Wales Planning Board
April 26, 2005, Meeting

Minutes

 

 

In Attendance:  Ed MacDonald (Chair), Lori Blier (PBM), Alice DiPaolo (PBM), Lyndon Spaulding (PBM), Ralph Sanborn (PBM), Paul Burgess (Selectmen), approximately 17 townspeople attended to participate in the work session regarding the elevation language in the land use ordinance and the comprehensive plan (sign in sheet attached).

 

·         Lori distributed the following items to the board:  April 12 Public Hearing Record, meeting agenda; updated draft copies of the road ordinance, the land use ordinance, the site plan review ordinance, the additional notes of the April 12 Public Hearing provided by Fred Hopengarten, and the updated proposed amendments to the comp plan.  Additional copies of the updated draft land use ordinance were available for the attending townspeople.

·         The meeting was called to order at 7:05.

·         Lori made a motion that the additional notes provided by Fred Hopengarten be added as an attachment to the public hearing record, it was seconded and carried.  The Public Hearing Record was read and approved as written unanimously by the board.

·         Ed opened the discussion to the land use ordinance and the concerns voiced at the public hearing regarding the elevation language.  Lori spoke of the changes that she had made based on those concerns to both the land use ordinance and the proposed amendments to the comp plan.  These were specifically striking the language that restricted development above certain elevations.  Bob Neal indicated that the striking of that language seemed to address those initial concerns but that he also had concerns about the 20% slope and wetlands language in Article 4.1.B.  Carol indicated that the language was not directed at the lot as a whole, but only to the building envelope.  So basically what it says is that you need to have 40,000 square feet of contiguous land somewhere on the lot to be your “building envelope” with no wetlands or slopes greater than 20% to obtain a building permit on any new lot. 

·         There were also questions on what exactly “open space” meant, forestland, farmlands, wetlands, what?  What is the definition?  Carol indicated the open space concept was because we were trying to preserve some larger areas.  They could be forestland, fields, bogs, anything, but they would be preserved in larger size instead of a little here and a little there.  You get more houses in a smaller area, but a large area of preserved land that is protected.  If you had 15 acres, you could have 5 houses on 5 acres and the other 10 acres would be the open space common area.  Mr. Hopengarten brought up the fact that the language regarding the open space provision was subject to misinterpretation.  There was some discussion on the intent of the language, the potential misinterpretations, and suggestions to rectify it.  Lori has the proposed language in her draft copy of the ordinance and will make the change for final presentation at the next public hearing. 

·         There was some discussion surrounding which lots were included in the limited rural zones and which weren’t.  Carol indicated that the lots that weren’t included were specifically not included because they were already developed or they would not be able to be developed at all with the restrictive language and therefore such action by the town would be considered a taking.  Further discussion ensued providing some clarification as to the layout of the limited rural district.  It was determined that the limited rural district would not be removed from the proposed zones, just the language that restricted development there based on elevation. 

·         There was some discussion surrounding the density language in Article 5.8.C.1 (page 9).  Carol indicated we would have that problem anyway. (??)  By having it as open space type of concept you didn’t need to have a separate 3 acres here and here, you could have them all on a 6 acre parcel … it’s per 3 acres of the parcel’s total acreage.  It was brought up that the term “open space design” was not defined in our definitions ordinance only “open space subdivision”.  Following some discussion and recommended ways of providing the clarification, it was determined that we would add the language to the definitions ordinance.

·         Discussion turned to whether or not we needed to add anything to the allowed uses section.  Because of the conflicting language between the land use and the telecommunications siting ordinance, it was determined that we would add Wireless Telecommunications Facilities should be added indicating they should reference the telecommunications siting ordinance.  As the discussion continued, it was determined we should also add the catch all of Uses Allowed by Statute as well.

·         There was a question regarding people who own property that is less than the 3 acre limit in the revised ordinance.  It was clarified that it only affected new lots and that the existing lots would be exempt.  Mr. Hopengarten found the section relating to that and indicated that it was indeed covered by that section in the ordinance (sorry didn’t get the section #).  There were also questions about non-conforming lots, which Mr. Hopengarten also located the sections that established that existing lots would be grandfathered. 

·         Mr. Hambleton mentioned that we might want to add Bed and Breakfast to the limited rural area as that is the type of area that people would be drawn to for tourism type purposes.  The board will take that into consideration at its next meeting.

·         There was a fairly extensive discussion about enforcement of these ordinances and existing ordinances – particularly with respect to a piece of property located on Oak Hill that is an eyesore, probably completely out of compliance with any of the regulations currently in place even without considering more restrictive ordinances.  The board members indicated that while we understand the issue, it is not within our jurisdiction to enforce the ordinances that we create and administer – it is with the Code Enforcement Officer of which we are in a holding pattern of attempting to get a full/part time CEO (in other words a part time CEO but someone who is not just filling in until we get an official one).  People are concerned about the violations occurring on Oak Hill.  It appears that the owner of the properties in question is also the owner of the properties of concern on Sabattus Mountain where a permit for a garage was obtained which seems to be exceeding the permit (three stories and growing).  It appears there are violations there as well.  The board advised neighbors to call the state on any violations they felt could be pursued by say DEP, Human Services, etc.  Discussion was redirected to the ordinances and there changes.

·         References to the road ordinance in the land ordinance were discussed.  Lori read the specific changes from both the land use and the road ordinance.  It was determined that perhaps the specific references to materials and length should be relegated to the road ordinance and not be included in a zoning section of the land use ordinance.  There was also some discussion about whether specifying plastic as the material of choice for culverts was a good idea.  The road commissioner and one of the citizens present who worked in this field had some discussion.  The committee will work with the road commissioner on any changes he might feel necessary based on that discussion.

·         There was some discussion about the change of the right of way from 60’ to 30’.  It was indicated that the existing right of ways would remain the same.

·         There was some discussion about notification of townspeople about changes of this sort that effect specific areas.  Sandwich boards were mentioned, e-mail lists were suggested, and notices on the website were encouraged.  Lori will try to pull together an email list of interested parties for mailings of this sort.  It was indicated that it’s difficult to provide notification and that the townspeople themselves need to try to keep aware of what is happening in their community. 

·         Carol Fuller indicated that we would indeed need to have another Public Hearing to cover the addition to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and that it would have to be a 30 day notice.  The board determined to schedule a public hearing for May 31^st and post at the normal posting areas which would cover our notification requirements.  Mr. Hopengarten indicated that we might want to send specific notification to the lawyer who had issues at our public hearing.  This secretary is taking that under advisement. 

·         Mark Andrews asked whether the board would be looking at impact after the next town meeting.  Ed indicated that if we get the amendments to the comp plan we are looking for that we will have a plan that is accepted by the state (as indicated by correspondence we have had with the state) and that we would then be able to pursue that course of action if it is deemed necessary by the board and the townspeople.  Mark also expressed his satisfaction with the actions of the board through the last couple of years – he commended us on our work. 

·         Paul Burgess brought up the open space ownership issue in the subdivision ordinance.  The section referring to that was pointed out to him and it was indicated that the ownership of open space was determined by the subdivision application and final plan and that the details were supposed to be worked out through that plan.  He is concerned about the taxes owed the town on those properties and is specifically concerned with the starlight drive development.  Lori indicated that the subdivision plan for starlight drive indicated that the open space portion of the development attached to each parcel was to be written in the deeds for those parcels. 

·         There was some additional discussion regarding the 20% slope and 40,000 sq. ft. building envelope requirement.  Ralph has an issue with needing 40,000 ft. contiguous area and says that 20% slope is not a great deal of slope.  It was indicated that we could discuss that portion at our next meeting.

·         Meeting adjourned – 9:15 p.m.

 

I’m sure I missed some stuff and/or compartmentalized a lot of it – any changes or additions should be emailed to imp7761@ctel.net .     

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Lori Blier, WPB Secretary

 

Related Documents:  Hopengarten Notes from Public Hearing, 4-12 Public Hearing Record, Updated Draft Final Road Ordinance, Updated Draft Final Land Use Ordinance, Updated Final Draft Site Review Ordinance, Updated Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan

 

Note:  The board appreciates the public participation displayed at this meeting/worksession.  We hope that you will continue to remain involved and perhaps consider becoming a volunteer, like ourselves, for either this planning board, the appeals board, the school board, the board of selectmen or other town appointed boards or committees.  It is through participation by folks like you that the best interests of the town is served.