December 18_ 2006 - Meeting Minutes by liuqingyan




                     3               TOWN OF WELLS, MAINE
                      4              PLANNING BOARD
 7                                                 Meeting Minutes
 8                                      Monday, December 18, 2006, 7:00 P.M.
 9                                    Littlefield Meeting Room, Wells Town Hall
10                                                   Sanford Road
14   Chairman Chuck Millian called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with members Kristi Woloszyn, Jonathan
15   Goodine and Pierce Cole present. Staff present: Mike Huston, Town Planner, and Cinndi Davidson,
16   Temporary Recorder.
20   Minutes of November 27, 2006.
21                                                 MOTION
22   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to approve the minutes as written. PASSED
23   unanimously by those voting. Mr. Cole abstained.
25   Minutes of December 4, 2006.
26                                              MOTION
27   Motion by Mr. Goodine, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to approve the minutes as written. PASSED
28   unanimously.
33            Ryan, owner/applicant; Jones & Beach Engineers, engineer. Site Plan Application to construct 15 seasonal
34            cottages with a private road; to renovate existing house into office/meeting room; and provide an in-ground
35            pool. Property is located on 1708 Post Road and is in the General Business District. Map 139, Lot 1.
37   Parker Ryan, applicant, and Joseph Coronati of Jones & Beach Engineers were present. Mr. Ryan presented
38   a plan to construct 15 seasonal cottages with a private road near the corner of Post Road and Burnt Mill
39   Road in the General Business District. There will be an in-ground pool and the current house will be
40   renovated for the condo association office. The new road through the property will connect Route 1 with
41   Burnt Mill Road.
43   1) Virginia Souza of 18 Burnt Mill Road is an abutter. She walked the property Saturday with Mr. Ryan to
44   discuss the location of the trees and signed off on his plan for planting trees along her border. She read the
45   following letter into the record:
46   "I have major concerns since sitting in at the last meeting regarding the Parker Ryan seasonal cottage
47   development on Burnt Mill Road and Post Road, and regarding this public hearing:
48   1. One way road through proposed development.
49   2. Square foot ground coverage referring to "grassed" parking and other constructions.
50   3. Paved vs. gravel parking and road construction and gates.
51   4. Standing water hazards.
52   5. Subsurface water (regarding flooding basements) - not swale water.
53   6. Plans submitted in a timely fashion, allowing abutters to review BEFORE public hearing.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                           1 of 15
 3   proposed development is made one way, incoming from Post Road and exiting onto Burnt Mill Road, then
 4   every car that needs to get back onto Route 1 after visiting or stopping at the development will have to pass
 5   my house to get back onto Route 1, increasing the traffic in front of my house by a ridiculous and
 6   unnecessary number. The impact on my house alone ON TWO SIDES of my property is bad enough. The
 7   impact of having every vehicle that needs to return to Route One have to drive by my house ON THREE
 8   SIDES of my residence is unfair. There will be standing traffic running up the road to get onto Rt. 1 tying
 9   up Burnt Mill Road. Does Mr. Ryan plan on paying for a traffic light at the corner of the Wicker Shop?
11   2. PARKING SPACES DON'T COUNT ? I have been told by the code enforcement office that "grassed"
12   parking areas do not count against total lot coverage for this development. However, a few years ago I was
13   told by Barbara in that office that "all parking counts" as far as my property was concerned. If a car parks
14   on it, it counts. If the grassed parking doesn't count for this development, then we can expect all
15   developments not to count 30, 40, or 100 parking spaces when planning their projects. It is unfair to have
16   the Wicker Shop, or Beach Acres or a private residence like mine have to count every parking space if
17   "grassed" spaces don't have to be counted in this case. Have ALL the areas been calculated in this project,
18   including parking, swimming pools, and any other pools constructed, trash facilities, etc? Has anyone
19   considered parking for RV's and where they would park if visiting or renting? They do not fit in any of the
20   places Mr. Ryan's plan has reserved, yet they are a big part of the vacationing traffic in New England. Has
21   the town engineer determined the area covered or are we leaving the calculating up to a project engineer
22   paid by Mr. Ryan?
24   3. PAVED vs. GRAVEL and GATES: If this truly is a private community, there needs to be gates at the
25   ends of the road through the proposed development to stop traffic cut short cuts and vandalism during the
26   "off" season. We already have enough problems like that with the gates, there will be more of this. Speed
27   bumps would help to keep the speed down, which would also be good, but they do not keep people out.
29   Gravel vs. Paved: The noise impact will be much greater if Mr. Ryan is not requested to pave the ENTIRE
30   length of his road. Paving only the ends does nothing for the road noise in the middle, affecting my house,
31   and that of his own tenants and/or owners. The developer and the Board compared Mr. Ryan's options of a
32   gravel driveway to that of a neighbor's small antique business or the Wicker Shop's gravel drive.
33   Comparing a 15 unit (2 car each) commercial summer cottage development is not really fair - like apples
34   and oranges. Mr. Ryan said it is in the nature of what he remembers the cabins of Old Maine were like in
35   the "old days." If we stick to what Mr. Ryan remembers from the 50's, we should have NO codes at all, as
36   in keeping with the times. If you check the old cottages that are still in existence now, most of them have
37   paved roads, drives, etc.
39   4. RAIN GARDENS/STANDING POOLS OF STAGNANT WATER: I think there will be a major health
40   hazard. The last summer brought us warnings about stagnant water, West Nile Virus, infected birds and
41   health officials asking us to empty any small buckets of water that would attract mosquito larvae. Now, we
42   are going to have two man made "pools of water" on the property next to us, and told that this is the same
43   as dispersed ground water with no natural giant puddles. I am afraid that this is going to cause a big
44   problem for abutters and for people, pets and any remaining wildlife staying at this development. What is
45   the solution - spraying with pesticides?
47   5. UNDERGROUND WATER/Flooded Basement Syndrome: I still have not had any answers to the
48   problem of our cellars getting worse after the ground is dug up and repacked, as stated in his first plan. The
49   Metcalf's cellar has been pumping water out onto Rt. 1 for years, and all the cellars in the area flood. So
50   won't the repacking make the ground water in this area be made worse?
52   6. AVAILABILITY OF PLANS FOR ABUTTERS TO REVIEW: As an abutter, it would have been really
53   advantageous to be able to SEE the plan I am supposed to be prepared to discuss at a public hearing. It
54   gives unfair advantage to developers and builders, many of whom do not even live in our town, to submit
55   their plans right before the meetings, when the abutters do not even get a chance to see them before the
56   public hearing and workshop. It gives one a feeling that something is "sneaking by" and that is not good. I
57   was asked to sign a plan held by Mr. Ryan that I was not able to ever see in one piece at one time.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                        2 of 15
 2   7. I have concerns about other things I thought might be on the plans, but don't know for sure, like the
 3   phrase 8' "decorative" fence. Is this a stockade fence, or a solid equivalent or does it mean something else?
