I Call to Order
Chairman Paul White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Donna Cook, Phil Lowe, Joe McMahon, Dick Perry, Tina Vanasse, Paul White, Code Enforcement Officer Mike Collins, Recorder Maureen Scanlon.
Absent: Chuck Archer
Guests present: Jon Whitten Jr. (from Terradyn Consultants LLC), Rescue Chief Tim Smith, Firefighters; Phil Strike and Carl Dolloff, Selectmen; Ann Farley, Allen Crabtree and Edie Harnden, Laurence Minott, Jr. Esq. (from Sawyer Sawyer & Minott P.A.), Carol Woodman, Mike Borsetti, Jim & Marjorie Jansz, Town Manager James M. Smith III, Adam Laneau, Ted Greene.
Maureen Scanlon explained that the e-mail message that she forwarded to the Planning Board members from Sebago resident Bill Harrop dated February 8, 2012 was for informational purposes only. This is not an agenda item for tonight’s meeting. This document was also forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer, the Board of Selectmen, and the Zoning Board of Appeals as per Mr. Harrop’s request. It was noted that the Board is not taking any action on this matter at this time. A copy of this e-mail message is attached to and does hereby become a part of the original set of these minutes.
Maureen Scanlon provided copies of documentation that she came across while organizing the file for the “original” Hanson Brook Valley Subdivision project. This documentation consisted of a “Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review Application Checklist” and a “Subdivision Final Plan Review Application Checklist” for the Town of Sebago. It also included a copy of the Statutory Guidelines – Subdivision Review 30 MRSA section 4956. She submitted these documents to the Planning Board with the thought that this information may help them to develop “new” checklist forms for the town as was discussed at the Planning Board’s Workshop meeting in January. Copies of these forms are attached to and do hereby become a part of the original set of these
III Open to Public Questions – None
IV Review of Minutes (December 13, 2011)
Phil Lowe made a motion to accept the December 13, 2011 meeting minutes as presented. It was seconded by Donna Cook. Motion carried with all in favor.
NOTE: The meeting in January 2012 was a Workshop meeting – No minutes were taken.
V Old Business
a. Garden Drive Estates – Mylar Change –
(Town Manager, James M. Smith III)
Town Manager Jim Smith stated that John Porter (the Garden Drive Estates developer) called him today and refused to sign any paperwork that would allow anyone to act in his stead as his agent. Jim stated that along the way Mr. Porter has expressed a willingness to sign off of this change, so Mr. & Mrs. Jansz have paid for another Mylar to be drawn which is an exact duplicate of what the Planning Board signed before with the one amendment; that being number thirteen (13) referencing the removal of the three lines representing the easement on the Jansz property. Paul White clarified that this is not a request for an amendment that was put in for by the developer, so it may not be properly before the Board. Jim confirmed that this is correct as per his phone conversation with Mr. Porter today. Paul
White stated that it is his opinion that this matter does not belong before this Board at all because it is a civil matter that needs to be settled by the District Court if the parties are unable to resolve it amongst themselves. Jim stated that he just wanted to explain why it was an agenda item in the first place and the reason it has been removed.
b. Follow-up on Site Plan Review (from the February 9, 2010 meeting) – (Edward & Carol Woodman) – Map 19, Lot 19
Carol Woodman explained that at the initial Site Plan Review held on February 9, 2010 for their reconstruction project the approval was contingent upon an easement being filed for the building that houses the restaurant. The original Planning Board file for this project and the February 9, 2010 meeting minutes were reviewed by the Board. Carol stated that the easement that was required for the approval was for a different building that had nothing to do with the building that was being reconstructed. She gave a brief overview of the history of this project for the newer Board members. She explained that there were several items that were required as a condition of the approval which she did comply with, such as providing additional documentation on water testing, etc. The one condition that she
has not been able to comply with is the requirement of two (2) easements from the abutting property owners regarding the restaurant building. The restaurant building slightly encroaches on the property lots of two (2) abutters where the lots come together. This condition has existed on the property that she and her husband now own since 1940. Paul White stated that the property has probably earned prescriptive easements on it, and clarified that the Board is now being asked to waive this requirement because it is not the building that they are reconstructing. Carol explained that they have made several attempts to obtain the easements from the abutting property owners. It has turned out to be a very difficult and timely process with property being in probate, etc. At this point, they aren’t legally required. Carol’s husband Ned had mentioned at the original meeting that they were in the process of trying to obtain them for their
own records. Paul polled the Board for their input on the matter. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that it is a good idea to obtain the easements if possible, but it was agreed that it doesn’t affect the building being built. There was also discussion regarding the fact that the time period that has lapsed since the original approval has been more than one year with no construction having been started. Carol explained that part of the problem was that the process was stalled while they were trying to obtain the easements that the Board required. She also stated that the property is for sale at this time so they were holding off on this project. Since permits only last for a year, there was discussion as to whether or not the Board could extend this Site Plan approval for another year. Because of the fact that the restaurant building has been in the same spot for over twenty years, it would be a civil matter between the parties if
the abutters wanted the building removed from their property. Paul White suggested that the Woodman’s submit a new Site Plan Review application (including the $35.00 processing fee) next month to both update the application due to the fact that it has been more than a year since it was originally approved by the Planning Board, and to allow the Board to formally vote upon the removal of the easement requirement. The other option for the Woodman’s is to let the new property owners pursue the matter at a future date, if they choose to do so.
c. Site Plan Review – Proposed Fire & Rescue Building Site –
(Town Manager James M. Smith III) – P/O Map 2, Lot 34
Jon Whitten reviewed the scope of this project in detail. He explained that the Stormwater Management Permit has been granted by the Department of Environmental Protection with the additional stipulation of floor drains in the building that will drain into a holding tank. This tank will be pumped out and the contents will be brought to a water treatment plant. This is a standard feature in industrial buildings and fire stations for washing and maintaining the trucks. Jon answered questions from the audience and the Board members regarding matters that ranged from the leach bed to back-up generators. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding the entrance roadway and the steepness of the side drop-off. It was noted that the slope in the grading is at a 3-to-1 ratio, which means that it
takes three (3) feet to travel down one (1) foot lower. A possible icy condition was one of the concerns that were brought up during this discussion as a potential problem. The Town Manager stated that this location would obviously be high on the priority list for snowplowing and sanding by the Public Works Department just like any of the town owned properties. Allen Crabtree informed the Board that Phil Strike has made a scale model of the building which is located in this meeting room for the Board and any interested parties to review. The Board proceeded to review the Criteria and Standards for the Site Plan Approval on page 7-11 in the Land Use Ordinance for compliance. It was noted that this is not a Public Hearing on this matter and the design has been changed since this was originally presented to the Planning Board. It was suggested that another Public Hearing be held to allow the public the opportunity to express any concerns regarding
this revised design.
A Public Hearing will be held on this project at the March 13, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
VI New Business
a. Site Plan Review – (Adam S. Laneau & Jennifer M. Hubbard) –
Map 4, Lot 21-A
Laurence P. Minott Jr. Esq. explained that he is representing Adam Laneau & Jennifer Hubbard on behalf of his colleague Dawn D. Dyer, Esq., who is unable to attend this evening’s meeting. He explained their clients’ intention is to split their lot in order to maximize the potential of their land. They have no plans at this time to build on the lot or sell it. Paul White stated that there has never been a formal subdivision plan submitted for this property. However, over the course of several years the original property owner has divided the original parcel of land by putting in a roadway, then subdividing and waiting five years before subdividing again. Technically this is legal to do. The question now is, has five years passed since the parties became possessors of that
lot. Mr. Minott stated that they purchased the property in February 2008. The submitted application documentation was reviewed with Mr. Minott and Mr. Laneau answering the Board’s questions. It was noted that there does not seem to be any restrictions from the original landowner that subdivided the property prohibiting any further subdividing from being done. It was also noted that the DEP approval for subdividing this lot is included in the application submittal. Paul White reiterated the fact that there was never any formal subdivision plan submitted. The land was divided over a time period of five year intervals. This would mean that the current property owners would have to wait until they have owned the property five years, which is only a year from now. This would not require Planning Board approval since it was not approved by them in the first place as a subdivision. Paul explained the normal procedure for
obtaining the Planning Board’s formal approval for a subdivision and any further subdividing of the original plan. There was quite a bit of discussion as to whether or not the current property owners would be required to wait the five years since they took ownership of the property. It appears that the existing building on the property was assessed for taxes in the 2007 tax year which means that this lot was already split from the original lot at that time. It was suggested that the time period is based on when the lot was last split, not on the time period that the current owner has possessed the property. The Board asked for clarification on when the property was last split and something that addresses the tolling of time issue; whether it follows the owner or the land. Mr. Minott stated that it follows the land and he will look into providing documentation that states that fact specifically. The possibility of providing a “No Action” letter to the current property owners
on the grounds that they do not need any action taken by this Board was mentioned.
This item will be added to the agenda for the March 13, 2012 meeting.
Phil Lowe made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. It was seconded by Joe McMahon. Motion carried with all in favor.
Maureen F. Scanlon
Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk