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 December 9, 2008
City of Gardiner, Maine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Pat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
Pamela Mitchel Edward Lawrence James Montell
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
William Najpauer, Planner contracted by the City of Gardiner as advisor to the Planning Board
Nick Beaulieu Bridget Condon Ronald Condon Eugene Thayer Rebecca Thayer Steve Martin Lorna Tarbox Leslie Tarbox Rebecca Whitten
1.) Call the Meeting to order.
Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed everyone.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) October 14, 2008 Minutes.
Judy Dorsey noted that the description of the campground item was wrong. Dorothy will update it.
Pamela Mitchel made a motion that we accept the October 14, 2008 Meeting Minutes as amended by Judy. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart went over the schedule for this meeting.
Chair Hart asked if any of the Board members felt that they could not hear this Application in an unbiased manner.
6:16 PM Ed Lawrence recused himself because he did the survey work for this Applicant.
4.) Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision Revision
A public hearing and review of a Minor Subdivision Revision request from Les and Lorna Tarbox to amend Tilbury Park Mattson Subdivision Lots 16 & 20. The properties are located at 38 & 48 Tilbury Park, City Tax Map 23A, Lots 16 & 20.
Leslie Tarbox introduced himself and said that he wanted to give his neighbor the land that his garage is on. About 45’ would go from Lot 16 to Lot 20. Leslie said he owned three lots and combined them previously so that he could put his septic system on one and the house on another.
Chair Hart said that this was a minor change to an existing subdivision.
6:13 PM Meeting opened for public hearing. No comments.
Chair Hart disclosed that she got a call from a neighbor asking what this was about. She explained it to him.
6:14 PM Public Hearing closed.
Judy asked if there was anything in the original subdivision that by moving this line, would affect anyone else in the subdivision. Mr. Tarbox said no. He has already given this abutter an easement.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept the amended plan to the Tilbury Park Subdivision Plan. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6:15 PM Ed Lawrence returned to the Board.
5.) Public Hearing - Minor Site Plan Review
A public hearing and review of a Minor Site Plan Application from Rebecca Whitten who is seeking approval to conduct an In-Home Day Care at 30 West St, City Tax Map 28, Lot 22.
Mrs. Whitten said that she would like to open an in-home daycare for 3 – 6 kids. It is a private home that is large and she has a large yard. The hours of operation will be from 7:00 AM – 5:30 PM.
The Board reviewed the Application for completeness. Mrs. Whitten had applied for a number of waivers.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that they grant the following waivers: Section 5.H.5. b, e (ground floor elevations), i & r. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart asked if any of the members felt that they could not review this application in an unbiased manner. They all said they could.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that this application is complete. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6:24 PM Meeting opened for public comment.
6:24 PM No comments, public hearing closed.
The Board reviewed the Performance Standards in Sec. 3 to determine which ones apply.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that only two Performance Standards apply to this application – I Home Occupation and O Noise. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Judy noted that noise is covered in Section 3.I.2.f. Home Occupation, therefore doesn’t need to be addressed as a separate standard.
Judy Dorsey made a motion that we delete the Noise Standard from our review except as defined in Section 3.I.2.f. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard I has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board reviewed the Review Criteria in Section 5.Q. of the Land Use Ordinance. Skip Standards 1 & 2 for now.
3. Utilization of the Site
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 3 as written by the Applicant. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
4. Traffic Access
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 4 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
5. Pedestrian Access
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 5 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6. Buildings
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 6 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7. Storage of Materials
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.
8. Stormwater Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 8 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
9. Erosion Control
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 9 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
10. Water Supply
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.
11. Sewage Disposal
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.
12. Utilities
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.
13. Natural Features
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 13 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
14. Groundwater Protection
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 14 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
15.–17. Water Quality Protection, Hazardous, Special & Radioactive Materials,
Shoreland Relationship
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 15 – 17 do not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
18. Capacity of the Applicant
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.
19. Solid Waste Management
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.
20. Historic and Archeological Resources
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 20 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
21. Floodplain Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Criteria 21 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
2. Compliance w/City Ordinances & Codes
Pam Mitchel made a motion that this property 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.
1. General
Pam Mitchel made a motion that this property’s use meets the appropriate standards and conforms to the requirements of the district in which it is located. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we approve this application with a note that the Applicant require the pick up and drop off only be in her driveway and not in the street. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6:39 PM Adjourned to sign plans.
6:47 Reconvene meeting
6) Minor Site Plan Review Continuation
Nicholas J. Beaulieu, Applicant, is seeking Minor Site Plan approval to construct a 15-lot Campground. 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 of the Board members cannot review this application in an unbiased manner.
6:49 PM Ed Lawrence recused himself as he has done contract work for this project.
Chair Hart went over the history of this application. She said that the Board had done a completeness review and found it complete. They had held a public hearing and had received additional documents.
Chair Hart asked the Board members if they had any questions for the Applicant. Judy Dorsey felt that the Inland Fisheries & Wildlife letter was not addressed in the additional materials. The letter is based on incorrect information. Bill Najpauer said that that information was only required under a subdivision and is not required for this site plan review.
Chair Hart asked about the road width for the 2-way access. It was not on the plan. Nick said it is probably about 20 feet.
Judy Dorsey said that she isn’t certain that the information here addresses the outstanding issues – the top of the road and the common lot. Who has the right to expand the access to the common lot and who can make changes? There was a discussion at the previous meeting about what people signed when purchasing the property and a deed with different information being filed. One of the property owners filing didn’t give Mr. Beaulieu the right to change the rules.
Chair Hart asked what the Board’s authority is in these matters – they feel like civil issues.
Judy asked if the applicant doesn’t have authority over the land, how can we make decisions on the use of the land. The Guilmettes claimed that Nick tried to get them to give him an easement over her land. She would not sign. Nick’s lawyers have said that it wasn’t an issue – everything’s fine. Why try to get an amendment if everything is ok? Are there still legal issues? She said the common lot is different. It was a feature that was added to our approval.
Chair Hart asked if the Guilmettes had submitted the information that they were getting from their financial institution. Dorothy said that Ms. Guilmette had brought in the letter, but discovered it had her account number and Social Security Number on it and decided to take it back. She did not bring in anything else.
Debbie Willis said that she thinks these issues are fundamental to this application. Does he have authority to do this?
Bill said the Board has to ask, is it part of the review criteria that they are to consider, what information have they received, and is it adequate enough to make some sort of decision to proceed?
Chair Hart said that on advice from the City Attorney in prior applications that prior knowledge can be included and they had prior knowledge of the question of ownership of the right-of-way.
Judy said that in one way it doesn’t matter whether Ms. Guilmette gave us something new or not because the question is, can you get the big recreational vehicles in and out and do they have the right to do that and what impact they are going to have on the road. We can deal with the impact to the road but can we deal with whether or not Nick has the right.
Judy said lets assume that they have the easement and if they don’t, they can battle it out in court, we still have the issue of whether the use you want to make of that easement is a reasonable use. Is that up to the Planning Board to decide?
Bill said that it is the responsibility of the Planning Board members to review the application. You answer that question in terms of whether or not the application meets the criteria.
Judy said she is talking about the intensity of the use and referred to a court case Poire. She said this is a legal question, separate and apart from the review criteria and any of the pieces of the application. It is a decision about whether the easement is written in such a way that this use is allowed. Who decides that?
Bill said that the Planning Board would have to make the decision and ask themselves if they are comfortable with or have enough evidence to proceed with the review and if the answer is yes, they would go ahead with the review and state that if they approve the application, the approval of the application does not indicate any leaning as to resolving the issue of the road and is conditional upon the applicant and other parties resolving this issue on their own.
Or the Board could say that based on the information that they received from the applicant and the other party that we have a question as to the easement and unless this is resolved, the Board can’t proceed with the review and would have to vote to deny the application. If the Board does that, he thinks it is still important to go through the application so that the Board is basing their decision on a thorough review of the application. In the end you might say that the application may meet all of the criteria, however, you still have this issue and we are either comfortable with this and want to proceed or are uncomfortable with it.
Pam Mitchel said there are a lot of legal issues here that she doesn’t understand.
Jim Montell said that from what he sees in the application and from what he has heard, nothing is really clear to him and he is uncomfortable voting for something that is unclear.
Chair Hart said that they could ask for legal advice from the City Solicitor on the questions raised. Judy said that the question of who has the right to expand access to the common lot is integral to the application because it is part of what these campers are going to get for their fee. Chair Hart said that in the original subdivision, the common lot was not a subdivision lot. There was the subdivision and the people had access to this lot.
Judy said there is still an underlying issue as to whether or not the applicant has the right, unilaterally, to make changes in how that property is used. The association agreement says that they all decide that stuff together. There has been a deed change that is in some deeds and not in others and in some deeds it has been alleged to have been put in there illegally. The applicant is now taking that back and can change these deeds unilaterally. Chair Hart asked Judy if she felt that this is a fundamental question of standing to even ask for anything on that lot or water access. Judy said it’s not standing, but right, title, deed. Debbie agreed. This issue is different, somewhat, from the top of the road issue. That issue is, at a minimum, how can you use that easement given how
it is written – can you do what you want with it or were there restrictions on it. This issue has an underlying issue of who gets to decide how the common lot will be used and then when they decide that, who gets to decide if he can unilaterally do that and has he done it in a way that is reasonable and doesn’t reasonably infringe upon the rights of the other people who have access to it as well.
Chair Hart said that the questions concern the top of the road and who decides to what extent that easement can be overburdened on the access piece and who decides how the common lot will be used. It was decided that Judy and Debbie would develop the questions for the City Attorney.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we request Debbie Willis and Judy Dorsey to draft questions concerning some of the legal issues for the City Attorney. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Debbie and Judy will create a draft for Pat to review and have the City Attorney reply to the Planning Board as a whole.
The Board reviewed the Performance Standards in Section 3. They decided to look at the Campground standards first.
G. Campground
1 & 2 are ok.
3. This doesn’t apply.
4. There will be extra space where visitors can pull in on a grassy area –
each lot will have 200 SF, not including the pad.
5. Have concerns about fire rings not being permanently placed.
6. Ok
7. Ok
8. Does not apply
Chair Hart referred to Bill Najpauer’s recommendations for conditions on this standard and agrees with all of them.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Campground Performance Standard has been met with the conditions that there be permanent locations for the fire pits so they cannot be moved and the road be posted with a 15 MPH sign, that a sign be placed indicating no parking on the road, and to change the rule for the number of vehicles per site to not more than one motor vehicle other than the recreational vehicle will be allowed to park on each site. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Jim asked who will enforce this. Judy said they will get to that as they continue.
The Board reviewed the remaining Performance Standards to determine which ones do not apply. They determined that Performance Standards A, D, E, H, I, J, K, M, N, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X, Z, AA, BB, CC and DD do not apply.
Pam Mitchel moved that the following Performance Standards apply to this application: B, C, F, L, O, P, S & Y with the note that the Board has already considered G, which applies to Campgrounds. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
B. Accessory Building and Swimming Pools
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard B has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
C. Access Management
Judy noted that there is a disagreement about the number of vehicle trips projected. Nick had one figure, Bill had another and some think there will be over 200. She said it impacts the capacity of the road.
Chair Hart said that having 15 recreational vehicles on the road changes the intensity of traffic and it changes the character of the neighborhood. She has concerns about the impact on the subdivision and the camp owners and suggested that they not vote on this standard right now.
No Vote was Taken.
F. Buffer Areas
Chair Hart noted that there should be no activity or development in the buffer areas.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Performance Standard F has been met with the condition that there be no activity or development in the buffer areas and that the buffer be maintained as a natural buffer and that trees and shrubs be maintained. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
L. Lighting
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard L has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
O. Noise
The Board discussed the hours of operation and staff coverage times. It was suggested that the Applicant get information on operating rules from other campgrounds.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard O has been met with the condition that there be an attendant on duty from 8:00 AM – 8:15 PM and a physical check be done at 10:00 PM and a phone number be available at all times where someone will be available. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
P. Non-Residential Development
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard P has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
S. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard S. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Y. Signs and Billboards
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard Y has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board reviewed Section 5.Q. of the Land Use Ordinance (Review Criteria)
The Board discussed Review Criteria 1. & 2. Jim wondered if this was an intrusion in a residential neighborhood. Chair Hart said that it was an allowed use, but you do have to go through a residential neighborhood to get there. Pam thought that perhaps it does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in Criteria 2. They decided to skip 1. & 2. for now.
3. Utilization of the Site
Pam Mitchel made a motion that based on the information provided by the Applicant, we believe that it meets the natural capabilities of the site. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 3 in favor. 1 opposed. 1 abstained. Motion passed.
4. Traffic Access
The Board discussed the width of the road and recreational vehicles and safety issues. The application indicates that the recreational vehicles could be as wide as 8’6”. The road was indicated as being 18’ through the residential neighborhood.
4.a. Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Board doesn’t feel the road system accessing the site is adequate for this type of development. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
4.b. Pam Mitchel made a motion that access to the site does not appear to be safe. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
4.c. Skip this for now and look at the Access Management Standards in Section 3.
4.d. Pam Mitchel made a motion that the internal vehicular circulation plan provides for safe movement of vehicles throughout the site. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
5. Pedestrian Access
Pam Mitchel made a motion that this plan provides for adequate pedestrian access to the water and safe pedestrian access throughout the campground. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6. Buildings
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the buildings and parking are appropriately placed. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7. Storage of Materials
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant has provided for adequate storage of materials. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
8. Stormwater Management
Bill described how the drainage follows through a natural drainage way and is diverted beyond the Martins, McLaughlin’s & Goodwins. Most of it drains into catchment areas A & B. Judy asked if the charts need to be changed due to the increase in rain. She said the current 25 year flood plain charts just don’t cut it.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application properly addresses stormwater management Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Judy Dorsey moved to add to #8, that the stormwater features will be maintained by the campground owner. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
9. Erosion Control
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant has provided evidence of Best Management Practices for erosion control and that the Applicant should place on the Final Plan, a note that all stormwater and erosion control measures shall be installed according to the Stormwater Control Plan for Colonial Heritage RV Park as designed by Terra Magna Services as noted in the Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
10. Water Supply
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant has shown that there will be an adequate water supply. A note shall be placed on the Final Plan that this system is a private system. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
11. Sewage Disposal
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application provides for adequate disposal of sewage. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
12. Utilities
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant provides for appropriate utilities on the property. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
13. Natural Features
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant provides for appropriate protection of natural features. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
14. Groundwater Protection
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant provides appropriate groundwater protections. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
15. Water Quality Protection
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant provides appropriate water quality protection and the Applicant is required to obtain all appropriate DEP Stormwater permits prior to development. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
16. Hazardous, Special, and Radioactive Materials
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 16 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
17. Shoreland Relationship
Bill noted that the path to the water requires a permit from the CEO.
9:43 PM Break
9:45 PM Meeting Re-convened.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application does not have development that adversely affects the water quality or Shoreland of Cobbossee Stream. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
18. Capacity of the Applicant
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant has demonstrated that he has financial and technical capacity. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Judy asked what if the project fails – can we ask for more proof? Chair Hart said that we haven’t in past applications.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
19. Solid Waste Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Applicant has provided for appropriate solid waste management. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
20. Historic and Archaeological Resources
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 20 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
21. Floodplain Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 21 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board discussed what to do next. They have not finished Access Management, they have to complete Review Criteria 1. & 2. They also discussed possible outstanding legal issues. Chair Hart recommended that they table the Application to the January meeting to give them time to get some legal advice from the City Attorney.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to table this Application to the January meeting. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Nick referred to the vote that the capacity of the road is not adequate and referred them to page 103 of his Application. Chair Hart said that they were not looking for more data. They have made their decision that the width is not adequate.
OTHER
7.) ADJOURN
Pam Mitchel made a motion to adjourn. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:23 PM
| 