 4   If it is not made clear in advance, I worry it will not be acceptable. Is it set back with the appropriate side
 5   facing the abutter property?
 7   Thank you for addressing these points."
 9   Mr. Huston said that developers have different ways of handling the public hearings. After an initial
10   review, some choose to change the plans immediately, while others wait until after the public hearing to
11   make changes. Regarding the confusion about these plans, Mr. Ryan asked if he should revise his plans
12   after the workshop two weeks ago, or bring the same set of plans to today's public hearing and then do
13   revisions. Mr. Huston told him that either course is acceptable, but the risk is that if he brought the current
14   plans and there were major changes, there might be a second public hearing. Mr. Ryan weighed his
15   options. Mr. Huston talked with him and his engineer, and he understood that they would go with the
16   original set of plans and make the changes later. He apologized to the public for any confusion and expects
17   that there will be revised plans for abutters and the Board to review.
19   2) Don Grenier of Burnt Mill Road brought pictures of the driveway and water situation and distributed
20   copies to the Board. On number "A" the stake in the foreground with the ribbon indicates the center of the
21   roadway coming out of the project onto Burnt Mill Road, which is lined up directly across from Mr.
22   Grenier's property. This is a duplex which he shares with his parents. His father's garage has been
23   converted into a game room which he plans to screen in this spring. Traffic coming out of the subdivision
24   will cause dust in the game room. He doesn't object to Mr. Ryan developing the property, but he would
25   like to have the private road paved to cut down on dust.
27   Photos "B" and "C": The plans show wetlands and drainage, and across the street from the development
28   there is an elevation of 75. Picture C shows a water bottle at right, which is indicated as 75. Most of the
29   property in the wetlands is either 73 or 74. To the left of the bottle is a 30" drop at the culvert, so the
30   overflow from the Ryan property will go through the culvert and onto the Grenier property. Picture B
31   shows 4 double wides put in by Mr. Bangs; he raised the property higher than Mr. Grenier's property and
32   flooded their basements. Mr. Grenier paid to have a trench dug to stop the flooding. Elevations of 73 and
33   74 on Mr. Ryan's plans indicate that water will cross the street to Mr. Grenier's property.
35   3) Joan Mooney of 1690 Post Road asked about water problems after the trees are cut. Right now she
36   doesn't get any water on her property, but how effective will the swales be once the trees are cut down? If
37   her basement floods later, what recourse does she have with the town or Mr. Ryan? She asked Ms. Giguere
38   for an explanation of how the swales work and how they would compensate for large trees that are coming
39   down.
41   Ms. Giguere is reviewing these plans on behalf of the Town. She has asked the applicant to extend the
42   swale along Ms. Mooney's property to catch any water coming that way and direct it to the rain gardens.
43   Ms. Mooney asked what could be done if that doesn't work. Mr. Huston said that if the Town does
44   inspections and it isn't built according to plan, the Town can take some action against the developer to
45   correct it. If the developer builds according to what was approved but it doesn't do the job, the damage
46   would be a matter for the neighbors to settle like any other type of dispute.
48   There were no other comments or questions from the public or members of the Board.
50                                                MOTION
51   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to close the public hearing. PASSED unanimously.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                         3 of 15
 1    XIV.    HAMPTON INN & SUITES – Hill Family-Maine LLC, owner; Gordan C. Ayer, attorney; Steve Doe,
 2            engineer. Site Plan Amendment Application to divide the one parcel into two; to show the accurate location
 3            of underground propane tanks and service line; to show earthen berms and actual land grading changes made
 4            during construction; to eliminate landscaping at the rear of the building to allow for level space near patio for
 5            outdoor functions. Property is located on 900 Post Road and is located in the General Business and
 6            Residential A Districts. Tax Map 120, Lot 2.
 8   Attorney Gordon Ayer was present. This application is for the Board to receive and approve the as-built
 9   plan with some minor changes, and for a parcel of land to the west in the RA zone to be conveyed to the
10   prior owner. This land is not being used by the hotel for lot size, density, or any other reason. Mr.
11   Martinez, who owns the property immediately to the north, is now exercising his option to acquire it.
12   There were no questions or comments from the public or members of the Board.
14                                              MOTION
15   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to close the public hearing. PASSED unanimously.
19    XIV.    JESSE LEE VILLAGE – Thomas Gallen, Preachers’ Aid Society of New England, owner/applicant;
20            Shelley Brunelle, engineer. Subdivision Pre-Application for a 15 lot cluster subdivision consisting of 23
21            dwelling units on a 28.69 acre parcel; two standard lots to be located on Willow Way and a mix of 21 one-
22            and two-family dwellings with shared driveways located along a proposed through-access street adjacent to
23            Harrisecket Road. Property is located on Harrisecket Road and Willow Way and is in the Rural District. Tax
24            Map 79, Lot 1. Receive Subdivision Pre-Application and schedule site walk
26   Tom Gallen, Executive Director of the Preachers' Aid Society of New England, presented a plan for a small
27   community of homes for retired Methodist ministers. The property at Willow Way and Harriseckett Road is
28   being purchased from the Maine Council of Churches. Engineer Shelley Brunelle and Steve Boucher,
29   project engineer, discussed the plans for a 15 lot cluster subdivision. This is a wooded site about 28.69
30   acres and close to Route 1, which will be served by public water and sewer. There are residential areas to
31   the north and west, and a one and two family development by Kasprzak to the south. It is in the Rural Zone
32   and has 2 paved street frontages, Willow Way and Harriseckett Road. Some street improvements to Willow
33   Way may be necessary with the development of this property. The site is bisected by a stream which is a
34   tributary of Branch Brook. There is about 12' of elevation difference on the north side of the property. The
35   south side has considerable wetlands and some uplands, and only about 2' of elevation difference. The
36   Preachers' Aid Society would like to provide 23 or 24 units, primarily clustered on the north half of the
37   property.
39   There is the potential for 18 standard size lots respecting a 100' stream setback, rather than the 75' setback.
40   DIF&W suggested that they increase the setback to protect migrating brook trout from Branch Brook. Lots
41   will be standard size 40,000 sq. ft. minimum with one large lot about 200,000 sq. ft. and a system of paved
42   roads with one entrance off Harriseckett Road. The Town's amended cluster subdivision ordinance was
43   passed in November and the current concept follows the changes. They hope to preserve at least 50% of
44   the site on the south part, and hope to have public access through the property into the woodlands and
45   connect to the Kasprzak pathway system. They are hoping for a 35% density increase, and possibly have
46   24 units. There will be 2 standard size lots on Willow Way that are separated from the rest of the
47   neighborhood by the stream, and those lots may eventually be sold off. They may also add a small
48   community building and some visitor parking and RV parking.
50                                               MOTION
51   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to receive the application. PASSED unanimously.
53   Mr. Huston said that according to the ordinance, there are two Saturdays left to do site walks, December 23
54   and 30. Mr. Millian asked the applicant to mark the corners of the property and the center lines of the roads.
55   There is some pink flagging of the wetlands.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                             4 of 15
 1                                              MOTION
 2   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to schedule a site walk for 2 P.M. on Saturday
 3   December 30. PASSED unanimously.
 5   Parking space is available around the corner on Willow Way.
 7    XIV.    ONE HUNDRED ACRES – Don Grenier, DES Construction Inc, owner/applicant; Ben Walden, engineer.
 8            Subdivision Pre-Application to construct a 37 lot cluster subdivision off on Bragdon Road with 2 road
 9            entrances; the subdivision is proposed to include 18 Affordable Housing homes. Property is located on 109
10            Bragdon Road and is in the Residential A District. [One Hundred Acres originally approved 6/9/1969 but
11            was never developed [Tax Map 54, Lot 5. Receive Subdivision Pre-Application/Sketch, schedule a site
12            walk and comment on sketch
14   Applicant Don Grenier presented a pre-approved plan. When he came before the Board previously, there
15   was a discussion of 1 vs. 2 entrances. They have reconfigured the plan to provide a second entrance. They
16   have decided to go with a cluster subdivision, and this was designed prior to the new ordinance. There will
17   be over 35% open space and 18 Affordable Housing homes. Mr. Grenier requested that the Board waive an
18   additional site walk.
20                                               MOTION
21   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Cole, to receive the plans. PASSED unanimously.
23   Mr. Peterlin, Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Cole were on an earlier site walk. Mr. Cole agreed to report at the
24   January 8 meeting.
26                                              MOTION
27   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to waive the site walk. PASSED unanimously.
29    XIV.    PINEDEROSA WEST CAMPGROUND – Dawn S. & Gregory Baston and The Travis Baston Irrevocable
30            Trust, owners/applicants; Ken Wood, engineer. Site Plan Pre-Application to create a new 84 site seasonal RV
31            Park on 150.9 acres (19 acres of which the project to be located). Property is located on Hiltons Lane and is
32            in the Rural District. Tax Map 11, Lot 25. [Pinederosa West Campground was originally approved on
33            6/29/1999 but was not substantially completed; original plan approval found to be expired] Receive Site
34            Plan Pre-Application, determine if another site walk is needed, comment on sketch
36   Applicant Greg Baston and Ken Wood of Attar Engineering were present. Mr. Wood reported that Jim
37   Wright had submitted this application before under a site plan application. None of that plan was
38   constructed, so the current plan is for an additional 84 RV sites. At the Staff Review Committee last week,
39   Chief Moore had some concerns about the width of the roadway, and they will work with him on that. The
40   roadway on Jim Wright's plan will increase in width.
42                                               MOTION
43   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to receive the pre-application. PASSED unanimously.
45   Ms. Woloszyn and Mr. Hubbard have already walked the site and will report at the next meeting. Mr.
46   Huston will pull the minutes from the meeting when the last review was done.
48                                               MOTION
49   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Cole, to waive the site walk. PASSED unanimously.
51       V1. VILLAGE AT NEWHALL ROAD – Royal INGODWE Trust, owner/applicant; James A. Maxwell,
52           consultant; Ken Wood, engineer. Subdivision Pre-Application for a 19 lot cluster subdivision developed on
53           53.16 acres; access for subdivision to be on the south side of Littlefield Road approximately .25 miles east of
54           New Hall Road. Property is located on Littlefield Road and is in the Rural District. Tax Map 24, Lot 42.
55           Receive Subdivision Pre-Application and schedule site walk
57   Mr. Huston asked about rescheduling the site walk that was postponed due to snow. Mr. Millian said it was
58   held on Saturday, and the applicant is present. Although it is not on the agenda, it should be reported on.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                            5 of 15
 1                                                MOTION
 2   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to report on the Newhall Road site walk. PASSED
 3   unanimously.
 5   Mr. Goodine walked the property with the applicant. The property is fairly level with not many grade
 6   changes. Currently the entrance is just a logging road, but water crosses the road at one point just after
 7   leaving Route 9B. Drainage and erosion would be a concern, as it leads off into the wetlands behind the
 8   property. He didn't see any other concerns in the construction area, such as vernal pools, as it is all upland.
 9   He recommended that the other Board members take a site walk and get familiar with the property. No
10   neighbors or abutters attended the site walk. Two foot contours would be acceptable. Mr. Huston will
11   notify the applicant.
15       VII. HAMPTON INN & SUITES – Hill Family-Maine LLC, owner; Gordan C. Ayer, attorney; Steve Doe,
16            engineer. Site Plan Amendment Application to divide the one parcel into two; to show the accurate location of
17            underground propane tanks and service line; to show earthen berms and actual land grading changes made
18            during construction; to eliminate landscaping at the rear of the building to allow for level space near patio for
19            outdoor functions. Property is located on 900 Post Road and is located in the General Business and Residential
20            A Districts. Tax Map 120, Lot 2. Workshop completeness, determine Public Hearing, workshop
21            compliance for possible approval
23   Mr. Huston asked if Hampton Inn could be taken out of order since the workshop will probably be fairly
24   short.
25                                                 MOTION
26    Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to take Hampton Inn out of order. PASSED unanimously.
28   Helen Muther of Isis Development was present. Mr. Huston said that he received a letter from Chief Moore
29   regarding the pipes and propane tanks. A Criteria & Standards Report from the Planning Office is also
30   included in tonight's packets. There are no problems noted. One special condition of approval suggested
31   by the Planning Office would read "The proposed out parcel shall be transferred to the abutter on the
32   northerly side of the lot. Because that parcel has frontage, and no new roads are proposed, for purposes of
33   further development, the out parcel and the lot just northerly of it shall be considered merged. There can be
34   no re-division of the lots without the provision of frontage." That takes care of the one remaining issue that
35   the Assessor's Office, the Code Office and the Planning Office have had about this, that it would be
36   creating an improper lot. The applicants have no objection to the conditions. The Board has already found
37   it complete without any conditions. Mr. Huston suggests that the Board find it in compliance, approve it,
38   and agree to sign the plans when the office can locate them.
40                                              MOTION
41   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to approve the site plan amendment, find it compliant
42   and sign the plans. PASSED unanimously.
45             Ryan, owner/applicant; Jones & Beach Engineers, engineer. Site Plan Application to construct 15 seasonal
46             cottages with a private road; to renovate existing house into office/meeting room; and provide an in-ground
47             pool. Property is located on 1708 Post Road and is in the General Business District. Map 139, Lot 1.
48             Continue workshop completeness and determine Public Hearing
50   Parker Ryan, owner/applicant, and Joe Coronati, engineer, were present. Valerie Giguere of Underwood
51   Engineering reviewed the draft compliance checklist. More questions about stormwater came up tonight.
52   The revised stormwater report with new calculations hasn't been submitted yet, and she will need to review
53   the addition of more swales and the rain garden. That report should also address Mr. Grenier's concern
54   about water heading toward his property. Signed copies of the MDEP Permit by Rule and NOI are required
55   prior to approval, and also a wetlands permit. The abutters' concerns that were brought up tonight will be
56   part of the compliance review.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                             6 of 15
 1   Mr. Huston suggested asking the developer what types of changes he plans to make. One new concern
 2   raised by Ms. Souza is the water table and whether that will change when the trees are cut down. Ms.
 3   Giguere said that since they are adding impervious area to the site, less water would be going into the
 4   ground water table and more would be going into the rain gardens. When it gets there, the soil would
 5   encourage infiltration. There would have to be a lot of additional water put into the ground to raise the
 6   ground water table.
 8   Mr. Millian asked about the public comments regarding the roads. Mr. Ryan said he talked with the
 9   abutters and presented a drawing that will be incorporated into the revised plans. Ms. Giguere's concerns
10   with the DEP Permit by Rule and wetlands permits are based on the findings they are looking for by the
11   culvert, which Mr. Grenier is also concerned about. That will affect what they put on the application for
12   the wetlands permit. He was also asked to address the abutters' concerns about landscaping. They have a
13   rough plan based on the discussions each abutter had with a landscaper. On the southerly side there will be
14   21 pines as a buffer for Joan Mooney's property. There will be an 8' fence on the northerly side coming in
15   off Burnt Mill Road and continuing down to the corner of Ms. Souza's property and then another 8' to
16   where it connects with the Bell property. They have added some pines and are relocating some maples
17   beyond the fence as an additional sound barrier. The new sketch shows what will remain and what is being
18   added.
20   Ms. Woloszyn asked Ms. Giguere about the culvert pipe going to Don Grenier's property. The invert is
21   higher on his side at 72.99 than on the other side at 72.77. Is that sufficient slope to create a positive drain
22   toward the southerly property, or does it sometimes not drain at all? Ms. Giguere said that the invert in and
23   out can be deceiving because the property on the applicant's side is like a big hole and water can fill it up.
24   When she was out there, water was standing on both sides of the pipe and not moving. Culvert pipes are for
25   inlet control and depending upon the elevation on one side that determines how the water will pass through.
26   Rather than an open channel, it's just a low point on the applicant's side of the property so the water would
27   have to get pretty high in order to move off. Mr. Coronati said that there is a spot in the wetlands a little
28   lower than the road surface that would have to fill up about 1 1/2 ft. before it would reach the break point
29   and keep traveling through their site to Mr. Grenier's property. Units 10 & 11 back up to that bowl, and
30   they propose to cut a small swale behind unit 11 and direct the water from that unit and the roadway to
31   behind units 9 & 10 to get it out of that bowl area. That will actually decrease the water in that area. Ms.
32   Woloszyn asked Ms. Giguere to check that when she gets the revised stormwater plans. Ms. Woloszyn
33   also asked if a rain garden is different from a detention pond. Ms. Giguere said that a detention pond is
34   meant to hold the water. A rain garden is constructed of soil or gravel at a certain depth to encourage
35   infiltration down into the ground. At Staff Review Committee, the Assistant Road Commissioner had some
36   issues with the existing drainage system on Route 1, and hoped that this project would not increase it.
37   Infiltration via the rain gardens was one way to try to decrease the stormwater runoff from pre-development
38   conditions. Mr. Huston said that a rain garden will give some measure of treatment to the stormwater
39   instead of just gathering in a pond and ultimately flowing out. Ms. Giguere said it isn't meant to have
40   standing water and esthetically it will look nicer than a detention pond. Mr. Coronati said it will have
41   dense plantings to filter and take up some of the water and avoid the stagnant water condition. Mr. Ryan
42   said the plants are chosen for their ability to take up water and do some filtering.
44   Ms. Woloszyn raised the question of grass parking. She favors grass parking because there is less paving
45   and less impervious surface, with better drainage on the site. However, she wanted to make sure that
46   granting a waiver would not minimize the lot coverage and circumvent the code for lot coverage. She
47   would be willing to waive it as long as the applicant shows the calculations that the grass parking spaces
48   are included in lot coverage, even though they are not impervious. Mr. Coronati said the proposed lot
49   coverage is 20% of the property, where 65% is allowed. There are 45 grass parking spaces, about 7500 sq.
50   ft. which adds only about 5% to the lot coverage. If they were paved, it would be at about 25%. The 20%
51   includes the road and the buildings. Mr. Huston said that both the Staff Review Committee and the
52   Planning Board have approved areas with grass over the pavers, and those areas get included in calculating
53   the impervious surfaces because pavers make it partly impervious. The standard used by the Board is that
54   if there is green grass as opposed to gravel or pavement, that doesn't count in terms of lot coverage. When
55   there are pavers or grass over a gravel shoulder, even though the pavement is only 18', the runoff is
56   calculated based on 22' of width. Ms. Woloszyn asked if these were proposed as grass pavers. Mr. Huston
57   said there will have to be gravel under the handicapped spots, but the rest won't have gravel. Grass parking

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                         7 of 15
 1   is one thing; grass over pavers is different. Ms. Woloszyn wanted to make sure that if the Board granted
 2   grass parking, it wouldn't be used as a way to skirt the lot coverage, but they are well under the maximum.
 3   Ms. Giguere said that the 5,6,7 rules for seasonal cottages allow the Board to waive grass parking. Mr.
 4   Huston said that if this was not a seasonal business, grass parking would not be allowed.
 6   Ms. Woloszyn asked about the road, whether it will be paved, whether it will be 1 way or 2 ways, and
 7   whether there should be gates at the ends. Mr. Ryan said the preference seems to be a paved road. For the
 8   next set of plans, they are proposing a paved road, one way, 18' wide with a 1' gravel shoulder on each side.
 9   Mr. Millian asked about gating or speed bumps. One way out onto Burnt Mill Road would prevent people
10   from using it to cut off the corner. Mr. Ryan said they would start with signage and some type of barrier in
11   the off season. They could put speed bumps at both ends of the cottage area. Ms. Woloszyn noted that the
12   abutter isn't happy about having it a one way street, and could it be two way with a gate to prevent cutting
13   through. There was some discussion at Staff Review Committee that if it was two way, a gate would be
14   necessary. One way would resolve most of the issues about traffic is a two way road. Mr. Huston was
15   concerned that if this is one way going from Route 1 to Burnt Mill Road, a traffic engineer should look at
16   queuing on Route 1. He thought the one way would mean coming off Burnt Mill Road. People traveling
17   north on Route 1 would have to make a left turn in, and there could be a queue to turn in here or Burnt Mill
18   Road. The traffic engineer could also look at having the one way in the opposite direction, from Burnt Mill
19   out to Route 1. Mr. Ryan said that if the entrance is not from Route 1 where there is a turning lane, the
20   same thing will happen one door down at the corner. Ms. Woloszyn said that it could be confusing for cars
21   coming up Route 1 and seeing the complex, but not knowing how to get into it. Ms. Giguere said that a
22   traffic engineer can also estimate the number of trips from the cottages and address the abutters' concern
23   about how many cars would be coming out onto Burnt Mill and passing Ms. Souza's house.
25   Mr. Ryan asked the Board to clarify what additional information he needs to provide. Mr. Millian said 1)
26   speak to a traffic consultant about the best entrance, 1 way or 2 way, gates or no gates. 2) They have
27   presented the plan with the trees and plantings. 3) They have stated that they will probably completely
28   pave the road. 4) They are waiting for the stormwater runoff management plans. Mr. Coronati said that a
29   traffic engineer could help with queuing on Route 1 and data on the number of cars making a left turn. Ms.
30   Woloszyn said that Board wants expert advice on the safest traffic configuration. Mr. Ryan asked if safety
31   is the Board's key consideration, and Mr. Millian said it is.
33   Mr. Coronati asked about the waiver on the grass parking.
35                                               MOTION
36   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to waive grass parking. PASSED unanimously.
38                                                MOTION
39   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to continue the workshop. PASSED unanimously.
41    XIV.    MEKHONG THAI RESTAURANT – Thakong, LLC, owner/applicant. Site Plan Application to enclose
42            the deck for restaurant seating; renovate inside of existing building; add parking to meet 22 space
43            requirement; add a dumpster with base and fence; and change use from single family residential to
44            commercial. Property is located on 1303 Post Road and is in the General Business District. Tax Map 126, Lot
45            16. Workshop completeness and determine Public Hearing
47   Harvey Wells, architect, Jim Oppert and Mike O'Toole of Woodman & Edmunds were present. Ms.
48   Giguere was at the Staff Review Committee meeting and has been in touch with Mr. Wells since then.
49   They did not have a registered survey at that time; they now have one. The fence detail was missing on the
50   plans. The runoff design for the parking lot is being resolved by Ms. Giguere and Mr. Oppert. Ms.
51   Giguere has just received the stormwater calculations and they have been discussing other alternatives. She
52   will review these latest plans and calculations for compliance. Mr. Huston said that the applicant and his
53   representatives have been very sensitive to comments from the Staff Review Committee and are making a
54   good faith effort to resolving the drainage questions. This should be continued to perhaps the second
55   meeting in January.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                          8 of 15
 1                                              MOTION
 2   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to continue the workshop. PASSED unanimously.
 4   Mr. Wells asked if a public hearing could be scheduled for the next meeting. Mr. Millian said it has to be
 5   complete before it can be scheduled, but both will be held the same night. Mr. Wells asked if it could be
 6   expedited provided Ms. Giguere's review is satisfactory. Mr. Huston said that if the Board made the
 7   Planning Office the completeness agent, it could be scheduled for a public hearing and workshop once Ms.
 8   Giguere determines that it is complete.
10                                                  MOTION
11    Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to appoint the Office of Planning and Development the
12   completeness agent and schedule a public hearing once it is complete. PASSED unanimously.
14    XIV.    SEA GLASS VILLAGE - (formerly referred to as Summer Village South) – Robert & Sandra
15            Brown/Russell & Marilyn Darling/ Kevin Colley, owners; Howard Hall, applicant; Attar Engineering,
16            engineer. Site Plan Application consisting of not to exceed 187 seasonal cottage units; parking areas; 960 sq.
17            ft. office/pool house; (1) screened trash compactor; upgrades to existing Old County Road/Post Road
18            intersection with trolley stop and sidewalk; recreation area with 11,200 sq. ft. clubhouse with food service, a
19            5,000 sq. ft. pavilion, a pool/Jacuzzi and shuffleboard/bocce courts; a tennis court; and landscaping. Property
20            is located on Post Road near Old County Road. Tax Map 19, Lots 5, 6, & 7 & Tax Map 107, Lot 38 & Tax
21            Map 108, Lot 42. Workshop compliance and consider for possible approval
23   The following individuals were present: Howard Hall, applicant, Joe Carleton, attorney, Bill Eaton, traffic
24   engineer, Lew Chamberlain and Ken Wood of Attar Engineering, Jackie Grant and Gerry Mylroie. Steve
25   Harding is the Town's engineer.
27   Mr. Huston reviewed the documents in the packets and 6 more items that were received today: e-mails
28   between Mr. Mylroie and Mr. Huston concerning conditions suggested in Mr. Harding's completeness
29   memo which the applicant has agreed to, a question from an abutter about clustering, an e-mail from Joe
30   Carleton with the proposed language for the declaration about the water flow together with Larry Walden's
31   response, a letter from Kevin Grimes, and faxes received from Mr. Grimes today supplementing his letter.
32   Mr. Huston's compliance memo included the following sections: a brief procedural history, public
33   comments, points raised by the Office of Planning and Development (property title, stormwater
34   calculations, landscape berms, fire safety and the fence for the "Nadeau cottage"), and Mr. Huston's
35   recommendation that the project should not be approved and that the wrong standard was used to review
36   the application. The remaining outstanding issues are: the DEP permit has been applied for, an application
37   has been submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and Mr. Harding suggests 6 special conditions of
38   approval. Board members have most of these materials in their application packets. There are copies of the
39   application to the DEP, the drainage solution issues and bylaws.
41   Mr. Carleton said that they believe they comply with all the standards required by the ordinance for
42   approval. They have made some minor changes since the last meeting. He asked the Board members
43   about any outstanding issues.
45   Ms. Woloszyn asked about the status of the DEP approvals. Mr. Carleton said either it was applied for or it
46   is pending. They would like the Board to approve the project with the condition of approval by the DEP.
47   Mr. Carleton asked the Board to consider Mr. Harding's 6 special conditions. #1 has been resolved. #2
48   regarding the number of phases and as-built drawings seems to the applicant as a misreading of the intent
49   last June. At the June 26 meeting, the Planning Board considered the final landscaping plans for the project.
50   The question is whether landscaping for the entire project would be required, or whether the Board was
51   more concerned about how the landscaping looked on the exterior and to require that as a condition of
52   approval. Mr. Carleton read excerpts from pages 6-7 of the minutes. Mr. Carleton interpreted the
53   discussion to mean that "phases" meant "landscape plan phases" and not the construction of as-built units.
54   The recommendation for as-built plans with the constructed units in a maximum of 4 phases would mean
55   that the applicant would have to construct 1/4 of the proposed units (about 47 units) and submit an as-built
56   plan of those units before getting an occupancy permit to sell any of those units. He feels that this
57   requirement is too stringent and this is not what was intended at the June 26 meeting. Based on this, the

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                            9 of 15
 1   applicant feels that condition #2 is almost prohibitive. They do agree to the submission of landscape plans
 2   in 4 phases, but they don't think this should involve construction of the units themselves before an
 3   occupancy permit is given. There is a letter on file from Perkins, Thompson which says that the Board
 4   can't require phasing. They ask for the language of special condition #2 to be modified to reflect what they
 5   think was decided at the June 26 meeting.
 7   Mr. Huston said that the language of the condition comes from a strict reading of the motion reflected in
 8   the June 26 minutes. Mr. Carleton thought the Board should look at that in the context of the discussion,
 9   and if that is what the Planning Board members wish, they can express that now and perhaps modify what
10   was there. Mr. Huston read page 7, lines 15-17 exactly as written, but this is a Board decision regarding
11   what they meant by the motion. Mr. Batchelder is no longer here, but Mr. Cole seconded the motion and
12   may have some guidance. Mr. Millian recalled the discussion about the landscaping phases and agreed.
13   He was not sure about occupancy per phase. There was a discussion about marketing the units if they are
14   not saleable. Mr. Carleton said the landscaping for the units can be fairly standard. Mr. Hall had mentioned
15   maple trees in front of some units. Phasing can mean several things, including the condominium project
16   itself, phasing of the construction, etc. Reading the context of the minutes, he thought the phases were
17   landscape plan phases and not construction of unit phases. On page 6, line 28, Mr. Batchelder asked about
18   how to phrase his waiver. Ms. Woloszyn asked if the wording should be changed to "prior to building
19   permit of the next phase." Mr. Huston said that wouldn't address Mr. Carleton's concern. The Board has
20   several courses: #1 to say that what it says is reasonable, #2 to say there is some ambiguity and the Board
21   can clarify it. One clarification would be to say that it was meant to apply to everything; another is that it
22   meant to apply only to landscaping; another is that it meant to apply only to interior landscaping. Mr.
23   Huston suggested that, given the ambiguity, the Board ought to clarify it somehow. It can be clarified to
24   say that the Board meant the as-built phasing plans to reflect landscaping, or it can go the extreme other
25   way. Since he has one interpretation and Mr. Carleton has another, it indicates that there is some ambiguity
26   and this is a chance for the Board to resolve it. Mr. Carleton said he could understand that the Board would
27   want a landscaping plan in place before other things happen. The interpretation that 47 units have to be
28   built before getting an occupancy permit seems unreasonable to him. He interprets phasing to mean
29   landscape phasing. Mr. Millian read from page 7, lines 4-7 and thought the Board was discussing the
30   exterior landscaping and the public perception of what the finished project would look like. Mr. Carleton
31   said that Mr. Hall offered to submit a complete landscaping plan for the entire project before the first
32   occupancy permit. Mr. Hall said he builds the units to certain specifications, and then he waits for the
33   customers to make certain choices in order to complete the units and get occupancy permits. He is
34   concerned that he would have to make 47 sales to get the permit. Submitting a complete interior
35   landscaping plan prior to the first occupancy should take care of condition #2.
37   Mr. Huston said that if the Board will accept that, simply changing the language to read "an as-built
38   landscaping plan" would take care of it. One interpretation is that this only deals with landscaping. The
39   language says "as-built" and that can't be interpreted as "proposed." The 4 phases reflect the fact that the
40   applicant didn't want to do 100% of the landscaping until he started selling units. It would completely
41   change what was done last June to say that the Board needs only a proposed landscaping plan, because they
42   have that now. Mr. Huston feels that is a significantly larger change than just saying the as-built should
43   apply only to landscaping as opposed to the entire project. Mr. Carleton said there could be a complete
44   proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Huston said it is a complete as-built landscaping plan, and that is the
45   difference. There is a complete proposed plan now which Mr. Harding has reviewed. The motion was that
46   the Board wants to see it on the ground, and no one objected at the time. That's why it is in four phases.
47   Mr. Carleton said it makes sense to do a project of this size in four phases, and it depends on how confident
48   the Board is that a plan will be acceptable. Mr. Carleton and Mr. Millian said the units have to be in place
49   so the landscaping can be completed. Mr. Harding felt that the Board was really concerned about the
50   exterior landscaping, and if that could be done as part of the construction of the infrastructure and break it
51   up into four pieces. Whatever part of the infrastructure was being constructed could be buffered at the same
52   time. Mr. Batchelder's motion talked about landscaping within 35' of boundaries. Mr. Huston thought that
53   was reasonable, and the Board should be comfortable with the final decision and it should be more
54   accurate. If a note is required, they can see what the note says. Mr. Millian quoted from page 7, lines 2-4: "
55   Mr. Batchelder said that as long as the exterior is buffered and screened appropriately, the interior
56   landscaping only affects their marketability. Mr. Millian said that as long as the general public is happy
57   with the exterior, then whatever is on the inside is up to the developers." Mr. Cole read page 7 lines 13-15:

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                        10 of 15
 1   "Motion by Mr. Batchelder to grant a waiver that the landscaping for the internal part of this project doesn't
 2   need to be shown on the submitted plan, except that all buffering and screening to all external lots or ways
 3   must be shown. All landscaping within 35' of a boundary must be shown." Mr. Millian read "An as-built
 4   site plan in a maximum of 4 phases will be presented to and reviewed and approved by the Town Planner
 5   prior to occupancy per phase." Mr. Huston said that without that sentence, what Mr. Carleton argued is
 6   probably the only reasonable explanation. That is the sentence that causes the confusion. If the
 7   recollection of the Board is that they were more concerned about the exterior, they need to make sure that is
 8   reflected and Mr. Chamberlain or Mr. Wood can craft a note that reflects it. Mr. Millian and Mr. Cole
 9   thought that was the Board's intention. Ms. Woloszyn said it was not to monitor the interior. Mr. Millian
10   asked how to modify the condition. Mr. Huston said the Board could have a motion to supersede what was
11   done in June to have it read “grant a waiver that the landscaping for the internal part of this project doesn't
12   need to be shown on the submitted plan, except that all buffering and screening to all external lots or ways
13   must be shown. All landscaping within 35' of a boundary must be shown. This motion would include any
14   driven motor way or pedestrian way including the swimming pool area." That would give the applicant the
15   opportunity to do the external landscaping in the phases, and then the as-built would come in per phase.
16   Mr. Carleton asked if the Board needed a motion. Mr. Millian said it is almost as written in the June
17   minutes with some minor changes. Mr. Huston said if the Board wishes to do it, it would be a motion to
18   grant a waiver that the landscaping for the internal part of the project does not need to be shown on the
19   submitted plan, except that all buffering and screening to all external lots or ways must be shown, all
20   landscaping within 35' of a boundary must be shown, which would include any driven motor way or
21   pedestrian way including the swimming pool area.
23                                                     MOTION
24   Motion by Mr. Millian, seconded by Mr. Goodine to grant a waiver that the landscaping for the internal
25   part of the project does not need to be shown on the submitted plan, except that all buffering and screening
26   to all external lots or ways must be shown, all landscaping within 35' of a boundary must be shown, which
27   would include any driven motor way or pedestrian way including the swimming pool area. PASSED
28   unanimously.
30   Mr. Huston said that a note that reflects that would go in, rather than the note he and Mr. Harding have
31   suggested. This would be a condition of approval.
33   Condition #3 refers again to any given phase of development. Mr. Carleton said that when construction
34   starts, the footings are inspected before the foundations go in, so why isn't that enough? Mr. Huston said
35   that this language came from the Code Office. They asked him to ask the Board to require pins and/or
36   stakes to be shown. Mr. Hall said that was fine with him, and he had the same problem with the word
37   "phase." Sometimes the engineering firm stakes out 5 or 10 foundations and before they get poured, the
38   Code Office wants an additional inspection. Mr. Huston said the word "phase" is there because there were
39   phases before. Mr. Hall said usually they pour one a day and have the engineers come in every two-three
40   weeks and do 8-10 foundations at a time. They let them see the stakes and pins before they pour any
41   foundations. The footings go in first and the foundations go on top. Mr. Huston said to use "footings"
42   instead of "foundations" in the condition. Mr. Cole suggested "prior to pouring of any footings." Mr. Hall
43   and Mr. Millian suggested "footings/foundations." Mr. Carleton said he was satisfied with this change to
44   condition #3. Mr. Goodine asked about "any" vs. "a" foundation, since the phase is being deleted: "Prior to
45   pouring of a foundation or footings, the locations of each cottage to be constructed shall be located on the
46   face of the earth and shall be marked with surveyor pins or stakes."
48   Mr. Carleton said they have no objections to #4 or #5. They don't understand why this is necessary since
49   these aren't roads. Mr. Millian said the Chief wanted to make sure the infrastructure would support the
50   weight of the fire trucks. Mr. Huston said the Code Office had a concern that sometimes they were
51   overwhelmed and needed to be able to hire someone to come in at the applicant's expense.Mr. Carleton said
52   they had no problems with #6.
54   Mr. Millian asked if Mr. Harding had any other issues. Mr. Harding said he and Mr. Huston had discussed
55   some additional screening and fences. Mr. Huston said they agreed to that. Mr. Harding said they have
56   done some drainage improvements that he asked for. They received the Fire Chief's letter since the last
57   meeting. Mr. Harding had no more issues.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                        11 of 15
 2   Mr. Huston understood that the vernal pool had been identified. Mr. Chamberlain said it would be on the
 3   mylar. Mr. Huston said that Mr. Moody had raised an issue at the public hearing which has been addressed.
 4   There were some e-mails about traffic coming out onto Old County Road and whether there should be no
 5   right turn there. The Town's traffic engineer stated that he has no problem if the Board wants to do that. He
 6   doesn’t think it would have much effect. Mr. Huston stated in his memo that directing everyone back to
 7   Route 1 would exacerbate the problem, and as long as Old County Road exists, letting people turn right or
 8   left makes more sense. Several members of the public wanted no right turn, but Mr. Huston recommends
 9   that the Board not impose that as a condition. If the Board doesn't want to impose it, they don't have to take
10   any action. Mr. Millian noted that DEP approvals are still pending and #2 and #3 have to be rewritten. Mr.
11   Huston said if the Board votes to approve this tonight, one of the engineers would work with him on the
12   notes and prepare some draft findings of fact. The plans are not available to sign tonight.
14                                                 MOTION
15   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Cole, to grant conditional approval based on the DEP and
16   Army Corps of Engineers permits and the rewriting of the special conditions of approval #2 and #3.
17   PASSED unanimously.
19    XIV.    SOMERSET VALLEY - Dearborn Brothers, LLC, applicant/owner; Daniel Riley, engineer. Final
20            Subdivision Application to create an 8 lot single family clustered subdivision with 1,000 feet of new road.
21            Property is located on Swamp John Road and is in the Rural District. Tax Map 40, Lot 7. Workshop final
22            completeness and determine a Final Public Hearing
24   Dan Riley of Sebago Technics represented the applicant. Valerie Giguere is the Town's engineer. Ms.
25   Giguere did the final plan completeness review and had some minor comments. Page 2/4, add a note that
26   indicates that the drilled wells will be tested prior to issuing the building permits. Page 3/4, she asked the
27   applicant's engineer to provide more information for the construction cost estimate. Page 4/4, there are
28   references to the Town accepting the road in the cluster development, but it doesn't meet the criteria for a
29   Town road. She suggested taking that reference out of the covenants and adding a note to the plans that the
30   road will remain private and be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association and will not be
31   accepted or maintained by the Town of Wells. Approval of the subdivision by the Planning Board does not
32   constitute acceptance by the Town of Wells of any street.
34   Mr. Riley said that Ms. Giguere's comments have already been addressed. Mr. Huston felt that this is
35   complete and recommended that the Board find it complete and schedule a public hearing in January.
37                                                MOTION
38   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine. PASSED unanimously.
40   Mr. Riley will call Mr. Huston to discuss the scheduling.
42    XIV.    NORTH POINT EQUESTRIAN - Thomas & Marsha Aulisio; owners/applicants; Mike Livingston,
43            engineer. Final Subdivision Application for an 11 lot cluster subdivision consisting of 13 dwellings, open
44            space and road. Property is located on 282 Allen Road and is in the Rural District. Tax Map 8, Lot 10.
45            Receive Final Subdivision Application and workshop final completeness
47   Mike Livingston of Anderson-Livingston represented the applicant.
49                                                MOTION
50   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to receive the final subdivision application. PASSED
51   unanimously.
53   Ms. Giguere's completeness review is in the packets. Page 2/4, add a note that wells may only be located
54   within well zones as shown on the plan. Page 4/4, provide a construction cost estimate based on final
55   plans. This was faxed over to her and she has reviewed it. The construction dewatering detail was also
56   submitted. The only missing item is the drainage analysis with stormwater management calculations as
57   required by the Town's regulations. Mr. Livingston said that when they did the original plan they did a
58   more standard drainage design with pre- and post-development calculations and a detention pond. Then

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                           12 of 15
 1   when they realized it had to go to DEP for stormwater permitting, they had to use different criteria. They
 2   can take the original drainage study and incorporate the DEP standards and do a new pre- and post-. They
 3   had planned for a lot of the run-off from the cul-de-sac going into a detention pond. Now they are splitting
 4   that flow into two spreaders, converting it to sheet flow. They will recalculate it and submit it to Ms.
 5   Giguere.
 7   Mr. Huston said this isn't near the point where it could be found conditionally complete, and the Board
 8   should appoint either his office or Ms. Giguere as completeness agent.
10                                                    MOTION
11   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to appoint the Office of Planning and Development
12   as completeness agent, and schedule it for a public hearing when they deem it complete. PASSED
13   unanimously.
15   Mr. Livingston mentioned that the original plan was done under the original cluster ordinance, and now
16   that has changed. This received preliminary approval before the ordinance took effect. Is this
17   grandfathered? The new ordinance would give a better configuration of some of the lots. Mr. Huston said
18   that the standard is Section 202-9 "The final plan shall approximate the layout shown on the preliminary
19   plan plus any recommendations made by the Board." This Board has allowed a final plan that differed from
20   the preliminary plan which went from four plexes to duplexes, and others where the number of lots
21   increased or decreased by 1 lot. The final decision rests with the Board, but if the applicant presents a plan
22   with the same number of units laid out a little differently and meeting the goals of clustering, that would be
23   substantially similar. In a case like that, he would probably recommend that the Board approve it. The
24   biggest issue would be setbacks along the property line. If the new plan didn't increase the number of lots,
25   or created more open space or made the drainage easier to control, the Board would probably approve it.
26   Mr. Livingston said the only standard he was really looking at was going from 80' of frontage down to 50'
27   of frontage. Between Lots 6 & 7 there is a very crowded driveway at the proposed lot line. Going down to
28   50' of frontage for Lot 7 would alleviate that. For Lot 1 if they went down to 50' of frontage, it would allow
29   an existing fence for one of the horse paddock areas to stay where it is. His only other thought was the 40'
30   buffer currently surrounding some of the lots. The lot lines could go to the rear lot line and substitute it
31   with a new 30' buffer. That property is to the east, and buffering is a sensitive issue with the Board. Ms.
32   Woloszyn said this might be a case of why the buffer was taken off. If a neighbor is doing something that
33   hurts an abutter's property, if there is a buffer they have to go to the homeowners' association to fight it.
34   Without the buffer, they can go directly to the neighbor who is causing the problem. Mr. Huston said the
35   setback would still be twice the regular setback. If they shorten the road frontages, they need to look at
36   how it affects the well exclusion zones. They probably want to keep the wells on the lots they serve. They
37   might be able to increase some of the set aside area under the new standards.
39    XIV.    MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES - Woodland Ridge Properties, LLC c/o Gary Freeman, owner/applicant;
40            Michael Livingston, engineer. Subdivision Amendment Application of previously approved Mountain View
41            Estates subdivision of May 20, 2002. Proposal is to subdivide the remaining land (lot 4) into 5 lots. Property
42            is located off of Quarry Road and Bald Hill Road and is in the Rural and Resource Protection Districts. Tax
43            Map 46, Lot 2. Receive Preliminary Subdivision Application, workshop completeness, and determine
44            Preliminary Public Hearing.
46   Mike Livingston of Anderson-Livingston represented the applicant. Steve Harding's letter indicates that
47   more drainage calculations are needed. There is a concern about the driveway for Lot 5. Mr. Huston said
48   the Board can receive the preliminary subdivision application tonight and continue the workshop.
50                                               MOTION
51   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn. PASSED unanimously.
53   Mr. Livingston said he has received Mr. Harding's memo and they discussed the drainage analysis. Mr.
54   Harding's two basic suggestions were to create a drainage easement on Lot 4 (the large lot remaining with
55   48+ acres) and because some of the runoff from Lots 6 & 7 is a sheetflow toward the back with no
56   detention, there could be a drainage easement to cover that across the remaining land, which Mr.
57   Livingston agrees with. The drainage from Lot 8 goes into the existing wetland on Lot 4, so a drainage

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                            13 of 15
 1   easement across Lot 4 for those lots was a good suggestion. Mr. Harding also said that on Lot 5 the runoff
 2   mostly goes to the wetland on Lot 5 itself, but some could head to the abutter to the west side and he
 3   wanted to redirect that drainage. Because it is a back lot it has 50' sideline setbacks vs. a normal 25'
 4   sideline setback, which would give enough room for a small swale along the westerly property line to
 5   ensure that any runoff from a house on that site would go into the wetlands. There could be a small riprap
 6   spreader into that swale to spread out the flow into the wetland. Mr. Harding had also mentioned a potential
 7   additional culvert for the existing driveway that serves Lot 5. Mr. Livingston didn't think that was
 8   necessary as long as a small swale was put along the easterly side of the driveway to direct it out to Quarry
 9   Road. Mr. Harding's main concerns were for the abutter to the west. Water on Quarry Road would go into a
10   large roadside ditch. Mr. Huston was concerned that putting water into the ditch would flow over the road.
11   Mr. Livingston said it crosses the property to the left and then gets into the ditch. Putting a swale along the
12   existing driveway would just get the water to Quarry Road a little faster. Mr. Huston thought some of that
13   water could be directed back into the marsh. Adding water to existing ditches after several houses are built
14   would require the town to maintain the ditches. There is enough room to shift some of the water back. Mr.
15   Livingston said he considered doing both, having one swale on the property line to send the water into the
16   marsh, but where it can't, they would bring the water to Quarry Road.
18                                               MOTION
19   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Ms. Woloszyn, to continue the workshop. PASSED unanimously.
21    XIV.    OLD MARSH GOLF CLUB – Wells Golf Holdings, LLC & GFI Acquisitions I, LLC, owners/applicants;
22            Ken Wood, engineer. Subdivision Amendment Application to obtain re-approval of expired 7/10/06 approved
23            units 1-13, 28-32, and 50-73 (42 dwellings) which included five 6-unit multifamily homes (30 dwellings) and
24            twelve single family homes (12 dwellings) and change those to 21 duplex units containing 42 dwellings.
25            Property is located on Littlefield Road and is in the Rural, Residential A, and Resource Protection Districts.
26            Tax Map 25, Lot 40 (formerly Tax Map 25, Lot 27). Receive Subdivision Amendment Application,
27            workshop and consider for re-approval
29   Mr. Cole recused himself. Mr. Huston suggested that there was still a quorum because Mr. Cole is still in
30   the room, although he can't vote or participate.
32                                              MOTION
33   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to receive the application. PASSED unanimously
34   among those voting.
36   Mr. Huston noted that the applicant was trying to make some financial arrangements and the plan did not
37   get recorded. The signatures are now more than 90 days old. This application is exactly the same as the
38   application approved in June. The Planning Office believes that it is complete, compliant and can be
39   approved by the Board.
41                                                      MOTION
42   Motion by Ms. Woloszyn, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to find the application complete and compliant and
43   re-approve it and sign the plans at the end of the meeting. PASSED unanimously among those three
44   members voting.
46   Mr. Cole abstained. Mr. Cole rejoined the Board.
50   ~ Mr. Huston said that one of the Selectmen asked him to include the article on using simple language.
51   ~ Copies of correspondence with Mr. Parillo are included in tonight's packets.
52   ~ The 2007 calendar for Planning Board and Staff Review Committee meetings is enclosed.
53   ~ Mr. Peterlin has resigned from the Board. One of the alternates may take his seat, creating an alternate
54   vacancy. There will be a notice on TV asking for volunteers. Names should be submitted to the Town
55   Manager. The only requirements are being voting age and a Wells resident.

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                           14 of 15
 2                                                MOTION
 3   Motion by Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Goodine, to adjourn the meeting and sign plans. PASSED
 4   unanimously.
 6   The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
 8   MINUTES APPROVED: ___________________________, 2007.
12   _____________________________                     __________________________________
13   Pierce Cole, Secretary                            Cinndi Davidson, Temporary Recorder

     PB Min 12/18/06
                                                   15 of 15

To top