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 June 10, 2008
City of Gardiner, Maine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Pat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
James Montell Pamela Mitchel Edward Lawrence
Absent: Ian Burnes
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, CEO
William Najpauer, Planner contracted by the City of Gardiner
Sarah Flaks, Planner contacted by the City of Gardiner
Nick Beaulieu Bridget Condon Ronald Condon Andy Haskell Jill Haskell Eugene Thayer
Becky Thayer Steve Martin Peggy St. Pierre
Lou Parent Roxane Genovese
1.) Call the Meeting to order.
Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM, welcomed everyone and went over the meeting schedule.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) May 29, 2008 Meeting Minutes.
Judy Dorsey moved to approve the May 29, 2008 minutes as written. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
4.) PUBLIC HEARING – Subdivision/Minor Site Plan Review
Nicholas J. Beaulieu, Applicant, is seeking approval of a 5-lot Subdivision and Minor Site Plan approval to develop a 10-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.
6:04 PM Ed Lawrence recused himself as he has done work for this Applicant on this project.
Chair Hart asked the Applicant if this was a new application. Nick Beaulieu said that this is a new application with some of the same documents and some modified documents from the old application and a new subdivision application. Chair Hart noted that they have a memo from the Planner concerning the application.
The Board reviewed the Site Plan for completeness (Section 5. H.)
The Board discussed Section 5.H.5.i. and determined that what they had was ok. Other documents included in the Application had contours shown at 10’ intervals.
A question was asked about requirements in 5.H.5.p. and ownership of the road shown on the plan. Ed Lawrence indicated that Mr. Beaulieu has in ownership, 25’ marked by a solid line on the plan and an easement for the remainder of the road.
5.H.6.b. - Need information on ground floor elevations of all proposed buildings on the site.
A question was asked about the access path to the water. Nick said that he is leaving it natural. He is not designating a path, but there is no brush until you get near to the water.
5.H.6.f sanitary/sewerage – The Applicant will have to submit a plan and obtain approval from the Department of Human Services. They have a number of options.
Judy asked about the Fire Department approval. Bill noted that they just needed approval of the fire pits and office. The Fire Department would have to bring water to the site as in other subdivisions.
Mr. Condon asked who Bill and Sarah were and their capacity at the meeting. Chair Hart said that they are planners/consultants who have been contracted by the City. They have worked with the Applicant to help him with his Application. They are not agents of the Applicant.
5.H.6.1. Need sign information – size/height and what the sign will be on.
Chair Hart noted that the Agenda lists this Application as a Minor Site Plan Review. The Board discussed the criteria to determine whether it is a Minor or Major. The addendum that the Applicant submitted indicates that the impervious surface is 56,885 S.F., which would fall within the Minor Site Plan Review.
Judy asked, since the Application speaks about a Phase II in the future, if this is done in pieces, does it circumvent the things that need to be done. Bill said that after a passage of time, it wipes the slate clean. Ed said that the impervious surface includes the previous subdivision and the lots that have not been improved yet. Mr. Condon referred to a letter from DEP in the original Application.
Chair Hart asked that they continue the completeness check and will get into those requirements as they review the Application.
Chair Hart went over the items that were included in the packet in addition to the Application. Those are the real estate postings; a list of abutters; letters from DEP, the Cobbossee Watershed, the Guilmettes; and a write-up of concerns from the Condons.
The Board determined that they needed 5.H.5.l. – description of sign posts, height and materials of sign; that they are ok with the 10’ intervals; and need dimensions, height and ground floor elevations (5.H.6.b).
The Board reviewed the Subdivision Application for completeness, Section 8. Bill noted that the subdivision includes lots 1 – 4 and the balance of the campground, which is the 5th lot.
They determined that they had enough information for Section 8.D.1.g., a letter from the Fire Chief.
8.D.1.i. – Traffic patterns ok. Chair Hart asked how Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Goodwin will access their lots. The Applicant said that they can go any way that they want, but that he could see his attorney and change that if it is in his best interest with his plan.
8.D.2.g. – Flood hazard areas and 100 year flood plan. The CEO said he had flood maps available.
8.D.2.h. – The Applicant needs to request a waiver to use steel rebars instead of granite monuments.
Pam asked if changes are to be made to Moonlight Dr. Ed said that they will be modifying it at the 90 degree bend.
8.D.2.bb. – Chair Hart asked if the Applicant is intending to link up the streets. He said he is if he goes forward with other phases.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we waive the requirement for monuments at the corners of lots and replace with rebars. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Subdivision Application is complete. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7:05 PM Break
7:13 PM Resume meeting.
Chair Hart noted that they had received the waiver request, sign information and elevation information.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Site Plan Application is complete. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7:15 PM Open meeting for public comment.
Chair Hart stressed that it is important to share comments and concerns even though they might have been made previously so that the information will be in the record. She asked if the City had received any comment, written or oral. Dorothy and David said no.
Bridget Condon distributed her written comments (see attached) and she and Ron read from them. In addition to what they read, they said that the stormwater calculations were based upon the road being 12’; the impervious surface calculations are on what is, not what was; the road behind their house has not been treated and has been left abandoned – the requirements don’t allow it to be used as a subtraction; the road as shown in the pictures is 7 – 8’, not 12’; they believe the stormwater calculations are incorrect and DEP believes they are also; and the Planning Board has no way of knowing how the Applicant is going to get the water off – it appears the water is going right through the gravel pads. He also noted that the new application no longer has an office, hours
of operation, or supervision. They have concerns about supervision, noise, odor and light pollution. Case law states liability of the common lot and referred to a case, Poirier vs. Manchester.
Chair Hart summed up their concerns as follows: The use and who governs the campground; the change in traffic volume on the road; the final impact on the properties; the incompatible use, no buffers between project and their home; a commercial entity/residential street; size of vehicles on road – wider road and turning radii; parking for guests; differences in calculations of impervious surfaces; size of pads; no office.
Mr. Condon added that all calculations are based on 5 lots – there are 6 lots. The stormwater calculations are old. He provided a copy of state statute concerning this and cites case law on overburdening the subdivision common lot. He distributed pictures that show Moonlight Dr with 2 yardsticks stretched across it to demonstrate the width of the road.
Rebecca and Gene Thayer, property owners on Moonlight Dr. They said that they live on High Holborn St, but have a cottage on Moonlight Dr. The road is one car wide and if they meet a neighbor, they have to stop. They have had to cut bushes and trees to get their camper in. They have concerns, as they are working and not there all day, about the traffic; water runoff to their property – the road has washed out previously and had to be fixed - all the neighbors chipped in to fix the road. Mr. Thayer said he has used the right-of-way for 35 years and the Marquises have been there since the 1950s. He is concerned about the noise and the campground comings and goings with no one there to supervise. He is also concerned about the fire pits – no hydrants; security – their dock and lawn would be appealing to people to use. In the past, others have used their boats and dock. They believe it is a commercial use, which is inappropriate to the zone. They were told when the subdivision
was approved, that this was Phase I and there would be other house lots in Phase II. They supported the subdivision based on that. Now Phase II is a campground and they feel deceived. When you buy a house in a subdivision with a covenant, you know what you can and can’t do. They thought everyone was going to build a house – now it’s a commercial venture. Years ago, someone was going to build a campground and didn’t and it became the parking spot for kids – drinking, etc and is heading there again. They are concerned about uncontrolled campfires. They don’t think this fits into Gardiner’s Plan. They are also concerned about the right-of-way – since there is no easement, are they driving on Ms. Guilmette’s property?
Chair Hart summed up their concerns as follows: Moonlight drive is narrow – 1 car, campers could block the road; water run off; Moonlight Dr washes out; campground is incompatible with residential uses and camps; noise; no supervision; fire pits; security; commercial use in a residential area; did support subdivision; if campground not a success, a blight; and the right-of-way of the Ms. Guilmette.
