Town of Surry Planning Board

Transcription

1 Town of Surry Planning Board Members in Attendance: Bill Barker, Chairman; Margaret Smith, Dan McGraw, Phil Frederick, Jacqueline Gray, Jordan, Shubert, Don Ervin and Bob Wilson Others Present: Darcel Winslow, Tim Ferrell, Steve Bemiss, Rebecca Collison, Mike Astbury, Pat Astbury, Josh Astbury, Eric Chase, Doug Coots, Patrick Lyons, Lucy Leaf, Skip Taylor, Reggie Winslow and Anne Berleant Minutes of Meeting June 28, 2017 I. Meeting began at 7:00 II. Minutes and Correspondence: A. Meeting began with a quorum. B. Minutes from the Planning Board meeting of April 26, 2017 were approved as submitted. III. Old Business: None IV. New business Eric Chase, Architect, Borowsky property Map 27 Lot 007 Non-Shoreland Addition to Non-Conforming Structure 506 Newbury Neck Road Limited Residential Eric Chase was present representing Borowsky; he explained the intent is to expand the kitchen on the side of the existing structure that is away from the shore. It will encompass the existing courtyard, it is outside of the 75 foot setback and outside of the flood zone. They are replacing the existing deck with a building. MOTION to approve as submitted. Seconded. Bob/Don. Vote is unanimous. Motion carries.

2 Review of draft Non-Shoreland Mineral Extraction Application Submitted by CEO for approval PB Approval required per Select Board Bill Barker explained, originally Mike Astbury came before this board to discuss what he was doing. There was no formal application permit as one did not exist and because there was no change of use, this board felt as though they could tell CEO Tim Ferrell to go ahead and issue the permit. The board assumed because of the existing use, the lot would be grandfathered. Mike came in and discussed his intentions and listened to the concerns of the abutters of the lot. Both sides agreed to listen to and discuss the concerns and work it out, as good neighbors should. Since then, we have received several letters, some of which were demanding, some of which accused the Planning Board of not doing their job because of someone s interpretation of the UDO. The problem is, the Planning Board can only do what the UDO says we can do. If the board starts making things up as we go, such as Mike cannot work on weekends, which was one request, we simply cannot do that. It was admitted that the town needs some updating to the UDO, perhaps to the mineral extraction section specifically and it was admitted that the UDO is not a perfect document. Unfortunately you cannot account for every situation. Bill added, he doesn t know how many gravel pits are in Surry but knows there were some in the past. Dave Warren had a working gravel pit as did Ken Dugas and probably others. All of those pits operated somehow and must have had permits to do so. It was before this boards time. At the original meeting, Bill explained the process of how to make changes the UDO; he stated to do so, the changes need to be submitted to the Selectmen and then two public hearings need to take place to allow questions and comments from citizens followed by a town meeting or special town meeting for a formal vote on the proposed changes. There is no other way to do it. Mr. Astbury still has his rights based upon what is here. This board cannot deny him his process. We are here today to discuss the formal application that Tim Ferrell has prepared for future mineral extraction applications. Bill indicated he has not seen the application prior to this meeting and that Tim Ferrell explained he has taken the language directly from the UDO and from the DEP s regulations. Tim Ferrell explained that in the State of Maine the DEP has regulatory authority over gravel extraction. In our UDO we accepted the shoreland zone portion from the DEP regulations verbatim. We took the regulations that have already been voted on and accepted by the town and developed an application for non-shoreland applications based on those regulations. The only thing other than that which has been added is space for the land/lot information and owners information. All of the wording has been

3 taken from the DEP regulations and the UDO that was voted on by the town. This is what should be used until any changes are made to the UDO formally. In this case, to protect the rights of Mr. Astbury, we must look at this application as is. He asked the board members to look through the application form and ask any questions they have. Bob Wilson asked, if the town is going to have any sort of Shoreland mineral extraction application? Tim indicated he would not encourage that. Bob asked if this requires site plan review. Tim stated absolutely not, this is an existing use; no change of use has been submitted. If no change of use has been requested, why are we even seeing this? Tim stated that the board is here tonight to approve the application form, nothing else, just the blank form. Bob asked if an applicant was not changing the use of a property would they even have to submit this form. Tim explained that it would depend on the individual circumstance. The question remains, does an existing use even require a permit. Bill explained at the March meeting that is part of the reason the board told Tim he should issue the permit. There was no change in the use of the property. There were people here at the time that had concerns and stated they were willing to work with Mike to resolve the issues. Bill explained, that it appears that the complaintent has not followed up with that but instead has gone to the Appeals Board and Select board and asked that this permit be rescinded on the basis that the Planning Board did their job wrong because they used the regulations from the Shoreland Zone. Mike agreed to follow the regulations of the Shoreland zone, which are from the DEP which are more stringent than anything the Town of Surry would have. Mike has been more than patient, he has a valid permit and is trying to work with all involved. Asking him to do more than is required is against his rights. Tim explained the idea of this from is to give the Planning Board something to look at. Before, there was no formal application and therefore the Planning Board really had nothing to review. He is hoping this application will solve that part of the problem. Phil Frederick asked, will this application be used just for new uses, or for all applications? Bill explained that the only need for the application would be a change of use. Jacqueline asked, if there is a time limit on a use. Bill explained it could be indicated on the original application as to how long a permit is requested for. There is no time limit as it stands now. Phil said item fifteen on the application asks for duration of activity; the applicant could write 100 years if they wanted to. Tim agreed. Tim explained that the idea of the application is to approve the activity for the land and would follow along with the piece of land, not a new use for each new owner. A gravel pit now could be used as a gravel pit for a new owner, if within the same perameters. Bill referenced the Maine Statutes on small borrow pits indicating that even the State of Maine refers back to the DEP as it is their job to protect the environment.

4 The size of the property the town can approve was discussed, Tim explained that the regulations state that the DEP takes over once the project reaches five acres. If the project reaches five acre the entire project has to follow DEP regulations. It was asked that a site plan review be done on any project over five acres. Lucy Leaf stated she sent a letter explaining why she thought site plan review is necessary. She explained, she understands there are times when a site plan review may not be necessary, on a very small one acre lot for example, when someone may haul a few loads a year. She indicated she does find it interesting that shoreland regulations are being used here and indicated that industrial uses are not permitted in certain areas. She added that the UDO can be interpreted differently and that the UDO pre-implies that a permit is going to be given. Tim disagreed with Lucy explaining that this language was written by DEP and he feels there is no preposition what-so-ever that a permit will be issued in the wording. The language in this form was written verbatim from the DEP regulations. She feels this is a substantial impact of the area and a site plan review would be warranted as well as be less subject to an appeal later. Bill asked Lucy, what is the fear or concern of a gravel extraction permit being issued in a rural zone? What do you think is going to happen? Lucy explained that a very small amount would be fine, but on a larger scale, you have a construction zone in your neighborhood. There is dust and noise; people value their peace and quiet. It could have an impact on people s lifestyles. She added, she feels that she is speaking on the views of others with the same feelings within that neighborhood. Patrick Lyons, legal counsel for Mike Astbury, stated that the UDO already has provisions in it for when a site plan is required. Tim asked the board to please get back to the form on the agenda. The application could indicate that the quarry must be under five acres. Jacqueline Gray asked when and how would anyone know if a project reaches the five acre mark. Mike Astbury explained that the DEP visits regularly any site that they regulate. Someone actually comes to the site and does an inspection, there is more than one authority that regulates this type of activity. The DEP law is written so that you can excavate up to five acres without any formal application process. It is very well regulated. They have satellites that can look right at your site to determine the amount of acreage. Lucy explained she called the DEP and they looked at the site through google; anyone can call and ask for this. Bob asked if a permit is given for under five acres and the project reaches the five acre mark, do we then collect another application or need to do a site plan review? It was determined that it is not defined in the UDO. It is something that should be looked at when changes are made to the UDO. Bill again explained the process for making changes to the UDO and encouraged anyone and everyone wanting changes to get involved with the process.

5 Bill again asked members to look over the application. Dan McGraw asked Tim to explain the fees. Tim explained, just as stated on the application, the fee for the permit is $150 and the fee for the Planning Board is $100. It was requested that a checkbox be put on the application form to indicate either less than five acres, or more than five acres. That was if more than five acres a DEP would be required and that would trigger a site plan review. Bob stated, as an aside, we need to change the definition of industrial and the table that goes along with it as they do not go along with each other. Bill added that Mike still has a valid permit. MOTION to approve the Land Use Application, Mineral Extraction, Non-Shoreland application as amended, to include a check box for more or less than five acres and a notation that an application for more than five acres will require a site plan review. Seconded. Bob/Dan. Vote is unanimous. Motion carries. Don asked when this takes effect? Does this have to go to town meeting? Tim explained, no. He used the wording exactly from the UDO to prevent that. This doesn t pertain to any existing small gravel pits? No it does not, only for new applications. Bob asked if this new application needs to be submitted by Mike Astbury, Bill stated no, he already has a valid permit. Mike Astbury proposed that the board accept the additional documentation that Mike has already submitted as part of his original application and deem it to be complete. Don indicated he feels it is not necessary as the permit has already been issued. Mike explained, he doesn t mind submitting the additional information. Bill thanked Mike and applauded him for trying to be a good neighbor and citizen throughout this process. Lucy indicated that she is very confused. They said at the appeals meeting that the application is on hold until the application has been again reviewed. The Appeals Board stayed the appeal, not the application. Mike was not the applicant, Scarlet Kinney was. Mr Lyons explained, the Appeals Board stayed the Appeal until this application was approved and asked that the board find this application complete. Bill explained, they cannot find the application complete because it is not on the agenda tonight. Tim explained, that the next meeting will be posted and abutters will be notified of the review of the additional materials two weeks prior to the meeting.

6 Bill asked if the board is in agreement to put Mike on the next agenda for review. MOTION to hear and review Mike Astbury s additional information at the July meeting. Seconded. (Bob/Midge) Vote is unanimous. Motion carries. VI. Having no further business to discuss, Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, William Barker, Chairman Surry Planning Board