P. Fowler called the meeting to order at 7:00pm
Board Members Present: S. Branch, G. Donaldson, P.Fowler, M. Garrett, L. Haft, B. Jones, & C. Ohmart
Deputy Code Enforcement Officer: D. Ford
Members of the Public in Attendance: R. Alvarez, E. Bearor, K. Berry, Merrill Davis, Mildred Davis, P. Fredericks, G. Hunt, M. Langlois, A. Pettegrow, J. Pettegrow , S. Salsbury, D. Sanderson, D. Theall, J. Wuorinen
Minutes: Minutes of the December 2, 2003 meeting were accepted as presented.
Code Enforcement Officer’s Reports: The reports were accepted and placed on file.
Conservation Commission: D. Theall reported that the Conservation Commission is in process of orchestrating a meeting at which those present will explore the whys and wherefores of comprehensive planning. The intent of the meeting is to get town folks to start thinking about a formal Comprehensive Plan – due in the future to satisfy State legislation.
1. Resume Public Hearing on the Pettegrow Shoreland Zoning application, Map 8, Lot 12-2. The following people spoke at this hearing: R. Alvarez, E. Bearor, Mr. Becker, K. Berry, Merrill Davis, G. Hunt & M. Langlois. Among the questions raised are these:
a. Is the Pettegrow operation “compatible” with the surrounding neighborhood?
b. Since, according to R. Alvarez, all expansion done after 1993 (the last revision of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance) is non conforming, is not the Pettegrow operation a non- conforming use?
c. Is the “tank room” a principal or accessory structure?
d. Does the size of the present Pettegrow operation exceed the threshold permitted in a Limited Commercial District?
e. Does the amount of traffic in and out warrant restrictions on the number of trucks and hours of operation?
f. Is the operation as presently constituted an “expansion” sufficient to trigger a need for an expansion permit?
E. Bearor purports there is a difference between “expansion” of use and “intensity” of use, the Pettegrow operation being the latter. He further contends by approving the Site Plan Review, the Board has already determined the use to be compatible with the neighborhood
G. Hunt, among many points put forth, stressed that the operation under consideration clearly exceeds the threshold of a “limited commercial” District.
K. Berry presented evidence of heavy truck activity, counted during a several hour period one recent day.
J. Pettegrow cited a definition of “processing” obtained from Maine.gov. Processing consists, according to this definition, of “changing the form or condition of a product.
Merrill Davis, who lives on the tarred portion of Seal Point Road, testified that lobster pound truck traffic is not a problem: that oil and gravel trucks are much more obtrusive.
The hearing closed at 8:57pm. The Board will consider this application at a special meeting to be held for this purpose on January 27, 2004.
2.Request of David Sanderson for a letter clarifying jurisdiction of the Planning Board/CEO, Map 21, Lot 6-1. The Board consented to sign a letter accepting the decision of Tracey Thibault of the DEP that this is a legitimate house lot in spite of the fact the property line nearest to the high water mark is less than 200 feet. D. Sanderson must now apply for a building permit before proceeding with construction.
3. Issuance of Findings for Gravel Pit renewal application, Doug Gott & Son, Inc. Four gravel pits are under consideration for permit renewal. They are:
Map 3, Lot 2 Map 3, Lot 2-1, Map 3, Lot 6 Map 7, Lot 9
The Board reviewed the Ordinance criteria for permit issuance for each of these
pits and, upon motion of M. Garrett, seconded by G. Donaldson, voted unanimously
to grant the permits for all considered
4. Completeness Review, Shoreland Zoning Application, Steven Gardner Map 14, Lot 38. Mr. Gardiner approached the Board in October, 2003 with an incomplete, after the fact (the renovation being already completed) Shoreland Zoning application to make over an out building on his property. Mr. Gardiner was requested by the Board to supply the following information:
a). A detailed plot plan showing the names of abutting landowners, boundary
perimeter footage, all setback measurements, Flood Plain boundary line and site
elevation above the normal high water mark.
b) Front and side elevation drawings of proposed (i.e. existing) structures.
c) A 1985 photograph showing the original deck.
The Board Secretary sent a letter to Mr. Gardiner with these stipulations listed.
At the Board’s November 4, 2003 meeting, a Mr. Walker submitted a single application (nine copies are required by the Ordinance). The minutes of that meeting read: “Lacking submission of an application prior to a two weeks in advance requirement and lacking sufficient copies for members of the Board, the issue is tabled until the Board’s December 2, 2003 meeting.” Mr Gardiner was also made aware a potential fine for violation might be assessed for reconstructing without a permit
Though listed on the agendas, no one appeared on behalf of Mr. Gardner at either the December, 2003 or January 2004 meetings. On motion of M. Garrett, seconded by L. Haft, the Board voted unanimously to instruct the CEO to issue notification of violation and to inform the Selectmen of this action.
There was none present.
1. M. Garrett will attempt to draft an Appeals/Variance Ordinance
2. The Board will meet on January 13th to consider changes to the Building and Land Use
Ordinance. (See below)
The Board adjourned at 9:44pm.
Michael F. Garrett, Secretary
January 13, 2004 A Workshop to consider changes to the Building & Land Use Ordinance and to consider when and how to present the Ordinance for a vote.
January 27, 2004 A meeting to consider the Pettegrow Shoreland Application, Findings.
February 3, 2004 The February meeting of the Board.