I Call to Order
Chairman Paul White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Jim Jansz, Phil Lowe, Joe McMahon, Tina Vanasse, Paul White, Code Enforcement Officer Brandon Woolley, Recorder Maureen Scanlon.
Guests present: Steve Girardin, Susan Tappan, Sue Bowditch, Ben Bowditch, Sharon Bowditch, Marcia Christensen, Matthew Gliniak, Roger Mercaldi, Gwen Mercaldi, Steven McCandless, Kristy Haven, Michael Gotto (from Stoneybrook Consultants), Don Gruden, Steven Hatch, Barbara Cutting, Michael Borsetti, Bob Rayner, Bruce Weymouth, William Harrop, Jean Harrop, Doug Weymouth, Gretchen Terhune, Richard Terhune, James Keltos, Sam Minervino, Jan Minervino.
Maureen Scanlon reported that the following correspondences were submitted to the Planning Board in their meeting information packets prior to the meeting date.
- A correspondence dated May 23, 2016 from Chad Thompson, Source Protection Coordinator (Portland Water District), in reference to “Old Business” agenda item a.
- A correspondence dated December 9, 2015 from James Keltos in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
- A correspondence dated December 11, 2015 from James Keltos addressed to Planning Board Chairman Paul White regarding “Old Business” agenda item b and the approval process.
- A correspondence dated December 23, 2015 from Roger and Gwen Mercaldi Jr. in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
- A correspondence dated January 8, 2016 from Colin Holme, Assistant Director at Lakes Environmental Association in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
- A correspondence dated January 13, 2016 from Chad Thompson, Source Protection Coordinator (Portland Water District), in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
- A correspondence dated February 9, 2016 from James Keltos in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
- A copy of the petition submitted from James Keltos (in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.) to the Sebago Board of Selectmen who in turn referred it to the Planning Board for consideration. (This includes Maine Municipal Association’s response to the required action.)
Prior to the start of the meeting Maureen Scanlon distributed copies of additional correspondences as follows:
- A correspondence dated June 10, 2016 (received on 6/14/2016) from Leona Shaw in reference to “Old Business” agenda item a.
- A correspondence dated June 1, 2016 (received on 6/10/2016) from James Keltos in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
- A correspondence dated June 14, 2016 from William E. Harrop, III in reference to “Old Business” agenda item b.
NOTE: Matthew Gliniak submitted a correspondence to the Planning Board members during the course of the meeting in reference to “Old Business” agenda item a.
Copies of all the aforementioned correspondences will be included in the Planning Board files for the proposed projects.
Phil Lowe asked to speak on the matter of submitted correspondence. He stated that when (additional) correspondence is submitted to the Planning Board after the meeting information packets for the next meeting have been sent to the Board members it doesn’t leave sufficient time to consider the information thoroughly. He asked if the Board feels as though this compromises the application review process. Paul White asked for Brandon Woolley’s input on the matter. Brandon stated that the period for public comment ended at the end of the Public Hearing. Additional correspondence should be treated as additional testimony which should not be allowed after the close of the Public Hearing unless it is of a substantive nature that affects the scope of the proposed project. Tina Vanasse also
expressed her concerns about not being able to appropriately digest the information submitted after the meeting information packets have been sent out, especially when additional information is submitted just prior to or during the course of the meeting.
III Open to Public Questions
Kristy Haven asked if the letter (dated June 10, 2016 and received on 6/14/2016) from her mother Leona Shaw was going to be considered or disregarded in light of the previous comments. Paul White stated that it will be reviewed.
Tina Vanasse stated that she asked the Planning Board Chairman to allow her a moment tonight to speak to the abutters in regards to the letter that was sent to the Chairman about her perceived disrespectfulness at the last meeting that included the Long Beach Marina project. She stated that she sincerely apologizes to any and all people that she offended with her tone of voice. She agreed that it was not appropriate to use that tone, however, she cannot apologize for the content of what she said because she thinks it was something that had to be said, and she is a woman that says what has to be said whether people like it or not. She also wanted to clarify that in one of the letters it said that she was brokering a deal between the
Minervinos and the Association, and that is not true. What she did do was, as a neighbor, at the beginning of the conversation she stated that she was taking her hat off as a Planning Board member and speaking as your neighbor. She spoke with Sam Minervino and Doug Weymouth, who is the president of the Neighborhood Association, to see if they could sit down and talk about what was going on and her suggestion of changing the boat ramp and all that. When she talked to Sam, he mentioned that he had talked to his lawyer. His lawyer then relayed through him a message to her telling letting her know that it was time for her to step back, because if she did any more than she had already done, which was to get an agreement that the two men would speak, then she could be in a conflict of interest. Since then she has not proceeded to do anything, but she did what she thought was right as a neighbor, because she loves the lake as much as anybody and it just kills
her to see people going down to that beach and not finding the peace and tranquility that is rightfully theirs. She thanked the audience for listening and asked that anyone she offended to please accept her apology.
Susan Tappan asked Brandon about his comment about the deadline for public comments outside of the parameters that shouldn’t be considered. She asked what are the parameters and are they published somewhere. Brandon stated that the testimony from the public is allowed during the Public Hearing and letters coming in from the public is considered testimony. Any notice of the Public Hearing or information that is distributed to the Board is distributed ten days prior to the meeting. The only thing in writing is the protocols for holding the meeting. Maureen Scanlon explained that the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting closes two weeks prior to the night of the meeting. This allows her the time to process meeting
information and anything submitted to the Planning Board in order to allow them to review the information prior to the start of the meeting. She stated that what Brandon was saying is that information to be reviewed in regards to a proposed project should be submitted prior to the Public Hearing date and not on an ongoing basis after the Public Hearing has been held.
Jim Keltos asked for clarification regarding the fact that the Public Hearing on the Long Beach LLC project was held in December and after that meeting he digested the information that was given that night, he then had questions. He asked if he has the right to ask questions as he did in writing in February, or if someone doesn’t have the chance to absorb the information fully and think of a question they may have that night, does mean they are not able to ask after the Public Hearing? Paul White stated that a Public Hearing was held; he will review any correspondence that is submitted but at some point the record has to be closed which includes any information coming in and a decision has to be made.
At this point, Matt Gliniak submitted information to the Board (regarding “Old Business” agenda item a) for their review as noted in the “Correspondence” section above. Paul White accepted his submittal and stated that it would be taken into consideration.
IV Review of Minutes (May 10, 2016)
Joe McMahon made a motion to approve the minutes from May 10, 2016 as presented. It was seconded by Phil Lowe. Motion carried with four in favor and Paul White abstaining from the vote.
V Old Business
- Site Plan Review – Proposed Use of Property is for Auto/Marine Repair & Restoration – (Property is owned by Steve & Tammy Girardin)
(20 Stormy Brooke Road) – Map 2, Lot 34-E
Paul White stated that an opinion from the town’s attorney that the Board requested has not been obtained. Brandon Woolley commented that the town’s ordinances were reviewed by the town’s attorneys when they were drafted and they are done with them, they are not going to do the Planning Board’s job of interpreting the ordinances. They check the ordinances for their legalities and completeness. It is now believed that it is the Planning Board’s time to interpret and apply the ordinances, therefore he was not allowed by his superior to contact the town’s attorney regarding the matter.
Paul mentioned that there were some other issues that would prevent the matter from being voted on tonight. One of those issues is the matter of the information regarding the DEP’s (Department of Environmental Protection) concerns. Brandon explained that he just received an email today from the DEP with the map that they generated. They were unable to make a determination yet because they found another well that wasn’t on the records but apparently showed up on some data base. They want to come back within the next two weeks to further investigate the exact location of this well. They are also seeking more information and clarity from the Board in reference to the status of the existing garage. When the garage was originally built and the permits were pulled in 2006 it was
considered a home occupation. Under those considerations it was not reviewable under the Site Plan Review, so it was never reviewed. It was permitted and accepted by the Code Enforcement Officer at the time and has been in that status since 2006. Since we do not have a permit or a Site Plan Review that specifically says that that particular use was allowed on that site they want some assurance from the Planning Board, that through their research and through the site visit their doing, with their observations inside the building, that the Board is satisfied with their recommendations. It was noted that this garage was in existence prior to 2009 and the permits were written in 2006. The property file includes a statement from the Code Enforcement Officer at the time stating that all permits and inspections had been conducted. Tina Vanasse asked what the Board needs to do now. Brandon responded that there are two things. One is that we
need to prepare a statement to the DEP attesting to our satisfaction that the garage was in existence and the other is for them to come back and locate the additional well that has been discovered. Paul White asked Brandon if he could provide a letter that references the various permits, etcetera that can be signed by the Board. He confirmed that he would do this for the Board.
There was some discussion on the issues brought up by Leona Shaw and her attorney that have not been reviewed by the town’s attorneys yet. Paul White stated that it is the distinction of interpreting the statute and responding to a specific legal argument, that he doesn’t necessarily agree with, but if he is going to disagree with it he wants to do so by pointing to the opinion of the town’s attorneys. Brandon stated that his request for authorization to contact the town’s attorney was denied by his superior.
Paul White made a motion to request the town’s attorney to review the letter provided by Bernstein, Shur dated May 6, 2016 specifically for the legal arguments contained, and to request that the Town Manager allow them to do so. It was seconded by Phil Lowe. Motion carried with all in favor.
This proposed project will be included on the agenda for the July 12, 2016 Planning Board meeting.
- Site Plan Review – Property located in a Shoreland Zone (Property owned by Long Beach LLC) (Applicants are Samuel & Jan Minervino) – Map 19, Lots 93, 99 & 100
Mike Gotto, from Stoneybrook Consultants, stated that no changes have been made to this proposed project since the last time this was before the Board. He proceeded to review items that the Board requested follow-up on such as a submitted Topographic Plan showing existing grades and contours at 2 foot intervals for the entire project area and the identification of the pedestrian crosswalk location on the design plan. As per the Board’s request, he also submitted a copy of the traffic count information for Route 114 that was posted on the MDOT (Maine Department of Transportation) website. This submittal included a copy of an email from Robert Betz of MDOT indicating that any reconstruction planned for Route 114 will not happen until 2018 at the earliest. With that schedule, he noted that there is no
need to coordinate efforts with this project.
Mr. Gotto reported that they spoke with Robert Clift about a buffer along his property line (which abuts the parking lot area) and suggested that a buffer between his property and the Minervinos property include a landscaped berm with an evergreen hedge planted on the top of the berm.
Although it is a private matter between abutting owners and should have no impact on local approvals of this project, it was mentioned that several discussions have taken place with representatives of the neighbors in respect to their beach access right-of-way (easement) which could be relocated southerly to the existing boat ramp parcel, Map 19, Lot 102. There has been no response to date, but they are hopeful to hear from them soon. This offer will be acceptable to the Minervinos only if it is agreed to by all of the parties and the rights to the current location can be eliminated.
Mr. Gotto proceeded to answer questions from the Board regarding several items ranging from the length of the boat and trailer turnaround to assure the proper size is designed, the proposed parking lot, the amount of trees being removed in the ramp area and the apparent “squeeze” to the swimming area. It was noted that the safety record of the existing ramp which is located in a residential area has never had a problem or any accidents.
Sam Minervino spoke about his proposed improvements. He stated that he could continue to keep things the way they are now, but he is trying to improve the current situation while also consolidating the marina operations to one area of the beach.
There was quite a bit of discussion between the Board members, the Code Enforcement Officer, Sam & Jan Minervino and Mike Gotto addressing the Board’s safety concerns. Although several members of the Board stated that they feel as though the parking area portion of this proposed project would be an improvement to the current situation, they still have unresolved safety concerns regarding the proposed swimming area’s proximity to boat traffic. It was suggested that the parking area portion of the project be approved with the marina portion of it continuing to be addressed for safety concerns before this portion of the project is approved or denied. However, due to these two areas being proposed as one project in one application, the Board determined that the project shall be reviewed as one project. The Minervinos have the option of submitting separate applications for the parking area and the marina portion of the project if they would like them reviewed separately instead
of as one project.
Due to a conflict in schedules, Mr. Gotto requested that this proposed project be included on the agenda for the August 9, 2016 Planning Board meeting, not for the July 12, 2016 meeting.
- Voting Matrix (finalizing process)
- Review of Escrow Funds for “Outstanding” Subdivisions
VI New Business – None
Jim Jansz made a motion to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. It was seconded by Joe McMahon. Motion carried with all in favor.
Maureen F. Scanlon
Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk