Planning Board Minutes

Litchfield Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 2007

1.0 Meeting convenes at 6:04 p.m. at the Litchfield Town Office

1.1 Members present: Eric Seaman (chair), Judy Rogers, John Hatch, and Terry Averill (alternate); Mike Seaman is excused but Robert Gordon’s absence is unexcused. Guests attending: George Rogers, MacGregor Stocco, and Larry Nadeau.

2.0 Minutes of October 1 st, October 15 th and November 5 th of 2007 submitted for approval. John made motion to accept 10/1 as written and Judy 2 nd. Vote 3-0-0. Judy made motion to accept 10/15 as written and John 2 nd. Vote 3-0-0. Judy made motion to accept 11/5 as amended and John 2 nd. Vote 3-0-0.

1.1 revisited. Rob’s unexcused absences… Rob has explained he does not have the time and indicated his resignation; he has not submitted a letter of resignation. Should the board move forward as the Planning Board Ordinance directs. Eric could contact Rob one more time and request a resignation letter. Technically he is off the board per Ordinance; the board would need to request the Selectmen waive the attendance policy. Judy wants to contact Rob and give him the opportunity to submit a resignation letter or stay on the board via board letter to Selectmen.

3.0 Agenda Additions/Adjustments

5.1 Amended Shoreland Zoning Response

4.0 Scheduled Business

4.2 Subdivision Ordinance review. MacGregor, KVCOG made a list of the board’s primary goals on the board:

1) Promote Open Space

2) Encourage Development in Growth Areas

3) Low Visual Impact to Traveler

4) Protect Traditional Business

5) Balance Owner Impact not Penalize Small Developer

Eric & MacGregor – clarify the Land Use Ordinance function and the need to have the Subdivision and LUO compliment each other.

MacGregor explains how best to achieve above listed goals:

Common practice to use cluster subdivision

Cluster subdivision also can be used to restrict growth in specific areas

Achievement by access point restriction (has pros & cons)

Waivers best protection to traditional business

Waivers also benefit small developer

Minor Subdivision – definition: state definition, 3-lots or more, family exemptions. MacGregor questions how many minors have been reviewed – how many have come back for another minor. (50% no repeats) Litchfield’s definition also means each lot has driveway, not achieving goal #3. Should consider revising Minor or eliminating it (needs more focus).

Changes to the LUO are risky business; the board would like to encourage growth in designated area by restricting those areas less. MacGregor hands out an aerial photo with two examples of subdivision design. (Sprawl vs. Cluster) He also provides information from Grow Smart; preserving open space requires rural land for production (farming, agriculture, forestry…). Litchfield is not really rural; the populous misunderstands what rural really means. MacGregor actually recommended utilizing a maximum lot size to control sprawl. There is discussion how best to reach the public with information relative to Litchfield’s character and plan for growth. MacGregor showed the planning board an example of an all-inclusive Land Use Ordinance he has drafted for the town of Caratunk. Minimum lot size is the biggest issue connected to sprawl. Maximum lot size allows more options. The board is concerned with septic issues on smaller lots, and whether there are additional issues with common septics. Land Use Table could have built in incentives to direct growth.

4.1 Larry Nadeau, pre application questions to rebuild marina. Larry is concerned about turn around time for an application and rebuilding the marina. He explains to the board what his plans as far as size and layout on the lot. The board will need to review a Site Plan before the CEO can issue a permit. The use is grandfathered but the building should be reviewed, including the expansion. The review could take 3-6 weeks if everything goes well; possibly an additional month if not a smooth application. No phosphorus study will be necessary, but input from Bill Monagle whether stormwater needs review is needed. Items needed for review in addition to stormwater are Neighborhood Standards D, G, H, J, K, L, N & Parking Standards, and also Submission Requirements. Eric may be out of town the date of the Planning Boards meeting January 7, 2008. Eric made a motion to hold business meeting on January 21, 2008 with a snow date of January 22 nd. John 2 nd the motion and the vote was 4-0-0.

4.2 Subdivision Ordinance Review – Eric says not having lot size minimums is an interesting concept, and if Open Space is the only option and growth district is restricted – developers have no choice. John notes rural cannot be preserved, as intended, rural character may be a perspective. Residents want to see very little change in town but that is not realistic. Some landowners count on their land for funding their retirement.

5.0 Unscheduled Business

5.1 Comments from Rich Baker regarding Shoreland Zoning Ordinance amendments

6.0 Correspondence

6.1 Handout

7.0 Future Agenda Items

7.1 There may be 2 public hearings at the next meeting Jan 21, 2008, definitely Cummings daycare, and maybe Nadeau’s marine. Both will need advertising in the paper at least 7 days prior.

7.2 Should it be necessary, the snow date for Jan 21st meeting will be Jan 22 nd, 2008.

8.0 Judy made a motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Terry 2 nd, and vote 4-0-0.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lezley Sturtevant
PB Secretary