Bridgton Court Room
Oct 17, 2006
7:00p.m.
The Bridgton Planning Board was called to order at 7:00p.m. by
Fred Packard, Chair. Those in attendance were: Fred Packard, Chair; Steve Collins,
Vice Chair; Christopher McDaniel; Gordon Davis; David Diller; Dee Miller, Alternate
and David Lee, Alternate. Absent were: None
Also present was Richard Spencer, Attorney with Drummond, Woodsum and MacMahon
as representative for the Town of Bridgton.
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
Randall Marina/David Randall
Long Lake/ Route 117/Old Brickyard Hill Road
Map 42 Lot 12 & 13
Shoreland Zone Ordinance Review; Marina Docks, 52 Boat Slips
Represented by Attorney Robert Neault
Fred read for the record correspondence received from Peter Lyon, Mr. and Mrs.
Maynard Webster, Pauline Polstein, Alan Carr, Bob Macdonald and Michelle Bailey.
Fred said copies of these are available for the public.
Martin Wilkinson, Citizen and owner of Misty Moon, showed an aerial photo to
the Planning Board showing where the proposed marina docks would be located
in conjunction to their property, beach and swim area. I feel that Mr. Randall
is funneling development onto a non-buildable lot. At the August 15th presentation
it was stated that the nearest dock was 90’ to the beach when actually
it is about 38’. The hot top portion of the road is only 28’ wide.
The Town of Bridgton has a traffic ordinance which states that for a parked
car you need at least 15’. If have a 7’ car that is less than 15’.
If he is talking about driving down and dropping people off, a police officer
needs to be present.
Peter Lowell, Lakes Environmental Association, showed an aerial photo to the
Planning Board showing where the configuration of the docks. Mr. Lowell said
there no dimensions listed in the newest submittal by Mr. Randall. Shown on
this photo are 47 boats, I am not sure if there are boats proposed for the end.
The length of the runner is 160’ and in the old plan there were 7 bays
of 20’ in width inside the bay and the fingers were 4’ in width.
Using the current scale there is a 12’ difference from the original dimensions.
The old diagram had all the dimensions but this plan is not exact. There is
interference with an existing beach area. The perpendicular method scales out
about 26–28’ from the end of the side piers. If you have a 20’
boat and you are backing the boat up you only have 26-28’ before you hit
the beach perimeter. The “Ordinance states that the facility shall be
no larger
Page 2
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
in dimension necessary to carry on the activity and consistent with the existing
use and character of the area”. There is no expert testimony to assure
that this will not interfere with an existing beach area. The burden of the
proof is on the developer to show that backing up into an existing beach is
safe. I would like to reiterate the criteria and definition of shorefront common
area and I feel this project does come under Shorefront Common Area.
Bob Macdonald, Citizen, said you can not haven a commercial use and no a marina
and it goes on to say the stricter shall control. When you make your decision
make it to the stricter provision. I think this is conflicting enough that you
could deny this application just under that issue and this is clearly creating
a funneling effect.
Rick Sykes, State of Maine Representative and Citizen, said if this Board grants
a permit is it not a prerogative of the Citizens of Bridgton to create a petition
to ask the residents of the Town of Bridgton if they want this project or not?
Attorney Spencer said the petition process under the statute provides that 10%
of the voters in the Town of the last gubernatorial election sign a petition
asking the Board of Selectmen to place an article on the warrant, then the Selectmen
must call a special town meeting or referendum or they put it on the next warrant
that is issued. Typically such petitions are aimed at adopting an Ordinance
not a specific project that has been approved by one of the Town’s Board.
There may be some limited case law involving vested rights but it would be unusual
to do this process to reverse a Planning Board decision. Mr. Sykes said I am
curious if the Town of Damariscotta fell into that category.
David Gluck, Citizen, said wasn’t there a referendum vote in the Town
of Scarborough? Mr. Spencer said they required a zone change in order to change
a density requirement so it had to go to referendum to change the Ordinance
and that was defeated.
Michelle Bailey, Citizen, said are you saying this is not the same thing? Mr.
Spencer said yes but I would need to research the vested interest case.
Ms. Bailey said the land on Route 117 has been clear cut right up to my property
line are there any regulations regarding clear cutting up to a property line?
Rob Baker, Code Enforcement Officer, said as long as it stays under one acre
of cleared land. When it exceeds one acre you need a stormwater management permit
from DEP. Ms. Bailey said do you know how much he has cut? David Randall, owner
and applicant, said about 36,000sf.
Mr. Macdonald said is there case law pertaining to conflicting Ordinances? Mr.
Spencer said I don’t think there is a case that
Page 3
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
addresses explicitly the language in the Bridgton’s Ordinance but there
are principals of interpretation that the court has adopted which lead me to
the conclusion that if an Ordinance specifically allows a marina but yet says
no commercial uses then the drafters of the Ordinance had to recognize that
a marina which has to be on the water must be allowed but other commercial uses
aren’t.
Mr. Macdonald said wouldn’t you think that standards would have to be
stricter if you are talking about a commercial use in an area where commercial
uses are not allowed? Mr. Spencer said I don’t think the Planning Board
can apply standards that are different than the ones that are in the Ordinance
but I think that looking at the intentions of the Ordinance as a whole where
commercial uses are not generally permitted in the district and marinas appear
to be permitted within the district the Board should be mindful that a marina
is an exception to the general principal but commercial uses are not.
Mr. Gluck said is tonight the last night that comments can be made? Fred said
yes. Mr. Spencer said this Hearing is for the Shoreland Zone Application only.
The Board will discuss the application and the findings and that will enable
me to get an understanding of how the Board is thinking and based on that I
will propose findings and conclusions for the Board to adopt formally.
Tom Dubois, Main-Land Development Consultants, gave a summation of the additional
information they submitted for this Hearing. We did decrease the size of the
fingers from 4’ to 3’. The perpendicular line is 26’, that
is the line not the beach and that line is an imaginary line in the water. The
existing swim line comes over to Mr. Randall’s line. The parking facility
and the marina building are located on Route 117 which is 900’ down the
road at the marina site. Those that want to park and walk down the marina we
are providing dock carts and for those that wish to ride Mr. Randall is providing
a shuttle service. The revisions that we have given you in regards to the docks
have to do with the submerged land. We have included a letter from Mike Morse
of the Department of Environmental Protection, who says this is an allowable
use. We have included a soils report, aquifer map and septic system design.
The septic system has been designed for a 52 slip marina and the employees of
the showroom and repair building. The sanitary facilities will be located at
the showroom site which is located between the Bridgton Road and Brickyard Hill
Road. For the building we have provided you with a building elevation and floor
plan. We have also provided the Board with an erosion and sedimentation control
plan and phosphorous control plan. We have provided photos showing a number
of docks around the area the significant level of development trying to prove
that a marina is not out of character for this project site. We have also shown
the swim
Page 4
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
rope and the encroachment onto Mr. Randall’s land. I have provided a copy
of proposed rules and regulations for marina users.
Mr. Spencer said one of the rules you sited was “a violation will result
in a revocation of the annual fee” what do you mean by that? Mr. Dubois
said it means they will not be reimbursed their fee, we will kick the boat out
and keep their money. Mr. Spencer said it doesn’t say that. Mr. Dubois
said we will revise the language.
Ms. Bailey said you have mentioned the swim rope violation several times, is
this something that you have addressed legally with the property owner? Mr.
Dubois said we have presented our opinion and documentation to this Board where
we believe that line to be. We have been constantly asked what are we doing
to protect the swim area, however, the swim area is not correctly marked as
it stands right now. Ms. Bailey said but I expect that will be taken care of
in a legal fashion and not at this forum. Mr. Dubois said when this process
runs its course, we will do that.
Kathy Springer, Citizen, said where are the docks carts going to stay after
they are unloaded? Mr. Dubois said on the docks. Ms. Springer said how wide
are the docks? Mr. Dubois said the main fingers of the docks are 5’. Ms.
Springer said how many? Mr. Dubois said you have several boats on each one so
there could be several dock carts on the docks at once. Ms. Springer said how
are end boaters going to get by the dock carts left on the docks? Mr. Dubois
said that is not an irregular occurrence.
Citizen, said please point out where the beach starts? Mr. Dubois said from
Mr. Dubuck’s property line our closest finger is 45’. Bob Neault,
representative for Dave Randall, said legal preference is the colonial method
of measuring.
