FRYEBURG PLANNING BOARD
Minutes- March 23, 2010
Town Office

In Attendance: A.O. Lucy - Chairman, Ed Price - Vice Chairman, Michael Holtgrefe - Secretary, Bill Mosher, Judy Redding, Alternate.

The meeting was called to order and a quorum was declared.

A motion was made to have Judy Redding act as a voting member for the meeting. The motion was seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Ed Price made a motion to approve the January minutes. The motion was seconded by Mike Holtgrefe and the vote was unanimous.

Application for Land Use Amendments After Approval Review - SBA Towers , II, LLC

An Application for Land Use Amendments After Approval was submitted by Jon Springer on 2/18/10 . Attorney Jon Springer was present to serve as a representative for SBA Towers , Attorney Peter Malia was present on behalf of the Town. Tom Schaffner, the property owner, and Steve and Sheila Kackley, direct abutters to the cell tower property were also present.

Jon Springer provided an overview of the project and stated that he is requesting approval for the tower to be located where it was built since it is not located where the initial Planning Board documents from 2006 depict. He stated that there were meetings with the former Town of Fryeburg Building Inspector and Steve Kackley and that it was agreed that the tower would be moved from the initially approved location and closer to the location of the tower that existed at that time. The new tower is 10 feet away from the former tower. Mr. Springer also discussed the light issues. FAA requires that the tower be lit and the tower company is willing to install a light shield which will block the light from shining downward. The tower company has also been working on completing a noise study. Mr. Springer reports that the fans associated with the tower that run regularly do meet the noise standards of the ordinance although the generators exceed the standards by 2 decibels. However, the Land Use Ordinance has an exception to the noise requirements for emergency generators which he believes applies to these generators. He stated that the tower company may also be willing to address the noise concerns by installing some noise barriers.

A.O. Lucy asked Peter Malia to comment on the procedure that the Planning Board should follow. Mr. Malia stated that the Board should accept the application as complete and should schedule a public hearing. He also stated that it would be reasonable for the Planning Board to potentially impose conditions of approval that address lighting, noise, and buffering.

Steve Kackley voiced his opinions and concerns. He stated that the tower is more visually obvious and that it is negatively affecting his property values. He also expressed his discontent with the initial permitting process since he was never notified of the application and there was no public hearing. Mr. Kackley also believes that an amendment to the approval should have been sought upon the agreement to move the tower in 2006. He also points out that the original application states that there will be no lighting or noise associated with the tower. He also stated that he had never had direct conversations with the Code Enforcement Officer about the tower location; he had spoken with Tom Schaffner, the property owner, who apparently contacted the CEO to amend the tower location. Mr. Kackley summarized his statement by saying that he would like to see the tower removed and the approval process started from scratch.

Mike Holtgrefe spoke about his recollections from the Planning Board process in 2006. He recalled that the Planning Board was under the impression that the tower would not be that different and since there was already a tower on site then a lengthy review and public hearing wasn't necessary.

Hannah Warren asked if a balloon test was completed at the time of the initial approval. Mr. Springer stated that it was not since detailed plans of the tower were submitted and the Board did not request such a test.

Ed Price reviewed the submitted Site Plan an attempted to determine how far the tower was built from the original location. It was estimated that is was constructed about 180 feet from the approved location.

Mr. Lucy suggested that Mr. Holtgrefe excuse himself from acting upon this application since he was included on the abutters list, which includes properties within 500 ft of the project. Mr. Malia agreed that it was a good idea since his name was mentioned in the application. Mr. Holtgrefe agreed to step down and would not act as a voting member for issue pertaining to this application. It was confirmed that Judy Redding was present, therefore a quorum was maintained.

Mr. Price confirmed that the application fees were paid. Mr. Price made a motion to accept the application as complete and Bill Mosher seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

A public hearing was scheduled for April 20 th at 6:30 .

Bill Harriman asked Mr. Springer if it was normal to have a tower without a light and Mr. Springer responded by stating that FAA has a specific criteria that requires tower lighting based on factors such as flight patterns and proximity to airports.

Public Hearing - Shoreland Zoning Map Revisions

Mr. Lucy reviewed the rationale for the proposed change which consists of changing the zoning designation of a portion of Elkins Brook and associated wetlands from Resource Protection to Shoreland Zone. Mr. Lucy asked for public comment.

