TOWN OF SEBAGO
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
I Call to Order
Chairman Paul White called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Present: Chuck Archer, Donna Cook, Phil Lowe, Joe McMahon, Dick Perry, Tina Vanasse, Paul White, Code Enforcement Officer Bob DeVilleneuve, and Recorder Maureen Scanlon.
Guests present: Bill Thompson (from BH2M Engineers), Jim Libby, Marjie & James Jansz, Selectmen Edie Harnden & Ann Farley, Bill Harrop, Kathleen McDade, Bruce Weymouth, Gretchen & Richard Terhune, Town Manager Jim Smith, Mark Troiano, Doug Weymouth, Bob Rayner, Jon Whitten Jr. (from Terradyn Consultants LLC), Bill McDade, Gary & Ramona Sleeper.
The following correspondence/documentation was distributed to the Planning Board members at the meeting;
1. Documentation submitted by Town Manager Jim Smith for the Fire & Rescue Station site location project.
1. A copy of a correspondence received from Planning Board member Phil Lowe (dated June 14, 2011) in response to comments made by Dan Tocci regarding the Proposed RV Park (Hawkes Road) project.
2. A copy of an e-mail message from Joseph Miller (dated July 6, 2011) withdrawing the request for the Taralaine Estates subdivision name change.
3. A copy of an e-mail message from Ted Manning (dated June 28, 2011) regarding the Taralaine Estates subdivision. NOTE: Mr. Manning is a property owner in this subdivision.
4. A copy of an e-mail message from Bob Brady (dated June 28, 2011) regarding the Taralaine Estates subdivision. NOTE: Mr. Brady is a property owner in this subdivision.
III Open to Public Questions
Marjie Jansz asked for direction from the Planning Board on how to dissolve an easement. She explained that she and her husband live on Garden Estates Drive. Apparently their property has an easement on it that they never knew existed. She produced a plan that she has found which shows this easement as being intended as a retention pond for fire protection. She explained that it is not being used for this purpose and therefore they would like to have it dissolved. Paul White stated that the Board will address this matter for them at the end of the meeting.
Phil Lowe asked Bob DeVilleneuve if he wanted to discuss the campground issue that he had questioned in an e-mail he sent to the Planning Board members. Bob stated that basically a family purchased a piece of property in the Village District and they have put 4 or 5 camper trailers on this property for relatives to use when they visit. There have been some concerns brought to him as to whether or not this is legal to do. He asked what the Planning Board’s opinion is on the matter because he has not seen anything that specifies that they can not do it. It was suggested that he review the copy of the Department of Health and Human Services Campground Rules that was previously submitted for review by Joe McMahon. It was noted
that it is a family campsite and no compensation is paid for the use of the campsites, which means that this is not a commercial use of the property; therefore it is not addressed in the existing Land Use ordinance.
This item was tabled until next month’s meeting after further research is done on the matter.
IV Review of Minutes (June 14, 2011)
Phil Lowe made a motion to accept the June 14, 2011 meeting minutes as presented. It was seconded by Tina Vanasse. Motion carried with all in favor.
V Old Business
a. Subdivision Site Plan Review – Revised Sebago Ridge Estates Subdivision – (Don Gilbert) – Map 11, Lot 18-A1 thru 18-A11, 18-12 thru 18-56
Paul White clarified that according to Mr. Thompson’s letter dated May 10, 2011 the new approach being proposed is to leave the larger back lot undeveloped and to just have the front portion that has been built continue to be approved. It was noted that all proper fees have been paid. Maureen Scanlon mentioned that there is still an existing escrow account for the “former” subdivision project. These funds are held by the town for a second engineering firm to go out to the site and confirm that the design is accurate. Paul White stated that this will be considered during the final approval process and any unnecessary funds will be returned to the applicant. The issue of the upgrading of the roadway was brought up. Paul White made note of the fact that if the back lots are
not going to be developed, there may not be a need to perform upgrades to the roadway. This will also be addressed during the final approval process. There was some discussion on the fact that this was part of the original subdivision approval. Bill Thompson mentioned that the original approval was for 59 lots and this number will be reduced significantly. They are now asking for an amendment of the plan for conditional approval. Paul White stated that when the original plan was for 59 lots in the back portion of the property, the road repair was logically tied into that back portion as well. By abandoning that at the present time, they would also like to abandon that obligation to repair the road. Repairing the road is not material to the current application in front of the Board at this time. If the applicant decides to develop the back lot at a later time, it would make sense to require the roadway repairs at that time. Paul also
stated that if an applicant requests to change their plans because of economic circumstances, it doesn’t serve the town’s interest to have a large portion of property sitting in a state that will never be (or at least not in the foreseeable future) economically viable to develop. It was also noted that this subdivision was originally approved under the old ordinance and any new approval will be subject to the new ordinance requirements.
