Town of Fryeburg Maine
Settled 1763,  Incorporated 11 January 1777

   Thank you for visiting the Fryeburg Planing Board archive page.

Back

TOWN OF FRYEBURG
Meeting of Fryeburg Planning Board
March 14, 2006

Call to Order and Quorum Notice

Vice Chairman Carmen Doughty ac ted as Chairman and called the meeting to Order at 7 p.m. She noticed the presence of a quorum with members Bergoffen, Hill, Gregory, and Associate Member Andrews present. Ms. Doughty asked David Andrews to serve as a regular member. Chairman Ted Raymond and Associate Member Warren are recused from this matter. Also present was the attorney for the Planning Board on this matter, Michael Hill

Discussion of Burbank Estates Application

The Chairman opened the meeting, noting that the order of proceeding would be a discussion with the Applicant, input from JT Lockwood of the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, and then comments from Attorney John Graustein, representing the Fryeburg Trust.

Prior to discussion on the application, John Graustein raised a concern about Peter Hill’s qualification for this matter, given that he had not attended the previous meeting of the Board on the matter. Michael Hill poin ted out provisions in the LUO and the Maine Municipal Association guidance manual allow a Board member who had not sat in on all meetings to be a party to the proceeding if they have reviewed the record, and are familiar with all of the recorded discussions. No formal challenge of Peter Hill was lodged.

Applicant Presentation . John Bliss, representing the applicant, presen ted revised plans, reflecting discussions with the Planning Board at its last meeting, and highligh ted additional input and changes made following that discussion. Including in the record were a new calculation of net residential acreage, documentation of the impact of the Plan relating to buffers, documentation from the Maine Department of Transportation relating to the driveway permit, a letter from the Maine DEP confirming the applicant’s previous status, and a letter from the Saco River Corridor Commission, confirming prior approvals.

Attorney Jim Katsiaficas, representing the Applicant, discussed his February 28, 2006 letter to the Planning Board (included in the Board Record), specifically relating to the applicability of the Sawyer v. Town of Cape Elizabeth case. Considerable discussion of the applicability of this case followed, based on concerns raised by Mr. Graustein (who asser ted in correspondence to the Board da ted March 9, 2006 that the Sawyer case applies to Fryeburg), and questions of the Board on its jurisdiction to consider the application. Based on advice from Michael Hill, and its own interpretation of the LUO, the Board determined, on a consensus vote, that the Sawyer case does not apply to the separate, and previously standing Fryeburg cluster ordinance, it has jurisdiction to consider this application, and the application does not need to be trea ted as a variance, to be considered by the Fryeburg Board of Planning Appeals.

Gene Bergoffen raised a concern about Lot 23 on the revised Plan, with respect to that portion that falls within the Shoreland Protection Overlay District, and the boundary of Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC) jurisdiction. He questioned whether the Plan was responsive to SRCC requirements of no development within that District and jurisdiction. The applicant agreed to clarify this through Plan notes in the next submission.

Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission (SMRPC) Presentation by JT Lockman. JT Lockman summarized his review of the application, at the request of the Planning Board. His March 2, 2006 comments are in the Record of this matter. The comments included suggestions relating to sidewalks, confirmed the correctness of lot numbers and sizes, confirmed the appropriateness of planned buffers, and made a number of suggestions relating to the Declarations Document. In a follow up memorandum to the Board, da ted March 14, 2006, Mr. Lockman sta ted his belief that the Planning Board has full authority to consider this application, notwithstanding the Sawyer case. With respect to the performance guarantee, Mr. Lockman no ted that the preferred method is a letter of credit. With further discussion, the applicant sta ted preference for a mortgage guarantee, and agreed to provide information on the current value of the mortgage and its form and provisions.

Presentation by John Graustein. Mr. Graustein proceeded to discuss concerns and points raised in his March 9, 2006 letter to the Planning Board.

1. 50 wide buffer strip. Notwithstanding SMRPC comments, Mr. Graustein reasser ted his concerns about buffer strip configurations.
2. Streets Running through buffer to Parcel A. The Board discussed the applicability of the ordinance on any potential restriction of streets accessing Parcel A. JT Lockman indica ted that such provisions for future access are desirable, in most planning situations. Gene Bergoffen no ted that the Cluster Ordinance, in section C (1) requires the application must meet all requirements for a subdivision, and the Section D (1) in Article I would support the access to adjoining lots. After discussion and confirming advice from Michael Hill, the Board raised no concern about these access elements of the Plan.
3. Details of Maintenance of undeveloped land. Based on SMRPC comments, the applicant agreed to clarify allowed uses and structures.
4. Building Envelopes. After Board discussion of Mr. Graustein’s concern, the applicant agreed to develop an approach to depicting allowed building envelopes.
5. Structures within Buffer Area. The Board discussed the concern raised by Mr. Graustein, particularly the nature of structures in the access roads to undeveloped land crossing the buffer. Specifically, the applicant agreed to clarify that any utilities and other necessary infrastructure would be underground at these points, and this clarification will be no ted appropriately in the Declaration of Covenants.
6. Additional Issues. Mr. Graustein called the Board’s attention to the additional issues mentioned in his March 9 letter, including the expiration of the covenants, and potential changes in the lot configuration, and asked for Board consideration and action on these matters. Board discussion no ted that any changes in lot configuration would require future Board approval.

Completeness of Application

Following a motion by Gene Bergoffen, seconded by David Andrews, the Board unanimously found the application was complete, based on an understanding that the applicant will provide the additional information set out above to the Board at least 7 days before a public hearing on the application, which was in turn scheduled for April 25, 2006.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Back