Lawrence Perry asked what the property affected was taxed as. No one was able to provide an answer.

Hannah Warren asked if the areas have changed and if the changes were a result of changing the mapping from CAD drawings to GIS created maps. She also asked who determines what is zoned as Resource Protection.

Robin Johnson asked what the purpose of the change was. Mr. Lucy responded by stating that the DEP made a recommendation to change the zoning as a result of actions and existing land uses within that area. Mr. Lucy also stated that this change would follow the historical pattern of the town following the minimum guidelines set by DEP, rather than making the regulation stricter than DEP's.

Cliff Hall inquired why DEP would recommend this change and why the wetland could be changed from Resource Protection to Shoreland. He believes that the area should remain as Resource Protection and that the Planning Board should consider the wildlife and natural uniqueness of that area. He also thinks that this might open the area up to be utilized as "omitted use" types of development. Mr. Hall asked of the Planning Board was continuing to work on revising the Land Use Ordinance to address the omitted use clause and thinks that efforts should be put into that amendment, rather than map amendments.

Amy Stern, a property owner directly affected by the change spoke about her personal situation in which she has been issued violation notices from the town and DEP and may need to move structures on her property. Robin Johnson proposed just changing the area around the Sterns property. Judy Redding doesn't think that an entire area should be rezoned based on 1 hardship.

Bill Harriman asked if there is any documentation from DEP. Katie Haley stated that the Shoreland Zoning guidelines are available from DEP. Peter Fletcher asked if a building permit was issued for the building on the Sterns property and Katie Haley responded yes.

Hannah Warren suggested that the Board acquire wildlife counts and put this revision off until more data is obtained because she thinks that Resource Protection areas and wildlife habitat is an important aspect of the Town.

Kent Pidgeon quoted the Land Use Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Resource Protection districts and stated that he doesn't see the point of downgrading the zoning from Resource Protection to Shoreland Zone. He has seen no studies specifically relating to that area. He also pointed out that a change in the map would require ordinance and comp plan revisions. Mr. Pidgeon thinks that the Town should not be reactive about its past negligence in issuing permits in error and thinks that it is setting a bad precedence.

John Schneider asked who owned the largest property in that area and it was stated that the Leach's/Hardens, Hastings, and Hancock Lumber all own land.

Mr. Lucy would like to see more information from DEP and Bill Mosher is concerned that this would be a similar practice to spot zoning. Mr. Holtgrefe was curious how this affects the existing houses and Mr. Lucy responded by saying that really shouldn't be an issue when discussing these zoning changes. Mr. Hall thinks that the house would be grandfathers and would be classified as non conforming uses. Hannah Warren asked if there would be an additional public hearing if more information is obtained form DEP, to which Mr. Lucy responded yes. Mr. Harriman asked if the public would be made aware of the information received and Mr. Lucy said that the public would not be notified specifically but the information would be public.

The Board decided to gather more information from DEP regarding the potential map revisions.

Home Occupation Application - The Met Coffee Roasters

 Howard Stanton was present as the applicant for the Met Coffee Roasters. Mr. Stanton is proposing to roast coffee within his home at 116 Haleytown Roadto use at his coffee shop located in North Conway .

Mr. Price made a motion to accept the application as complete which was second by Mr. Holtgrefe and unanimously passed.

Mr. Price inquired about what kind of traffic would be associated with this use. Mr. Stanton stated that the type and intensity of the traffic can be worked out with the Planning Board. He is estimating that the use might require 1 trailer truck delivery every 2 months. The trailer would deliver a pallet of coffee. Alternatively the trailer can deliver to Mr. Stanton's North Conway store and he can bring the coffee over in a smaller vehicle in smaller loads.

The Board discussed the requirements outline in Section 16.E of the Land Use Ordinance relating to fumes. Mr. Stanton commented that the smell of roasting coffee is similar to toasting bread. He expects that he will only be rating coffee for about 5 hours per week although he will need to intensify that in the beginning in order to accumulate a supply of product. Mr. Lucy asked if there was any dust associate with this process. Mr. Stanton states that the roaster has a filter that collects the "chafe" from the process. Mr. Price asked if there was a way to reduce the smell of the roasting coffee and Mr. Stanton stated that it isn't cost effective to buy the odor reducing equipment. The stack that is used on his equipment is however designed to dissipate odor quickly. Mr. Stanton is estimating that he is located about 1000 feet from his abutters and the Board requested that he confirm that distance. Mr. Stanton would be willing to discuss this proposed activity with his neighbors.

Mr. Mosher was wondering if the coffee would only be used at Mr. Stanton's coffee shop, The Met. Mr. Stanton replied that he may be interested in expanding the roasting side of his business in the future but plans on only using his house temporarily until business expands, at which time he will look to find a more suitable location.

The use requires a small sized propone tank and there will be no refuse created besides the "chafe" which is the outer skin of the coffee bean. There will be no signs present to advertise the operation. Mr. Stanton is waiting on receiving Town approval prior to submitting the required application for the Department of Agriculture licenses.

Further discussion ensued about potentially imposing conditions of the hours and days of operation and/or limiting the amount of coffee that can be roasted. Mr. Lucy doesn't feel that the amount of coffee should be restricted and that limiting the hours would be a better option. Mr. Stanton was thinking of operating the roasting from 8-10 am .

The Board thinks that a public hearing is a good idea. Mr. Holtgrefe made a motion to hold a public hearing which was seconded by Mr. Mosher and passed unanimously. The public hearing will be held on April 20 th .

Land Use Authorization - Fryeburg Motors

 Steve Chase, Jim Tyrell and Eric Meltzer were present to discuss the application submitted on 3/9/10 to display vehicles for sale at the property on 285 Main St . The Planning Board noted that they had not received this application from the Code Enforcement Officer in advance of the meeting. Copies were distributed to the Board at this time.

Mr. Chase and Mr. Meltzer described the proposed car sales area. The display would be limited to 6 vehicles and would be designated and delineated by either planters or fencing. One of the existing 4 accesses to the parking lot will be blocked off. Further discussion followed about whether the display cars would be parked beyond the designated area or anywhere else on the property. Mrs. Warren pointed out that there really isn't room for the parking to expand and Mr. Chase could address this issue within the lease agreement with Fryeburg Motors. She also pointed out that this property used to be a car dealership. It was stated that the applicant would be required to limit the vehicle display to 6 vehicles because that was what was requested in the application, therefore there is no need to add that limit as a condition of approval.

Mrs. Redding objected to making any decisions about the application since it wasn't received in advance of the meeting. The Board had a discussion about the timeline of review of applications outlined in the Land Use Ordinance to determine their requirements to review the application.

Mrs. Redding made a motion to table the application review until the Board has more time to review the application. The motion was 2 nd by Mr. Mosher. Mrs. Redding voted in favor and all others opposed. The motion failed.

Mr. Price made a motion to approve the application which was seconded by Mr. Mosher. This motion was passed with Mrs. Redding voting in opposition and all others voting in favor.

Other Business

 Mr. Lucy opened a letter addressed to the Planning Board which was written in regards to the Shoreland Zoning map changes. Mr. Lucy also reviewed a letter received from Bill Harriman requesting copies of all email correspondence between the Board members and Gene Bergoffen, Ted Raymond, and Dick Krasker since June 2008.

CEO Report

 The Code Enforcement Officer has issued 4 building permits, 3 plumbing permits, and 4 violation notices since the February meeting. She informed the Board that the Board of Appeals is also reviewing a variance request.

Summary of Poland Spring Letter

 Katie Haley reviewed a letter which she received from Mark Dubois of Poland Spring outlining how the Planning Board conditions of approval for the load out facility were met. She pointed out that most items were met although some were long term conditions that would need future follow up.

Mrs. Warren expressed concern about the hours in which the trucks are limited. The hours were intended to correspond with school traffic hours but she is concerned about what will happen when there are weather delays or other changes to school hours. She wanted to highlight that she believes this is an issue.

Land Use Ordinance Revisions

 A discussion was had about the timeline for submitting warrant articles for Town Meeting. A workshop was scheduled for April 6 th .

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45 pm .

The Planning Board will hold a workshop on April 6th and the next regular Planning Board meeting will be on April 20 th at 6:30 at the Town Office.

Respectfully submitted,
Katie Haley