Skip Navigation
Sebago Maine Town Seal
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 03/12/2013
I       Call to Order

Chairman Paul White called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Present: Jim Jansz, Phil Lowe, Joe McMahon, Tina Vanasse, Rick Viles, Paul White, Code Enforcement Officer Brandon Woolley, Recorder Maureen Scanlon.

Absent: Donna Cook

Guests present: Mark Kezal, Ed Libby, Edie & Phil Harnden.

II      Correspondence

The following correspondences were distributed to the Planning Board members at the meeting;

1.      A memo from Board Member Donna Cook regarding her thoughts on the New Business agenda item.  

2.      A list of the proposed Land Use Ordinance revisions.

3.      A submittal from Board Member Joe McMahon regarding Gerry Holt’s findings on the previously discussed matter of the Shoreland Zone being an overlay zone which means that another zone may impose its rules/regulations on the Shoreland Zone.

4.      A 2013 Stream-Smart Workshop information sheet & registration form submitted by Board Member Phil Lowe.  Phil explained that this workshop is offered through Maine Audubon and covers road-stream crossing projects from site assessment to permitting and installation with an emphasis on maintaining and restoring the habitat and economic values of the stream.  He wanted to present it to any of the Board Members that may be interested in attending.     

Copies of these correspondences are attached to and do hereby become a part of the original set of these minutes.

III     Open to Public Questions – None

IV      Review of Minutes (February 12, 2013)  

Phil Lowe made a motion to accept the February 12, 2013 meeting minutes as presented.  It was seconded by Tina Vanasse.  Motion carried with all in favor except for Paul White who abstained from the vote.  

V       Old Business

a.      Goal Setting Items

1.      Voting Matrix (finalizing process)

No discussion at this time.

2.      Generic Specifications for Hydrant/Fire Pond

No discussion at this time.

3.      Review of Escrow Funds for “Outstanding” Subdivisions

No discussion at this time.

VI      New Business

a.      Site Plan Review – Home Occupancy (Business) – Mark Kezal –
Map 3, Lot 16-B3 (11 Molly Lane)

Mark Kezal explained that this business is going to be for repairing weapons (basically a gunsmith) and as a Class 1 Dealer for fellow police officers, police departments and some customers by referral only.  This will not be open to the general public, there will be no advertising or signage; he will not be manufacturing or selling ammunition, and there will be no inventory on hand.  He explained the strict guidelines that he must adhere to according to the Federal Firearms licensing authority.  Mr. Kezal answered the Board’s questions regarding this proposed business including the questions submitted by Donna Cook via her memo to the other Board Members.  There was discussion regarding the fact that an approval by this Board would be based on the understanding that the classification of dealership license would not be changed without an additional Planning Board approval.  Mr. Kezal explained that if he wanted to change the status of his license, the whole process starts over therefore he would be required to come back before this Board for approval.  There was discussion as to whether or not a Site Walk and Public Hearing are required.  It was determined that this Board has the option of waiving both the Site Walk and the Public Hearing.  Brandon Woolley has inspected the location and has been in contact with the Federal Firearms authorities regarding this matter.  

Phil Lowe made a motion to waive a Site Walk at this location.  It was seconded by Rick Viles.  Motion carried with all in favor.  

Phil Lowe made a motion to waive a Public Hearing on this matter.  It was seconded by Rick Viles.  Motion carried with all in favor.  

It was noted that the Code Enforcement Officer has reviewed the application and has found it to be complete.  Maureen Scanlon confirmed that all fees have been paid.  

Phil Lowe made a motion to accept the application as complete.  It was seconded by Joe McMahon.  Motion carried with all in favor.

There was some discussion on the licensing process and requirements with the Board requesting that a copy of the issued license be submitted for inclusion with the Code Enforcement and Planning Board files for this matter.  Mr. Kezal agreed to provide this document when he obtains his approved license.         

Phil Lowe made a motion to approve the application.  It was seconded by Tina Vanasse.  Motion carried with all in favor.  
Miscellaneous Items

Proposed Land Use Ordinance Revisions

Paul White explained that he and Maureen Scanlon composed a list of the Land Use Ordinance items that have been identified by the Board as needing to be revised.  A copy of this list was distributed to all Board Members at the start of this meeting.  The Board proceeded to review the items for any additional corrections and final approval for submission into the Annual Town Meeting Warrant.  One item that was not on this is in regards to the matter of the recording process of approved Subdivision plans.  Jim Jansz distributed copies of document with information he has gathered on this matter to the Board Members for discussion.  A copy of this document is attached to and does hereby become a part of the original set of these minutes.  

Jim Jansz made a motion to modify the current language in Section 8 “Subdivision Review”, page 8-13, paragraph G.3 “Final Approval and Filing”, G.3.d “Recording”, page 8-14, to read as follows;

(Recorder’s Note: The wording for the two proposed language changes is in the bold italic lettering.)

“Within ninety (90) days of Final Approval, the subdivider or his agent shall record the subdivision in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds and shall submit a copy of the Plan to the Town, with a copy of the receipt for recording.  Filing time extensions of up to two ninety (90) day periods may be granted by the Board with justification provided by the subdivider and accepted by the Board.  Failure to comply with this requirement shall render the subdivision null and void.”  

It was seconded by Phil Lowe.  Motion carried with all in favor.

Item #3SCHEDULE OF USES (Page 4-7) TABLE 4-2: Proposed change is to reduce the Road setback on a State Highway from 150 ft. to 75 ft.  

Also adding “Note 9” (to page 4-8) as follows: The road setback measurement is to start at the edge of the right-of-way.  

Rick Viles made a motion to approve these two proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance.  It was seconded by Phil Lowe.  Motion carried with all in favor.  

Item #1SCHEDULE OF USES (Page 4-7) TABLE 4-2: Proposed change is to reduce the Road setback in the Village District from 50 ft. to 25 ft.
Rick Viles made a motion to approve this proposed change to the Land Use Ordinance.  It was seconded by Phil Lowe.  Motion carried with all in favor.

Item #4SITE PLAN REVIEW (Page 7-1), SECTION A “PURPOSES”: There was quite a bit of discussion regarding the suggested change of adding the following wording at the end of the section as follows:

4.      The Committee shall vote to commence Substantive Review in accordance with Maine State 1 M.R.S.A.§302.   
At the end of this discussion it was determined to remove this item from the list and that the proper location for this matter to be addressed is by making some wording changes to Item #9 on the list as follows:

Item #9CEO PROPOSAL – SUBDIVISION REVIEW (Page 8-7), SECTION E2B: Add section with this new wording included to read as follows:

3.  Rights Not Vested – The sketch plan, a pre-application meeting, the  
submittal, a review of the sketch plan, an on-site inspection or a Public Hearing shall not be considered the initiation of the review process for the purposes of bringing the plan under the protection of Title 1 M.R.S.A.§302 Construction and effect of repealing and amending Acts until the committee shall vote to commence Substantive Review.

Phil Lowe made a motion to approve this proposed change, with the additional wording, to the Land Use Ordinance.  It was seconded by Joe McMahon.  Motion carried with all in favor except for Jim Jansz who abstained from the vote.

A Public Hearing will be held on these proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance.  If nothing is opposed at the Public Hearing, the proposed revisions will be included on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant for approval by the legislative body.   

Joe McMahon made a motion to accept all of the additional proposed revisions to the Land Use Ordinance as listed below.  It was seconded by Phil Lowe.  Motion carried with all in favor.

Item #2CEO PROPOSAL – LAND USE STANDARDS (Page 5-4): Add new “Driveway” section as follows; (And move existing sections starting with “Erosion and Sedimentation Controls” down one.  IE: 12. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS.)  


A facility or means of connecting a residential or commercial property to streets, roads, or highways under the jurisdiction of the town.

     A. General Guidelines
1. Any person, firm, or corporation desiring to construct a driveway on any public street in the Town of Sebago shall first obtain a driveway permit from the Code Enforcement Officer.  All such permits are issued in accordance with 23 M.R.S.A. sec. 3354.
2. If needed, the owner is responsible for the first pipe, or culvert, and the     first installation.  The town will be responsible for future maintenance, providing the driveway intersects an official town road.  In most cases the culvert size shall be at least 15 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length.

          3. Existing roadside drainage ditches shall not be altered or impeded by   the applicant.  Surface drainage shall be provided so that all surface water adjacent to the roadway shall be carried away from the road.

          4. Because field conditions are highly variable, the guidance provided here may not always be completely applicable.  Therefore variations from this guidance to meet field conditions are expected, and do not require a need for any type of exception or design waiver.

        B. Recommended Design Criteria

          1. Driveway placement should be such that drivers approaching from the main roadway will have sufficient sight distance to safely decelerate and complete an entry into the driveway.  Also, the driveway placement should be such that an exiting driver will have sufficient sight distance to                judge a safe gap in oncoming traffic.

Figure XXX

               2. Entrance Angle and Radius:
a.      Driveway alignments for the first 20 feet from the edge of the road should be as close to perpendicular as possible, but should not exceed 30 degrees from perpendicular.

                         b.  Each driveway radius should accommodate the appropriate design  vehicle.  Driveway to roadway radiuses should be sufficient to allow vehicles to exit a driveway to the right without entering the oncoming traffic lane.

                Figure XXX
                3. Suggested driveway width 14 feet.
4. Turnarounds should be provided so as to eliminate the need for backing     
    into roadways.                                                                                                             

                        5. Internal driveway radiuses and curves, recommended 50 feet.

           6. Bridges and culverts should be designed to support minimum loads of
               50 thousand pounds (emergency vehicles).          

                7. Driveway Grades:
              Some significant factors to be considered in driveway profiles are                  
               abrupt grade changes, which cause vehicles entering and exiting to
               move at extremely slow speeds, this can create the possibility of rear
               end collisions, and potential vehicle damage, due to dragging of center
                          or overhanging parts.

                    a. Ascending parcels.
                                 1. To minimize runoff into the roadway, driveway grades should not    
                                   exceed 16 percent slope.
                         2. Existing roadway shoulder cross slope shall extend, a minimum 5
                                   feet into the driveway from the edge of roadway surface.  There
                                   shall be an additional 15-20 foot transitional (not to exceed a 5
                                   percent slope) area to provide a near level platform before  
                                   entering the roadway.        
                      b. Descending parcels.   

                                1. Driveway grades should not exceed 16 percent slope.
        2. Existing roadway shoulder cross slope shall extend, a minimum 5
            feet into the driveway from the edge of the roadway surface.    
            There shall be a 5 foot transitional up slope to create a drainage
            channel.  Provide an additional level area of at least 10 feet, so as
            to create a platform from which to enter the roadway.
           Figure XXX

      SUBSECTION 1C: Remove language “and begin its full evaluation of the   
      proposed subdivision”.  (End sentence at the word “applicant”.)
           Item #6SITE PLAN REVIEW (Page7-1), SECTION B-1: Remove wording of
           “and when”.  
Item #7SUBDIVISION REVIEW (Page 7-1), SECTION B-3C: Add “Non-Commercial” language.

New sentence will read: The construction of a Non-Commercial parking area for less than three vehicles.

Item #8ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT (Pages 6-2 & 6-3): Add to  
section 2B

           6. One year expiration if no action is taken on the project.
      H4B: Change “Engineer” section to read;
Upon completion of street construction, and prior to a vote of acceptance by the Planning Board as a completed project, a written certification signed by a professional engineer shall be submitted at the expense of the applicant, certifying that the proposed project meets or exceeds the design and construction requirements of these regulations.  If there are any underground utilities, the servicing utility shall certify in writing that they have been installed in a manner acceptable to the utility.  “As built” plans shall be submitted prior to any final acceptance.

Item # 11CEO PROPOSAL – LAND USE STANDARDS (Page 5-3): Change wording in Section 6 to read as follows;

a.      Camper/trailers are considered structures for temporary occupancy and are prohibited from year round use.
b.      For the purpose of this section, year round will mean any occupancy greater than 180 days, in any 12 month period.
c.      Camper/trailers capable of being used or intending to be used for periods greater than two weeks must be issued a Camper/Trailer Occupancy Permit.
d.      Septic systems and wells are not permitted to be attached to a camper/trailer.  Commercially manufactured portable toilets, commonly referred to as “Porta Potties”, may be permitted if they are regularly serviced.  No sewage shall be permitted to be deposited upon the ground or into lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, or wetlands.
e.      EXCEPTION: This section shall not apply to the use and occupation of camper/trailers, recreational vehicles, and non permanent structures which are located in a duly recognized campground.

Item #12CEO PROPOSAL – DEFINITIONS (Page 9-3): Add definition as follows;

CAMPER/TRAILERS, TRAVEL TRAILERS, MOTOR HOMES – A self contained mobile unit supported on its own wheels, or those of another vehicle designed to be used for travel, recreational and vocational uses, but not intended for permanent residence.

Follow-up Discussion on Shoreland Zone being an Overlay Zone
Board Member Joe McMahon spoke to the Board members regarding the document he submitted on Gerry Holt’s findings on the previously discussed matter of the Shoreland Zone being an overlay zone.  He explained that when the Shoreland Zone is inside another zone, the thought process is that basically the Shoreland Zone is independent of the zone it is in.  This prompted discussion regarding the issue of “Applicability” (Section 1, Item D on page 1-1).  Rick Viles stated that in the case of two zones overlapping one another, the more restrictive regulations prevail.  Since the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance would be more restrictive than the Land Use Ordinance the wording in the aforementioned section was found to be sufficient.  

Follow-up on Pre-application Meeting with Ed Libby (from last month’s meeting) – (Property currently owned by Ronald & Jane Rodgers) – Map 16, Lot 3 & 3A (544 Hancock Pond Rd. & Land Lot)

Brandon Woolley explained that Ed Libby is in attendance this evening and has asked to address the Board in regards to following-up on some of the items that were informally discussed at last month’s meeting.  Brandon stated that there was a miscommunication on his part which caused Mr. Libby to not be put on the agenda for tonight’s meeting.  There were also issues discovered with the availability of a correct application form for Mr. Libby to submit which caused a delay in getting it to him and subsequently to the Planning Board.  Phil Lowe stated that he does not feel that it is right to have Mr. Libby be addressed by the Board this evening since he was not on the agenda.  His reasoning is that two individuals stated to him that they would attend this meeting if this matter was on the agenda.  He informed them that it was not on the agenda therefore they are not in attendance this evening.  He does not believe it would be fair to them for the Board to address this matter at this time.  The Board agreed; therefore Mr. Libby will be added to the agenda for the April 9, 2013 meeting.    

V       Adjournment
Rick Viles made a motion to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.  It was seconded by Phil Lowe.  Motion carried with all in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,
Maureen F. Scanlon
Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk