JUNE 3, 2010

A. ROLL CALL – 7:00

Members present were: Chip Venell- Chairman

Thomas Cashin – Vice Chairman

Yoli Gallagher

David Jones

Arthur Kelly – 2^nd Alternate (Voting in place of Mr. Davis)

Members absent were: Keith Davis

Jessica Donnell – 1^st Alternate

Also present were: Kenneth Paul, Code Enforcement Officer; Debi Rix; Richard Neal; James Crowley; Steve Foglio representing the Andersons; Sandra Jones, applicant; Frances LaPierre representing Ms Jones; and Charles and Tammy Tranchemontatre

B. MINUTES

May 20, 2010 – A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes of the May 20, 2010 Meeting as submitted. Jones/Kelly – Unanimous.

C. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Deana and David Anderson – 1141 Lebanon Road – M262/L4 – After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for a Two-Family Dwelling – Steve Foglio explained he is from Real Estate 2000 and would be representing the Andersons in this matter. He advised that the Andersons paid for an addition to an existing dwelling for Mrs. Anderson’s parents. He said the reason he is before the Board is to legalize the request for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for the addition.

To Mr. Cashin’s request that he give a brief history of the conditions of the site in the area of the structures, Mr. Foglio advised the principal structure is an 1800 farmhouse with an attached “L” that also has an attached building on ten acres of land.

Mr. Venell referenced the plan in the file containing the lot dimensions and explained because it is a two-family dwelling, it requires a Conditional Use Permit. He stated without the knowledge of the property owners, the contractor neglected to obtain the proper permits for the construction even though he told the property owners that he would do so and was paid for them.

Mr. Foglio advised the work was done four or five years ago, but the property owners didn’t find out what occurred until the property was put on the market for sale. He mentioned there is a new septic system design which will handle the two dwellings. He stated no one resides in the second dwelling.

To Mr. Paul’s comment that approximately 22’ of the road frontage for this property is located in Sanford, Mr. Venell mentioned there is sufficient frontage for the second dwelling in Acton.

Mr. Paul explained when the work began, there was no Conditional Use Permit requirement, but since then the Zoning Ordinance has been revised and one is required.

After ascertaining that there were no further questions or comments, Mr. Venell closed the public hearing at 7:11 PM.

2. Sandra Jones – Minor Subdivision on Milton Mills Road – Mr. Venell explained to those present that Ms Jones has taken the property by a Deed-in-Lieu-of-Foreclosure because the developer defaulted on a loan she gave him for the project. He said one dwelling was built and she has a buyer who is waiting to move in.

Frances LaPierre explained she is the surveyor on the project and will be representing Ms Jones for this project. She mentioned the Board conducted a site walk on May 22, 2010 and at time some concerns were expressed. She referenced a letter contained in the file which addresses some of those concerns. She said she is aware that the wetlands on the site are to be left undisturbed. She pointed out the adjustment on the southwest corner of the property. She mentioned the boundary between lots one and two has been adjusted to give additional space for the septic system. She advised there is an easement on Lot #2 for the benefit of Lot #1. She stated the soils engineer requested a 100’ setback from the school’s drinking water well as it is a public water supply. She informed that the dwellings will have sprinkler systems. She pointed out that Note #12 addresses some of the concerns expressed during the site walk. She said Note #13 was added as well as the building envelopes for Lots #2 and #3 being indicated on the plan along with the wetlands.

To Debi Rix’s, an abutter, question concerning whether the boundary of Lot #1 goes into Hebo Hibo Road correct, Mr. Venell said it appears to go down the center of the road.

Ms Rix explained that she has a lot on that road and is concerned about public easements. She asked whether that lot is being reviewed at this time by MMA and the Board of Selectmen. She felt that would have a bearing on that lot if it is going to be approved as that will take away her part of Hebo Hibo Road. She said that issue should be resolved prior to the Board’s approval of the plan. She stated if the Board approves the plan and later finds out that road was discontinued illegally, the Board may have to review the plan again with a public easement.

Ms LaPierre explained thelot has been designed so that the frontage conforms to the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance without that area. She mentioned if the courts determine that the discontinuance of Hebo Hibo Road was illegal, that lot will still meet all the required dimensional requirements, therefore, the Board can approve what is being submitted on the plan.

Mr. Paul confirmed Ms LaPierre’s explanation of the frontage.

Mr. Venell advised if the Town determines it is a public road and was discontinued illegally, the property line will revert to the rock wall and the Hebo Hibo Road will become a public way. He pointed out that is a corner lot with frontage on both Milton Mills Road and Hebo Hibo Road.

Richard Neal stated through no fault of the property owner, a dwelling was built prior to approval of the subdivision, therefore, the dwelling is built over the line of Lots #1 and #2. He said because of that situation, there will be two dwellings very close together in the field and if it were him, he wouldn’t like that, but possibly the buyers don’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Venell advised when the dwelling was constructed under the Building Permit issued, the property was all one lot and the dwelling was placed where it is for design purposes. He stated it meets all the required dimensional requirements. He pointed out there are many homes in Acton that are as close together as what is being proposed or even closer. He mentioned when the dwelling was constructed it was legal.

Sandra Jones explained the buyers have until the end of June to close on the property and she has allowed them to move into the dwelling. She said should the plan not be approved in time, they will lose their financing and she will be forced to put the property on the market again.

Mr. Venell stated that obtaining subdivision approval takes sometime and at this point, the review is at the preliminary plan stage. He explained the procedures for a subdivision. He mentioned they are in the first half of the process as the Board has just received the required information, but if there are no additional issues, the plan might be approved in a month.

To Ms Rix’s question whether reducing the plan to two lots would negate the need for a subdivision review, Ms LaPierre advised whether there are two or three lots it will still be a subdivision because the farm was sold previously when Patrick Fraser purchased it and that occurred within a five year period.

After ascertaining that there were no further questions or comments, Mr. Venell closed the public hearing at 7:45 PM.

D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Deana and David Anderson – 1141 Lebanon Road – M262/L4 – After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for a Two-Family Dwelling – Mr. Paul felt there wasn’t much to discuss as it is a permitted use and there will be interconnected smoke detectors.

At this time, the Board addressed the Conditional Use Permit criteria and found all the items have been met.

A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit Application for Deana and David Anderson as the applicable criteria has been met. Cashin/Jones – Unanimous.

A Motion was made and seconded to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Deana and David Anderson subject to the following conditions:

a) The septic system be installed prior to occupancy of the second dwelling.

b) The structure meet the 2000 Building Code standards.

Cashin/Jones – Unanimous.

2. Sandra Jones – Minor Subdivision on Milton Mills Road – Mr. Cashin asked whether Ms Jones ever thought of selling the property as one lot based on the problems that exist with the 20% slope situation, the evidence of the 25 year storm and his concern about the possible drainage path on the lots. He said if the Board were to continue their review, more information would be required.

Ms Jones stated she is losing money even with the three lots, therefore, she would lose even more with Mr. Cashin’s proposal. She said she never saw the property before making the investment and she wasn’t happy when she did see it.

To Mr. Cashin’s question what did she use for storm data when she delineated the wetland area, Ms LaPierre explained it was based on vegetation.

Mr. Cashin pointed out there is disturbed vegetation from the February, 2010 storm on Lot #3. He asked if there was anyone present who had information concerning the affect of the 100 year storm of St. Patrick’s Day on Lot #3.

Ms LaPierre explained the drainage path and mentioned that the land in the rear is included in the lot area, but nothing in the Critical Rural area is in the net lot area. She mentioned that the 2.2 acres does not include the land in the Critical Rural Zone as she had been told the Board didn’t want it included in any of the net lot calculations.

Mr. Jones pointed out the lot areas exceed the requirement.

Mr. Cashin explained that a plan can extend 50’ into another zone. He said he was questioning the building envelope of Lot #3 as he doesn’t think it adds to the landscape of Acton. He pointed out some of the land cannot be used because it exceeds the 20% slopes which could create a problem with the leach field.

Mr. Paul indicated the location of the test pits for Lot #3 all of which are in the Rural Zone.

To Mr. Venell’s question of whether that is were the building envelope is flagged, Ms LaPierre answered in the negative.

To Ms Jones’ comment that is all right with a two-lot subdivision, but she doesn’t want to begin the process again, Mr. Venell advised she only needed to remove the lot lines.

To Ms Jones’ question whether she would need to indicate the building locations if she reduces the plan to two lots and move the new lot away from the existing lot, Mr. Venell advised that would be good for the purchasers, but it will still have to be outside the wetland area and meet all the dimensional requirements.

To Ms Jones’ comment she has no problem moving the structure from its present location on the plan, Mr. Venell advised whatever she does will require a new plan.

To Ms Jones’ question if they were able to submit the new plan for the Board’s next Meeting, will they approve it since the purchasers’ financing will expire on June 30, 2010 if they don’t close before that time, Mr. Venell reviewed the Ordinance and determined all that might be needed is a new plan.

It was the consensus of the Board that they have no problem with that proposal.

Mr. Venell advised that the lot lines have to be adjusted and the location of the structure should appear on the new plan. He stated the Board could probably review it on June 17, 2010 and possibly approve it at that time.

To Mr. Venell’s question whether any waivers would be requested, Ms LaPierre advised they would like waivers for the storm water management and erosion control as Note #9 states that the erosion control will be done with the best management practices.

Mr. Venell explained erosion control is generally determined by the builder and the storm water management is generally done when there will be new roads. He suggested that any waiver requests be submitted in writing.

To a brief discussion regarding the fact that the culverts in the area are owned by two different property owners, Mr. Venell suggested they speak with the Code Enforcement Officer who might recommend they contact the DEP. He confirmed that this proposal will be placed on the June 17, 2010 agenda.

3. James Crowley and Scott Davis – Applecore, LLC – Amendment to an Existing Conditional Use Permit – Mr. Crowley submitted a plot plan of the area which indicated what he is proposing to do now and in the future. He mentioned what he proposes will be done in phases. He said there will be no change to the parking lot or footprint for Phase I. He explained what he proposes for Phase II. He advised he spoke MDOT, submitted an application and was told they would conduct a site evaluation for Phase II even though it will not be done this year. He mentioned MDOT has requested a fence be installed which will be done and he was told he would get the written report four or five weeks after the evaluation. He advised when he receives the State’s report, he will submit it for the Board’s review. He briefly explained his discussion with MDOT and the suggestions they made up to this point. He said he is before the Board for approval of Phase I only so that he can open his business using the existing parking area.

Mr. Venell advised there is no need for the Board to review Phase I. He stated in reviewing the contents of the file as to what has been approved in the past, he noted there was no Conditional Use Permit for the docks and toys.

Mr. Paul stated the site has grown into the Conditional Use Permit and it is a good use of the property. He felt that the phases being done make sense. He acknowledged the business has expanded, but said he has no issues with it. He pointed out the Board could modify the existing Conditional Use Permit since what is being requested constitutes an expansion since the restaurant will go from 12 seats to 49 seats after Mr. Crowley installs the additional 37 seats.

Mr. Venell said his only concern is there is no Conditional Use Permit for the food and ice cream. He stated if the Board expands the original Permit, it can be done without a public hearing.

Mr. Cashin felt the changes and expansions that have occurred are substantial and after Phase II, the Board can review the work done as a Conditional Use Permit expansion.

Mr. Jones expressed his agreement with Mr. Cashin’s comment.

At this time, the Board reviewed the March 18, 2004 Permit to determine what it covered.

Mr. Paul advised the Board could approve serving breakfast and lunch for the 49 seats and have the applicant return for Phase II.

Mr. Crowley stated he would like to return to the Board after MDOT makes their recommendations for the parking lot.

A Motion was made and seconded to amend the March 18, 2004 Conditional Use Permit for James Crowley to allow up to 49 seats and the serving of breakfast and lunch with the condition that the Code Enforcement Officer sign off on the dock and parking for the expanded use. The existing signage for the restaurant can be retained, but a new sign will be erected for the docks subject to the approval of the Code Enforcement Officer with respect to location. Jones/Gallagher – Unanimous.

D. NEW BUSINESS – There was no new business to come before the Board.

E. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE BUSINESS – There was no Code Enforcement Office business to come before the Board.

G. OTHER BUSINESS

Joint Grant Application – Mr. Cashin explained on Wednesday, June 10, 2010, Linda Schier will be signing the grant application with the Wakefield Planning Board Chairman. He read the cover letter stating that Mr. Venell would also have to sign the application as it requires the signatures of all communities requesting the grant. He invited anyone who is interested in the project to attend the signing on June 10. He reiterated his past statement that this is a non-matching fund grant, therefore, no funds have to be appropriated by the Town.

H. ADJOURNMENT – The Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

ANNA M. WILLIAMS

__________________________________

ANNA M. WILLIAMS,

Recording Secretary

The post Planning- June 03, 2010 appeared first on Tteddo, Inc..

March 4, 2010

A. ROLL CALL – 7:10

Members present were:

Thomas Cashin – Vice Chairman

Keith Davis

Jessica Donnell – 1st Alternate

David Jones- 2nd Alternate

Members absent were: Chip Venell- Chairman, Yoli Gallagher, Arthur Kelley

Also present were: Kenneth Paul, Code Enforcement Officer; Michelle Rumney, Secretary, Stacy Howes, Jeff Howes, Kyle Howes, Julie Smith, Cheryan Smith, Sandy Maltese, Eric Anderson, Randy Lavangie, Tracy Lavangie, Bob Laurendeau, Sandra Knapp, Debi Rix, Mark Rix

B. Public Hearing- Stacy Howes for Conditional Use Permit for Day Care in home

Applicant- Stacy Howes explains: that she is in the process of becoming licensed with the

State of Maine. The Fire marshals have been out to inspect the home, she is just waiting on The Town’s approval before the State will come out for a final inspection. Mrs.Howes explains the need for another daycare in Acton. She explains that she gets calls everyday for requests. The proposed day care would take UP to 12 children, based on the State guidelines. She would have one helper, Sandra Knapp. She would plan on having 6 children during the day and then a few more after school as well. The home is 1.4 miles in on East Shore Drive on the section of road that is a private road and the lot is 2.2 acres.

The road is maintained by Harold Smith and she has spoken with him so that if there is any additional maintenance need on the road, she is willing to pick up the fees.There is a large driveway with plenty of space to turn around. Mrs. Howes states that she has spoken to her immediate neighbors and they have no issues with the day care.

Debi Rix explains that she lives on this section of road and has some issues with this daycare. The deeds/covenants of the original subdivision state that no business of any kind shall be conducted. She explains that she doesn’t see how the Planning Board can even consider this until those restrictions are changed. She also believes that speed is a big factor, people she knows to be dropping children off at the Howe’s house are not observing the speed limit.

Mrs. Howes explains that also in the deed and covenants were restrictions on vinyl siding Yet there are about 8 houses in the Subdivision with vinyl siding. The owners of the Subdivision had to come up with some deed/covenants when they were going for Approval. She submits a letter from the Subdivision owner at the time that she had to Submit to the bank to allow the vinyl siding.

Mrs. Rix exclaims that vinyl siding and a business are two different things. The town Planning Board had to approve this subdivision and they must have had to approve thoserestrictions. Changing the rules after the fact seems unfair. Once you allow one business how can you say no to the next person.

The speed issue also should be addressed. Mrs.Rix feels that this is a continuing Problem and has asked the road association to post the road, but they have not Because the consensus was that it was pointless if it can’t be enforced. With the Approval of this daycare, traffic will increase and so will the cost of maintenance. She explains that her dues share of the road association have doubled over the past couple years.

Jeffrey Howes introduces himself as the road commissioner for the private road. He explains that they have asked property owners to bring their concerns to the directors, but they have yet to hear any. He also explains that the maintenance fees have stayed the same since 2006.

Randy Lavangie introduces himself as the president of the road association. He explains That he lives on the straightest and widest part of the road, also known as the drag strip. He acknowledges that there are habitual speeders on the road but he knows them not to be visitors to the Howes’ residence. They are younger kids and 4 wheelers.  Sandra Knapp comments that on this stretch of road it is very difficult to speed. She Would guess that the maximum you could drive on it is 25-30mph without going off into the ditch. However, she or Stacy could certainly notify parents to keep their speed under control if they knew who was speeding.

Mrs. Rix states that the two worst offenders of speeding are the Howes’ themselves. She also notes that speed issues have been brought up before, that they are in the  minutes of last years meeting. Speed is a factor and more traffic will increase that factor.  She also questions as to how Mr. Howes can say that fees have not gone up.  Mrs. Howes replies that her husband stated that the maintenance fees have not gone up, the dues of the combined fees have. She also notes that the speed issue is only Mrs.

Rix’s opinion and she is known for complaining about anything and everything.  At this time, the Board asks that personal attacks be left outside this meeting from all parties involved.

Mrs. Rix suggests that Mr. Lavangie is not home all day. She is out walking in theMorning when these parents are speeding through dropping their kids off in the Morning and picking them up in the afternoon. She asks the board how the Howes’ Can break rules that were created with the subdivision.

Tom Cashin, acting Chair, asks if either party has a copy of the original subdivision plan. That would help clear up the issue of the deed restrictions and covenants.

The CEO Secretary obtains the towns copy from the file and the board views it. The signed plan does not have any restrictions, conditions or covenants on it. Keith Davis explains that the Planning Board signed off on the subdivision as it is Represented on the plan. Because there is nothing else on that plan, the planning board does not have authority over those restrictions and covenants. That is a private matter that needs to be dealt with amongst the homeowners of the subdivision.

Sandra questions the process that they would have to go through to get things changed.

She asks if it is a majority vote that is required.Keith expresses that he believes that one “no” vote from a homeowner in the subdivisioncould hang them up, but suggests that they may want to call in some legal help on how to deal with it.

Tom suggests that we consult SMRPC or MMA on this deed/covenants matter. He expresses concern that if the board approves this they are basically negating the deed restrictions and covenants that are already set in place.David questions whether the board has any jurisdiction over this matter.Jessica suggests that even if the Planning Board approves this application, that a memberof the subdivision could still stop her business.

Keith notes that the board is not under the gun to approve this application. If it is a Consensus of the board, we can ask MMA for an opinion if . In the meantime he would Suggest to Stacy to get signatures from ALL the subdivision lot owners.  Mrs. Howes said she had no problem going to all the owners; she has spoken to most of them already. She didn’t realize that this would halt the process.  Mrs. Rix state that she believes that for the Planning Board to act on this application is Premature. How could they approve something that is illegal by the deed restrictions.  She believes that whether those restrictions or covenants are put on the original plan or not, that the Planning Board at the time saw them and took them into consideration when approving the original plan.

David explains that in his experience; that when the rules of an association are not enforced, that it diminishes the integrity of them all, often unable to stand in court.  Mrs. Howes asks beyond the speed issue and the deed issue, if there was anything else the board needed to address for her application.  Tom replied that all her submissions were complete and there shouldn’t be anything further.  With no other comments from the public, the public hearing portion of the meeting is is closed at 8:05pm

C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Review of Howes Conditional Use Application-

Keith states that the board is full in the rights to proceed, he asks Mrs. Howes what

her timeline on this was. To which she replied that she could be full in the morning

if she could.

Tom reiterated his concern on moving forward on this matter without an opinion

From MMA on the deed restrictions.

Motion to proceed with review was made. Davis/Donnell- 3/1

Keith asks Mrs. Howes if she had planned to fence in the area. Mrs. Howes replied

That it was not required by the state because of distance from the roadway and water.

Mr. Howes explained that they have 30,000 sq ft of lawn with a 30’+ of wooded buffer

to the nearest neighbor.

Mrs. Howes provided photos to show the yard and play area, which is behind the house.

The board proceed to review the standards for conditional use. (check list on file)

Motion was made that the standards for Conditional Use have been met.

Davis/Jones- Unanimous.

Motion was made to approve the Conditional Use Permit with Conditions. Davis/Donnell- Unanimous

Conditions shall be:

1) Hours of operation 7am-5:30pm

2) License must be obtained from the State and a copy shall be filed with the CEO.

3) Maximum capacity of children shall be 12 (not including Stacy’s two school aged children)

D. New Business- Eric Anderson (M203 L049) Conditional Use Application

Application is for a two family attached dwelling. Two people will be living in the

One bedroom and 3 people in the 2 bedroom.

Ken Paul points out that this is an existing structure, changing the use not the

Structure.

Tom questions whether this is allowable by ordinance, where it is a use change.

Jessica points out that they are not changing the footprint and refers to page 9 in

The zoning that references Changing Use of Nonconforming Structures.

The Board reviews the submissions presented and completes the checklist to determine

if the application is complete. It is the consensus of the Board that the submissions

are complete and will hold a public hearing on March 18th at 7:30pm following the

presentation from Linda Schier. Michelle will do the postings and mail abutters letters

in the morning.

E. Minutes

            February 4, 2010 – A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes of the February 4, 2010 Meeting

           with corrections. Davis/Donnell – Unanimous.

It was decided that there are not enough members from the February 18th meeting present to vote on those minutes. They will be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

F. OTHER BUSINESS

Agenda set for 3/18/10: Linda Schier of AWWA will give a presentation at the beginning of the meeting, Public Hearing for Eric Anderson’s Conditional Use Application to follow, the approval of 2/18/10 minutes, work on the Sign Ordinance.

G. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE BUSINESS

There was no Code Enforcement Officer business to come before the Board.

H. ADJOURNMENT

The Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM.

Respectfully submitted

Michelle Rumney

Recording Secretary

The post Planning- March 04, 2010 appeared first on Tteddo, Inc..

Acton Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committe

AUGUST 18, 2010

A. ROLL CALL – 7:00

Members present: Thomas Cashin – Chairman

John Moore – Vice-Chairman

Rob Meyer

Roy Trafton

Gregory Martin

Members absent: Virginia DeBoer

B. MINUTES

No Minutes were approved.

C. OLD BUSINESS

Board of Selectmen Meeting – Mr. Cashin advised that the next Board of Selectmen’s Meeting at which the Committee can make a presentation will be September 9, 2010. He stated he hopes this group can meet before that time to review the maps that SMRPC has corrected. He said the maps will help define the areas that have been included thereon. He gave a brief summary of what occurred at the Selectmen’s Meetings. He stated the Code Enforcement Officer said he would like to be present when Ms Saltmarsh comes in to explain the revisions to the map to the Committee, therefore, he will speak with him to see when he is available and advise Ms Saltmarsh.

At this time, there was a brief discussion concerning the group’s position on the revisions submitted for a vote by the Code Enforcement Officer at the June, 2010 Annual Town Meeting with Mr. Cashin advising that those are the requirements being enforced and not what the Committee has recommended.

Mr. Moore commented that at the June, 2010 Annual Town Meeting there was a Warrant Article asking the voters to adopt the DEP’s regulations which didn’t include the exemption suggested by this group, therefore, until this Committee’s work is adopted, there will be no exemption which means certain structures cannot be expanded.

Mr. Cashin felt that was a question for either Ms Saltmarsh or the Code Enforcement Officer.

D. NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business to come before the Committee.

E. NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business to come before the Committee.

F. OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business to come before the Committee.

G. ADJOURNMENT

The Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

ANNA M. WILLIAMS,

Recording S-cretary

The post Planning- August 18, 2010 appeared first on Tteddo, Inc..