NEW GLOUCESTER PLANNING BOARD

Minutes of May 16, 2006

Members Present: Others Present:

Jean Libby, Chairman Dennis McIntosh

Karen Asselin, Vice Chairman Deborah Emery

Wanda Brissette Steve Roberge

Ruth Waterhouse Dennis Waterman

Janet Smaldon Chris Branch

Sue Robitaille

Absent:

Laurie Brady (excused)

Town Staff:

Amanda Simpson, Town Planner

1. Call to Order

2. Review and Approval of Minutes

Motion: To accept the minutes of April 18, 2006 as written. Ruth, second Karen. 6-0

Motion: To accept the minutes of May 3, 2006 as written with the following corrections. (a)Tony Castro should be listed as present at the meeting; (b) in first paragraph under Private Dwelling – Alpha Castro the wording should be changed from “add a bath” to “enlarge a bath” and from “create a full bath” to “create a ¾ bath”; and under Other Business Wanda Brissette is also coming up on the Planning Board to be reconfirmed, along with Karen and Janet. Ruth, second Karen. 6-0.

3a. Public Hearings

Memorial Elementary School MSAD #15

Map 11-Lot 6, 86 Intervale Road

Jean asked if anyone from the School was present for the Public Hearing. On seeing that there was no representative from the school Wanda suggested moving this item forward for 15 or 20 minutes to allow time for the School to show up and be present.

Motion: To take the next item on the Agenda which is Promised Land II out of order. Karen, second Ruth. 6-0.

4a. Preliminary Plans

Promised Land II – Dennis McIntosh

Map 4 – Lot 14, Promise Land

Dennis McIntosh addressed the Board to review lot subdivision on Promised Land. Jean said it was her understanding that they are adding another lot. McIntosh said he was adding another lot only on paper and that the lot was remaining land that would not be developed. Jean advised that when the right-of-way is put in to the lot that is remaining there is already a 60 foot right-of-way that services two driveways at this time, Lot 8 and Lot 13. Lot 13 is a vacant lot accessed from Morse Road or from the right-of-way. Jean said in a subdivision curbcuts are limited and in this subdivision there are already two curbcuts. Jean asked if McIntosh understood that once they made a 50 foot right-of-way across it, it would limit the remaining land to one lot forever, unless they wanted to make it a 60 foot right-of-way. Jean said it will go onto the plan that this lot cannot be further developed without Planning Board review. Jean asked for further questions from the Board.

Janet asked why Lot 7 was not surveyed if it was part of this subdivision. McIntosh said it was his lot and it was accessed by Morse Road. Jean asked where the driveway was for Lot 10. McIntosh said it was about 40-50 feet to the right of the pin where it says 50 foot right-of-way. It was discovered there was a discrepancy in Plans that were distributed to the Board. Amanda said all the plans have May 5th as a revision date, but some plans appeared to be copies with revisions after that date without being re-dated. The driveway shows on one of the versions.

Janet asked about the 3 lot rule on a 50 foot right-of-way. Amanda stated that once you get to three lots you need to have a 60 foot right-of-way. Because of confusion on the Plan of where the 50 foot right-of-way ends and the 60 foot right-of-way begins it was discussed about location of the driveways for Lots 11 and 14. Karen asked if the issue of placement of the driveways should be done as a condition. Karen asked how this should be worded and Amanda said “the southerly shared driveway off of Promised Lane is restricted to serve Lots 11 and 14.” Jean said also to be addressed was a note on the plan that there will be no development on Lot 5 without Planning Board review.

Discussion continued about what was still needed. Well sites need to be depicted on the plan as well as test pits. Amanda said they did receive a letter regarding well supply indicating history of the site. There was a test pit for Lot 11 but not Lot 14. McIntosh said Lot 14 was for the future and only added it on because it would eventually be turned over to his daughter. McIntosh said he thought Lot 14 was going to be subject to Planning Board approval. Amanda said she had suggested to McIntosh that if he felt this would be his final subdivision he should bring it in at this time. A condition would be that a building permit would not be approved without an approved septic design by the Code Enforcement Officer. Amanda asked if Lots 14 and 5 would require approved septic systems prior to acceptance of a building permit. Karen said she understood Lot 5 would have no further development. If served as a back lot it cannot have further subdivision. Jean said with Ordinance McIntosh has limited himself to one house on Lot 5. McIntosh said regarding Lot 5 he has no intention at this point to develop this lot. Janet said there may need to be something noted that a house could be built on lot 5, but that the land could not be subdivided. There has not been a test pit on Lot 5 so that makes it a different scenario. Amanda said if it is treated as a single lot of record the issue is for building only. If McIntosh wants to leave it with a question that if it met all the standards the typical limitation note regarding “no further development without further review” would be appropriate.

Jean said there were a lot of waivers requested. She also restated that the Board had decided not to conduct a site walk, she now asked if anyone had changed their mind in lieu of tonight’s discussions and the different plans presented. Karen said she was comfortable not walking it, and there was no further discussion.

Jean asked if Gary Sacco had been contacted regarding waiving the fire pond. She said it can only be waived if an engineer said there were no soils to support it as this plan was put before the Board prior to the new Fire Ordinance. Amanda agreed with this if the Plan has already had substantive review prior to the new Ordinance. Amanda said the Board should make a determination if this has had substantive review. It was stated the merits of this application were discussed on April 18th which was prior to the Fire Ordinance passing. Jean said initial application was submitted on March 16th. Karen said in review of the past presentations to the Board she felt it had not been substantive. Jean said on April 18th the fire pond had been discussed.

Motion: Consider fire protection under the old subdivision standards and zoning ordinance prior to the May 1, 2006 amendment. Karen, second Ruth. 5-1.

Jean said the only way the fire pond can be waived is if a letter is presented by an engineer that says the soils would not support a fire pond. A fire pond needs to be within the subdivision. If McIntosh wants the Board to reconsider using the new ordinance and putting in a tank, he needs to see if Gary Sacco would consider the Morse Road adequate fire protection. McIntosh asked for confirmation that the Board needs a letter from Sacco and an engineer regarding a fire pond in the subdivision or a letter from an engineer that says there is no place to hold water. Karen asked why he would have an option. Wanda asked why it was not addressed at the initial subdivision application. Jean said a number of subdivisions in Town were never asked to have a fire pond. The original plan for McIntosh was in 1989 and it was probably not required at that time. McIntosh said this application had only one lot at issue, but Karen said potentially the fire pond would be serving 14 lots.

Karen said McIntosh should explore getting a letter for whether the soils will support a fire pond and that may take care of the issue and they might be able to waive the fire pond. Dick Sweet could prepare that letter after testing soils. At that time they could come back to what the next available option would be.

Amanda said a waiver was also requested for a hydrogeologic assessment and a request for 2 foot contours. Karen asked if there was a waiver request for vehicle impact. Karen reviewed that McIntosh has requested waivers for 2 foot contours; fire pond protection, which needs to be clarified; estimated vehicle traffic impact which has been addressed on Note 5 and there will be a recommendation on how this can include Lot 14; hydrological assessment; wetland delineation; underground utilities; monumentation; and stormwater. Karen asked if McIntosh would include these all in one letter for the next meeting for clarification. McIntosh asked what exactly the letter should say. Karen suggested “Dear Amanda, I request the following waivers with respect to the Promise Land II Estates Application” and then the letter should list all the waivers just discussed.

Amanda explained that part of the confusion has been that the checklist first used was for a minor subdivision and not a major subdivision and did not include everything that was needed for a major subdivision. Amanda said she could go over this checklist with McIntosh.

3a. Public Hearings

Memorial Elementary School MSAD #15

Map 11-Lot 6, 86 Intervale Road

Due to the absence of a representative from Memorial School, Jean asked the Board for their consideration to open the Public Hearing so the abutters to the Memorial School would be allowed to voice their opinions and concerns and have them part of the Minutes, but not close the public hearing. Amanda said Jean could open the Public Hearing and then continue it to the next meeting. Jean said the Public Hearing was publicized and it needed to be done.

Jean and Karen agreed that public comment could be taken, but there could not be a vote because the School was not present.

Jean opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. and asked if anyone would like to address the Board.

Deborah Emery addressed the Board. She resides at the property across the street from Memorial and she abuts Memorial’s property that is owned across the street from the school. Her concern is with the growth of New Gloucester the proposal for the school is to tear down part of the school and add less than the part removed. She feels the way the Town is growing with subdivisions, she does not see that the conclusion could be needed for less space than they are tearing down. Karen said a demographic study was prepared and is in the file. Amanda said Emery could read this study at Town Hall. Jean stated that the Board could not discuss anything tonight in fairness to the applicant because they are the ones who would have the answers. Emery said that her concern is from a common sense point of view that a larger addition should be made, not a smaller one.

Jean asked if the Board wanted the Public Hearing closed at this point or to remain open. Karen felt it should be closed because they did not know if the School would be present at the next meeting. Wanda asked if the applicant was required to be at the Public Hearing. Jean said yes, and she would agree with Karen that the Public Hearing should be closed at this point.

Motion: To close the Public Hearing. Karen, second Ruth. 6-0.

4.b. Preliminary Plans

Waterman Subdivision – Dennis Waterman

Map 10–Lot 28, Sawyer Road

Steve Roberge, design engineer on Dennis Waterman’s subdivision, addressed the Board. He summarized that they had come before the Board last year and had a site walk. One of the issues was the traffic generated on this project. They have redone the plan. They went to the Ethel Sawyer Road and counted 14 houses on that road and revised the plan to show 6 lots. This makes 20 lots or 200 vehicle trips per day on the lot. That said, Roberge made the argument based on the lawyer’s letter received July 2005 and how that can be interpreted with this subdivision as the beginning of the Ethel Sawyer Road is a public road with 6 lots, and the remaining road is a private road maintained by a homeowner’s association. The lawyer’s letter is in the application packet and on the second page of the letter the lawyer defines how the trips are interpreted in relationship to the subdivision and the road. Roberge quotes the letter at 8.2e “any subdivision expected to generate average daily traffic of 200 trips or more per day shall have at least two street connections.” Roberge said this does not apply to their subdivision. The next sentence does apply “any street with an average daily traffic of 200 trips per day or more shall have at least two street connections leading to existing public streets.” The very beginning portion of Sawyer Road is a public street, so if you take the 6 lots off the public street to which we are connecting our subdivision and private road would generate less than the 200 trips per day. We are showing 6 lots on this project, but we initially came in with 8, we would still like to propose 8 lots. They are trying to stay under the 200 trips per day on this project. It will connect onto a public road which is the Ethel Sawyer Road.

Karen disagreed because of history of another subdivision where there was a public road going in, but a second public road access was still required. Jean explained that in this case the other road where the houses are would not come up to 20 even with the subdivision. Karen said she did not want to argue the issue as there is some leeway, it is not a requirement for a second public road access.

Jean quoted the Ordinance “any street with an average daily traffic of 200 trips per day or more shall have at least two street connectors to existing public streets. Streets shown on the official map or streets on an approved subdivision plan with such performance guarantees that have been filed and accepted.” Roberge said all they need to do is hit one of those three streets and they are. Dennis Waterman explained the history of the road. The location of where it is on his property is no part of the range way and is solely on his property. Karen said she was satisfied with the explanation. Jean asked how many houses are privately maintained. Waterman said there are 8 currently. Amanda asked how many lots of record have access off either the private part of Sawyer Road or the proposed portion of Sawyer Road they are building. Waterman said with the possible lots that are not developed he could not answer exactly except that it is fewer than 20. Jean asked where the Town turns around from the public part of the road. Discussion continued regarding number of lots and that there will be a total of 16 lots. Janet asked for clarification of the number of lots. The confusion was that the number of lots included the lots on the public road.