Appeals Board minutes, July 21, 2009



July 21, 2009

Board members present:  Chairman Fred Marston, Michael Rossney, Steve Tobey, Tobey Woodward, Danny Weed.  Also present:  Jonathan and Jane Thomas, Peter Roy, Richard Duffy, Pam Johnson, Tom McKechnie, Jim Patterson, Doug Jones, Barbara Grindle.

Chairman Marston called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved.  Mr Roy had emailed a waiver regarding the road width to the chairman and Mr Patterson as well as the secretary.  It was approved by the board as an acceptable method of correspondence.  The waiver asked for reducing the road width from 24’ to 20’ with 2’ shoulders on each side. The motion was made and seconded to pass the waiver under Section 11-B of the Sedgwick Subdivision Ordinance.  The vote was 5-0.  Utilities will be underground on the outside of the shoulders, but within the right of way limits.

            It is important to the public that the process of approving the subdivision be done correctly, not only by the Appeals Board, but also by the Planning Board.  Mr. Jones was the only member of the ‘public’ here but he felt that he could speak for most people when he said that if the procedures had been followed properly, we would not be having the problems that we are having now.

            Board members agreed that the procedures need to be followed more diligently, but as Chairman Marston pointed out, it is difficult to find volunteers to fill these important positions.  He encourages all townspeople to let the selectmen know that they would be willing to volunteer wherever they can.

            The appellants reviewed the motions that they had presented previously, especially the one requesting soil tests for toxic materials on blueberry land.  They would like to have a warning placed on all possible sales.  Mr. Roy objected that the Ordinance does not require this warning.  Mr. Rossney suggested that at some point the realtor might do this as part of the ‘due diligence’ process.

            Mr. Roy’s comments were that Mr. Duffy had done everything that had been asked of him to the best of his ability, not only by the present Appeals Board, but also by the Planning Board and the appellants. 

1)      The Appeals Board will not require Mr. Duffy have lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 tested to determine toxic insecticides and herbicides.  Voted 5-0.

2)      The Board will require that the south side of the road and shoulder of Eggemoggin Court be moved to the south side of the right of way, moving it as far as possible from the brook to preserve and protect the existing vegetation around the brook.    Voted 5-0.

3)  Accepted the waiver requesting a 20’ roadway with 2’ shoulders   on  each side. Voted 5-0.

4)      Agreed that the common roads be constructed of permeable materials. Voted 5-0.

       With the comment portion of the process finished, the Chairman called a short recess.  While in recess, Mr. Patterson asked Mr. McKechnie if there were some parts of the checklist that were not applicable.  Mr McKechnie then marked those he felt did not need to be voted on.  After the recess the Board went into the final deliberations.  Checklist questions:

            1.  Will the major subdivision proposed by Richard Duffy result in undue water or air pollution under the standards provided in Section 1(A)(1) on page 4 of the 2005 Sedgwick Subdivision Ordinance Amended?    No   5-0.

            2.   Does the subdivision have sufficient water available for its reasonably foreseeable needs as required in Section 1(A)(2)?  Yes   5-0

3.      Will the subdivision cause an unreasonable burden on an existing water supply?  No  5-0

6.      Will the subdivision be able to provide sites for adequate sewage waste disposal?   Yes  5-0

9.      Does the subdivision conform with the Sedgwick Comprehensive Plan or other Sedgwick land use ordinances?  Yes  5-0

10.  Does Mr. Duffy have adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the requirements of the Ordinance?   Yes  5-0

            7.   Is the subdivision situated, in whole or in part, within 250 feet of any pond, lake, river or tidal waters?   No  5-0

            A.   Is the subdivision in compliance with the General Requirements in Section VIII of the Sedgwick Subdivision Ordinance – starting with criterion A on page 23 regarding conformity with the Sedgwick Comprehensive Plan or policy statement, or with the provisions of all pertinent state and local statutes, codes and ordinances?   Yes  5-0

            B.   Is the subdivision and its Final Plan in conformance with the Community Services items contained in Section VIII(B)?   Yes  5-0

            E.  Does the subdivision contain any land not suitable for development and, if so, did the Sedgwick Planning board approve lots in those areas in contravention of Section VIII(E)(1)?   No  5-0

                 Is the subdivision situated, in whole or in part, within 250 feet of any pond, lake, river or tidal waters?   No   5-0

F.   Does the subdivision design include blocks?  No  5-0

G.    Does the subdivision design conform to the lot size dimension and other requirements contained in Section VIII(G) on page 26 of the Ordinance?   Yes  5-0

H.      Does the subdivision design conform to the provisions contained in Section VIII(H) on page 27 regarding storm-water easements or drainage rights-of-way?  Yes  5-0

I.       Are the proposed public utility services acceptable as required in Section VIII?   Yes  5-0

Will the Board require that all utilities shall be installed underground?  Yes  4   No  1  (Mr. Tobey against – the ordinance requires this; the board doesn’t need to)

K.    Does the subdivision comply with the improvement requirements contained in Section VIII(K)?  as waived.   Yes  5-0   (waiver request regarding streetlights and sidewalks was approved)

           C.     Is the subdivision in conformity with the street standard contained  in Section IC) on pages 28-34?  as waived.  Yes  5-0.                                                  Does the Board wish to grant Mr. Duffy’s request for a waiver  from the requirements in the Design and Construction Ordinance on page 31 regarding minimum widths of the rights-of-way, pavement, and/or shoulders?   Yes

G.     Is the subdivision in compliance with the surface drainage requirements contained in Section IX(G) on page 35 of the Ordinance?  Yes 5-0

DECISION:  Does the Board of Appeals vote to (a) grant the Appellants’ appeal and overturn the Planning Board’s approval of Eggemoggin Heights Subdivision, (b) approve the subdivision as presented to the Planning Board, or (c) approve the subdivision approval with waiver(s) and conditions?      Approve with Conditions   5-0                                                                        Conditions:  1)  permeable surfaces on all roads;  2)  open bottom culvert through the brook as per IF&W specifications;  3)  shift the location of Eggemoggin Court road away from the brook, but within the right-of-way;  4)  in lieu of a performance bond, all roads must be finished before any lots are sold.                                                                                                                        There will be a brief meeting of the Board on July 28 at the Town Office at 7 pm to review and sign the final papers.

            This meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm.

                                    Barbara Grindle, Assistant to the Selectmen