A Site Walk will be performed at this location on Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 8:00 am. It was noted that this is open to the public and the Planning Board will be meeting at the entranceway (closest to the property) of Folly Road.
A Public Hearing will be held on this matter at the August 9, 2011 Planning Board meeting.
Maureen Scanlon mentioned that the location of the August 9, 2011 meeting needs to be moved in order to accommodate the School Budget Election that will be held at the Town Office building. It was determined that the August meeting will be held downstairs at the “Old” Town Hall building.
b. Request for Street Name Change in the Taralaine Subdivision (Taralaine Drive) – Sherry & Joseph Miller
Paul White stated that the Miller’s are not present tonight and have submitted an e-mail message rescinding their request for the name change.
c. Further Exploration of Issues regarding Long Beach LLC (Samuel & Jan Minervino)
Paul White asked the Code Enforcement Officer to update the Board on the status of this issue. Bob explained that he has been looking into the matter of verifying the correct number of existing moorings. Mr. Minervino stated that he has a total of fifty; but the town’s documentation only refers to thirty-six. There was some discussion on how to proceed in confirming the actual number of moorings that are located in the water whether they are “floated” or not. It was suggested that perhaps the divers have something to go by when they raise the moorings or check the chains, etc. There was some discussion on the town’s authority in pursuing this matter. Paul White stated that it becomes a civil action by the municipal officers to the District Court of the county, if a
person refuses to come before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review. In this matter, it is because the Board is questioning the possible unauthorized expansion of the business. Paul explained the process. The Code Enforcement Officer sends a letter of action with sixty days notice to the violator. After the sixty day period, the CEO will go to the Board of Selectmen to proceed. The Board of Selectmen will then refer it to the town’s attorney to proceed with the civil action. There was some discussion regarding the fact that a letter has been previously sent to the Minervinos. It was noted that the original letter referred to the “barge/dock” being a violation. The Board reviewed the letters that have been sent to the Minervinos to date and the items that were addressed in those letters. Paul asked if Bob has sent any letters recently to the Minervinos specifically making reference to the number of moorings
issue. Bob stated that he has not. On behalf of the Board, Paul asked Bob to send a letter to the Minervinos specifically stating that we feel you are in violation because you are only authorized for thirty-six moorings and you have told us that you have fifty, so you need to get your number down to thirty-six. Specifically those numbers and use of the words expressed “In Violation”. Paul asked that Bob discuss this with the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, and the town’s attorney in order to have the correct language in the letter that meets the statutory requirements that will toll the penalties. In other words, it will give a date from which the court can impose penalties. This may give them some incentive to come into compliance. There was some discussion on whether or not there actually are fifty moorings. It was suggested that we take him at his word of fifty moorings and act on that. If he proves
that he doesn’t have fifty moorings, or if he has taken actions to remove a sufficient number to get back to thirty-six, which is the number in the last documentation that we have, then it would resolve the matter. Phil Lowe stated that he would like to work together to get on track and have something for the Selectmen so that it can be acted on by the next meeting so it doesn’t go on and on for months and months. There was some discussion on how to proceed. Paul White reiterated the point that it is reflected in the July 1988 Planning Board meeting minutes, the property owner at that time stated that there were thirty-six moorings with twenty-eight in use; yet at the April 12, 2011 meeting, the current property owner stated that there are fifty moorings. This obvious discrepancy warrants the need to verify the actual number of moorings in existence at this location.
Phil Lowe made the following motion;
The Planning Board requests the Board of Selectmen to take action against the Long Beach LLC for having more than the approved thirty-six (36) moorings.
It was seconded by Donna Cook. Motion carried with all in favor.
Basically, if there are more than thirty-six moorings being used, the Minervinos need to come before the Planning Board to seek approval for the expansion of use. There was some further discussion with input allowed from the audience members ranging from parking issues on this property and what a mooring actually is.
This item will be added to the agenda for the August 9, 2011 meeting for follow-up.
VI New Business
a. Site Plan Review – Proposed Fire & Rescue Building Site – (Town Manager James M. Smith III) – P/O Map 2, Lot 34
Jim Smith stated that this project has turned out to be more involved than he originally thought it would be, such as Phosphorous studies and DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) approval being required. Jim explained that at the Annual Town Meeting this year, the residents authorized to expend approximately $262,000.00 in existing funds to acquire the property and perform the site work for the building. The funds for the construction of the building itself have not been approved yet. This will have to be approved at a later date, however, if the building design is not approved, the town will not move forward on this project, which is why the Planning Board is being asked to review the whole project at this time. Jim mentioned that if this building project or the appropriate funding is not
approved, the Shaw Brothers have stated that they will buy the land back. They do not want it sold to anyone else. Jim introduced Jon Whitten from Terradyn Consultants. Jon submitted documentation to the Planning Board members with the completed project application. He explained the general information on the building site location, the access roadway and the proposed building. Jon stated that a DEP storm water permit is required. This location will be treated as a separate lot from the gravel pit lot, therefore there will be a separate septic system and well, and the power cables will be underground. A full design plan will be submitted for the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting.
Paul White reviewed the Site Plan Review ordinance for submission requirements and suggested that Jon review this ordinance to assure all requirements have been met. Jon answered some questions from the audience members regarding matters such as the soil in this location and the pitch of the roof. It was suggested that the proposed pitch of the roof is too shallow and we will have “shoveling” issues when too much snow accumulates on it.
This item will be added to the agenda for the August 9, 2011 meeting.
b. Miscellaneous Item (from “Open to Public Questions” section above) – Easement Dissolution Issue – (Marjorie & James Jansz) – Map 2, Lot 2-H
The Planning Board asked Maureen Scanlon to pull the Planning Board file on this property for their review. Paul White stated that the easement was originally done in 2005 with the fire pond. He read the following statements from the letter to DeLuca-Hoffman Consulting Engineers from Alan L. Burnell, CSS from Pinkham & Greer Consulting Engineers (dated December 19, 2005).
“The applicant requested that we review the location and function of the first proposed retention/fire pond (originally located on the plan where the “existing easement” is labeled). His concern was that it was oversized and would not perform either as a fire pond or retention pond due to location and soil conditions. Onsite observations during the initial construction substantiated that concern and we have therefore relocated the proposed pond to what we feel is a more suitable location.
The proposed pond will no longer be required to function as a fire supply pond as an alternative as determined by the Fire Chief has been agreed to.
We have located the pond in an area that already captures the runoff from the sub-catchment area shown on the attached plan. The proposal is to reshape this area, create a small weir to direct the runoff toward the already installed culvert and then continue on to the down gradient stream. Although this will require some wetland alteration it will be less than the 4300 sq. ft. allowed by the NRPA Permit by Rule and no additional permit will be required.
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning board is on January 9, 2006 and we are hoping that you can respond prior to that meeting.”
A copy of this letter was given to Mr. & Mrs. Jansz. Paul White explained that it was originally approved and then they came back with this letter asking for approval to move it. Paul stated that he does not know what the status was between the two parties. Bob DeVilleneuve stated that the Jansz’s deed shows that they own the entire area including the easement area. There seemed to be a discrepancy between the contractor’s (John Porter) design plan and the Jansz’s plan. Paul stated that he is not going to give any legal advice other than that they have an argument that the property is now fully theirs. He suggested that the Jansz’s talk to a qualified attorney to get legal advice on the matter. Paul stated that this Board can not dissolve the easement
until they have been advised that the Jansz’s own the whole property. It was stated that an easement has a purpose and it is usually on land that is owned by another that gives somebody else a right to do what the easement was intended for in the first place.
Phil Lowe made a motion to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. It was seconded by Joe McMahon. Motion carried with all in favor.
Maureen F. Scanlon
Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
Note: These minutes are not verbatim. A recording of the proceedings are available in the Clerk’s office during regular office hours.