Mr. Wilkinson said if the Glucks have a swim line out there how are you going
to get a boat in on the left side? Mr. Dubois said we have a minimum of 12’
to get through.
Ms. Bailey said if you follow your line of reasoning and you want everything
you need on that side then you have to do the same thing on this side. Mr. Dubois
said we have designed this project using both colonial and perpendicular method.
Mr. Gluck said for issues of boundaries on the water what is the enforcement
procedure? Mr. Spencer said if there is a Harbor Master they would be in charge,
however, if there is no Harbor Master, then Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may
have jurisdiction.
Page 5
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
Mr. Spencer said if there is a 12’ distance between that line and you
are docking a boat perpendicular to the main dock, how do you make that boat
turnaround like that? Mr. Dubois said you can get by there and swing it in,
it won’t be easy.
Richard Lee, Citizen, said if you have a boat on the end, trying to maneuver
a boat in with the size and thickness of a normal boat it seems impossible.
Mr. Lowell said you have been saying right along that you have been using the
perpendicular method? Mr. Dubois said no, I have said we have designed this
conservatively on both sides. We have used the colonial method on this side
because it is the closest line and we have used the perpendicular method on
this side because it is the closest line. Mr. Lowell said I don’t know
what the standards are but this seems really tight to squeeze a boat into that
spot. If you widen the fingers out to 4’ does that get you into submerged
lands? Mr. Randall said no. Mr. Lowell said 4’ seems like it would be
a lot safer.
Mr. Neault said Mr. Randall is willing to eliminate that slip as a condition.
Ms. Bailey said you should use either the perpendicular method or the colonial
method but not both.
Citizen, said you mentioned a shuttle service, have you notified the Town of
Harrison? Mr. Dubois said no. We are in discussions with DEP to install a turn-a-round
on the opposite end of the road because there are some wetlands on that property.
We have not received approval for that so in the meantime we will continue to
use the existing pavement and three point turn.
Citizen, said is there anything in the Ordinance that when you are applying
for a commercial operation that you have to supply parking on that piece of
property? Mr. Baker said our Ordinance only says adequate parking and it is
up to the Board to decide what adequate is. Mr. Spencer said typical Zoning
Ordinances require onsite parking, however, Bridgton’s Shoreland Zoning
Ordinance does not so the board has to evaluate whether there are safety or
other issues that are created by having a separate parking area.
Mr. Baker read Section 15.G “Parking Areas” from The Shoreland Zoning
Ordinance to the Board.
John Colby, Citizen, said what happens to the dock carts when the wind comes
up? Mr. Dubois said we will come up with a method to secure them.
Page 6
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
Mr. Lowell said does the creation of a turn-a-round come under a feature of
the parking? Also, it seems like we are amending what the site plan application
originally called for as far as parking. Mr. Neault said we understand it would
require a second permit as an amendment to the Site Plan.
Mr. Spencer said if there isn’t a turn-a-round area how do you do the
turn in the road? Mr. Neault said the same way anyone else would turn around.
Mr. Dubois said if you didn’t do that you could simply drive through,
however, the issue of concern has been through traffic on Brickyard Hill Road.
Citizen, said that will create twice the amount of traffic on the Harrison end.
Dan Macdonald, Citizen, said this is going to have a negative impact on this
area. There are 52 boats living there from May to October. There is also the
opportunity for people to live and sleep on their boats. This project could
destroy this pristine residential neighborhood and the residents of that area
are justly concerned.
Jeannine Weirs, Citizen, said who is going to be responsible for enforcement
to make sure the rules are being adhered to? Mr. Neault said I would call the
owner and then the police. These rules are being built into the application
process and will become part of the approval. If Mr. Randall does not comply
with those, the Code Enforcement Officer can shut him down. Ms. Weirs said I
didn’t buy this house to have to call the owner constantly.
Ms. Weirs said I am concerned with the increased amount of traffic this will
generate. I also feel the value of my home will decrease and you can’t
tell me it won’t because when you weigh out the negative impact this project
will have, I know it will.
Mr. Macdonald said in determining the appropriate size for parking facilities
a typical parking space is 10x20 except parking for vehicles and boat trailers
shall be 40’ long. Mr. Dubois said the trailers will be stored off site
at Mr. Randall’s facility at the top of the hill.
David L. said there are marinas in the Town of Bridgton that are not commercial,
I believe there is a conflict with commercial vs. marinas. How are the docks
going to be anchored? The amount of docks that are being proposed is going to
change the water current which will have an impact on the shore line. Mr. Randall
said the fingers will float. The docks are secured by cross expandable cables.
David L. said will there be any posts? Mr. Randall said no.
Page 7
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
Dee said has there been any thought of limiting the size of the boats or motor
size? Mr. Neault said we are willing to limit the boat size to 25’ but
we are not considering limiting motor size.
Dee said are you going to assign certain boats to certain slips according to
size? Mr. Neault said yes. Dee said so when the capacity has been met for that
size boat there are no more slips left? Mr. Neault said correct.
Dee said have you considered an on-site manager? Mr. Neault said maybe on weekends
and heavy traffic times. Dee said do you know what that schedule will be? Mr.
Neault said Mr. Randall has come up with a proposed schedule of Friday 4p.m.-9p.m.;
Saturdays 10a.m-9p.m.; Sundays 10a.m.-p.m. and holidays 10a.m.-7p.m.
Dee said where are the markers located for the no wake zone? Mr. Randall said
about 400’. Dee said 400’ from the docks? Mr. Randall said yes.
Dee said the path going through the shoreland zone, what will it be surfaced
with because there are mixtures available now that are much more stable. There
is an erosion control mix used on projects close to water which are natural.
Mr. Dubois said we plan to use the erosion control mix for that path. Dee said
is that going to be maintained annually? Mr. Dubois said as necessary.
Dee said where are the stairs? Mr. Dubois said the stairs were in relation to
the scenic turnout. There was some talk about utilizing the scenic turnout,
putting stairs across the road to walk down. That may be an option but it is
not as feasible.
Dee said will there be trash and garbage receptacles? Mr. Dubois said it will
be carry in carry out for the marina, however, there will be waste receptacles
at the parking facility.
Dee said aren’t you making a lot of assumptions as to what is possible
and what is actually possible, isn’t it likely there is a difference between
the two methods of measuring? Mr. Dubois said this is an imaginary line in the
water, there are no landmarks to use as guidance.
Dee said there are several zones within the Shoreland Zone Ordinance, even if
the word marina were to trump some things, it might be available to use in the
general development zone but that doesn’t necessarily mean that commercial
marinas have to be accepted in all the zones. Mr. Spencer said the chart for
marinas says that marinas are allowed in the LR and GD and SP and not in the
RP.
Page 8
Bridgton Planning Board
October 17, 2006
Dee said could the swim lines, that have been existing for many years, be adverse
possession? Mr. Neault said no, the water is owned by the State. Dee said the
line goes through his property. Mr. Neault said we are talking about the right
to use the water in front of the property.
Gordon motioned to close the public hearing at 8:55p.m.
Christopher 2nd. 5 Approve / 0 Oppose
Mr. Spencer said the procedure that I would recommend that the Board follow
is to have a discussion about the issues and facts so I can get an understanding
of how the Board feels about the various issues and based on that discussion
I can prepare a formal set of findings of fact and conclusions of law. You have
to make a finding of fact which are actual facts. Then the conclusions of law
is given the facts as the Board has found them and does the project meet the
standards in the Ordinance. I have put together a proposed discussion outline
that has a brief procedural history and then proposed finding of facts that
are based on the clearly undisputed facts and then I have put in a section entitled
summary of health and safety concerns expressed by the public and responses
by the applicant, then I have a section that pulls out all of the provisions
of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which the applicant has to meet in order to
get a Shoreland Zoning Permit.
Steve motioned to distribute the procedural guidelines prepared by Mr. Spencer
to the Board to review. Christopher 2nd. 5 Approve / 0 Oppose
Mr. Spencer said the public is not allowed to participate in this discussion
but I have extra copies available for the public to follow.
The Board began discussion of the “Discussion Outline” submitted
by Mr. Spencer (copy attached).
As a result of the Board’s comments Mr. Spencer will prepare Formal Findings
for the Board to review and adopt at the meeting scheduled for October 24, 2006
at 7:00p.m.
Steve motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:50p.m. Christopher 2nd.
5 Approve / 0 Oppose
Respectfully submitted,
Georgiann M. Fleck
Municipal Secretary