Steve Martin, owns a camp on Moonlight Dr. directly below the proposed campground. He has concerns about water run off. Last week was the first time it was dry enough so he could mow his lawn. His driveway washes out every year. He is concerned about septic systems, odor and leach fields, traffic control, 1-way drive and having to follow the traffic pattern or go against the plan, a lot of road construction to make usable in the Spring – from his house to the Chadbourne’s it is very muddy and asked if there will be a new culvert. He is also concerned about people using his property. He has to chain his boats and canoe now. He is concerned about the hours of operation – will it be May – Sep or year round? Mr. Goodwin and he maintains the road
now from Mr. Condon’s to their properties.
Chair Hart summed up his concerns as follows: Run off; septic, look and smell; traffic control and road requiring considerable work; stream, culverts – water backs up; safety and control of campground and his property; buffer between his property and campground; and hours of operation.
Andy and Jill Haskell, property owners of Lot 1, 41 Longwood Dr in the Longwood subdivision. They noted that this was their first home and when they looked for land to build a house, they were told their property was in Phase I of a subdivision and there might be up to 36 houses ultimately, which was a selling point for them because they like the community and wanted to be in a residential neighborhood. They feel they were misled. Now with the campground, it will be commercial rather than a residential environment. As members of the road association, they are responsible for year round maintenance. The increased load and use of the road will be costly to upkeep. Also, as you come down Longwood Dr, there is a blind spot and people won’t see them backing out. There is no speed
limit on the street and people fly up the road. They don’t feel there is enough information about the campground as a business, such as who will be policing it, will there be anyone on site in the early morning and late night hours, who will be responsible. Access to the common lot currently requires them to go through Lot 4 to get to the water. They are young people and made an investment to the community. They feel the developer misled them. If they wanted to live next to a campground, they would have gone to another area. Other areas in the City are growing with good marketing. They wanted to be in a small community. If they had known this, they never would have bought the lot.
Chair Hart summed up their concerns as follows: Understood it was going to be residential phases; compatibility; road association costs; weight of vehicles substantial strain on dirt road; not clear who’s going to pay for road repairs; blind spot at driveway; no speed limit; use of land; access to common lot across Lot 4. They asked if the Planning Board looks at other thing in addition to land use. Chair Hart said that the Planning Board applies the Ordinance to land use, but they also care about other things.
Chair Hart asked if the Chadbournes were here. Mr. Condon said no, but they sent a letter to the Board when the 24-lot subdivision/campground application was submitted. Chair Hart read the letter into the record. Their concerns were the paving and road maintenance and who will pay for what. Other concerns are that they bought this for a retirement home. It has the best water access across their lawn. They are concerned about others using it.
Mr. Condon said that there is no access to the common lot for the subdivision people without walking through Lot 4 or another lot. There is nothing in their deeds giving them permission.
Roxane Genovese, a property owner on Longwood Dr is concerned that if the land has now changed to commercial for the campground use, could it be changed to some other commercial use if the campground failed, such as a trailer park or storage facility. Chair Hart explained that it would have to be a use that is allowed in that zone. Judy also noted that a campground is an allowed use and not commercial in the sense of zoning it commercial.
8:26 PM Close Public Hearing.
Chair Hart suggested that the members of the public might want to stay as the Board might have questions for them concerning this Application.
Chair Hart summed up what had occurred with respect to this Application so far. There had been a site walk, a completeness review of the Site Plan Application and Subdivision Application and a public hearing. They have received a lot of information, both in the Application and from the public. She suggested that they table the Application until the next regular meeting in July so the Board members can consider what they have heard tonight. Bill Najpauer suggested that the Applicant bring his engineer to the next meeting to discuss stormwater. Chair Hart said that they will discuss Bill’s memo at the next meeting.
David noted that there will be two other applications in July also. The Board said that they might have to have two meetings that month.
Mr. Condon asked if a Board member, such as Ian Burnes, who was not here tonight, could be at the next meeting and review this Application. Chair Hart said that she always asks any member who has missed a meeting if they have read enough in the materials submitted and the meeting minutes for them to go forward with the review. Dorothy said that the tapes of the meeting are also available and some have listened to them in the past.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to table this Application to the July Meeting. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
OTHER
Ed Lawrence rejoined the Board.
5.) ADJOURN
Pam Mitchel made a motion to adjourn. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 PM
| 
