the same as was presented a year ago - if anyone is interested – let us know.
5.) ADJOURN
Deborah Willis made a motion to adjourn. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM
| 
