Ms. Fossum gave the complete report as provided in the previously distributed Agenda Memo. Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham and Greer, confirmed the applicant
Mr. Boyce expressed his concerns that it was unusual to have a public hearing for a item that the Board has yet to work shop. He suggested postponing to a future meeting until after the Board has had an opportunity review the proposal in a workshop. Ms. Fossum stated that it would be appropriate to hear public comment at the time as the item was advertised as such.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED
John Bump, 274 County Road, spoke against citing major traffic concerns. Mr. Bump noted that the zoning on the sign at Brookdale Commercial Park may to be incorrect. He continued that additional curb-cuts not be added instead of restricted as called for in a proposal before the Town, and given the current conditions, that it would not be unusual to wait 30 minutes for a left turn onto County Road from the Burnham Road side between evening peak hours and the reverse in the a.m. He stated that entire neighborhood area cannot support that kind of traffic. He worried that homes might then have to demolished.
Steve Lubelczyk, 8 Harriet Circle, spoke against stating concerns including that it is clearly not for the benefit of the immediate neighbors. He stated that the fundamental premise of the rezoning is to preserve a residential neighborhood by providing a variety of goods and services. He asked if this really made sense when this area is 3.5 miles from the largest retail district in Maine and 3.5 to the center of Gorham and the type of commercial development proposed is not for the benefit of the immediate residents…who desire nothing more than the present characteristics of the neighborhood.
John Tiedje, 5 Bridle Path Way, spoke against citing very obvious traffic concerns; water usage and future negative impact, and warned that development usually begets more development, all creating negative impacts on the area.
Audrey Gerry, 423 South Street stated her biggest issue is that it would look like a strip development from the Portland line to part way up Route 22 and that until any kind of serious traffic study is completed, even considering this [amendment] is a moot point at this time.
Gordon McLucus, 433 South Street, spoke against stating he would like to see it remain rural residential as described in the Ordinance, not a strip mall.
Olen Naylor, 415 South Street, spoke against, citing traffic and over development as being the main issues. He did not believe that it would minimize impact. He cautioned that traffic is the issue here and if addressed, maybe this could fit in.
Ellen Sanborn, 19 Burnham Road, stated that the letter she forwarded earlier in the week on behalf of the Friends of South Gorham was the same given the Council. She stated that the residents were torn between the inevitable rezoning and reconsideration for involvement i.e. building size, buffering and setback, and hoped that these things would be included to help preserve the investment residents have in their property; and that residents live there to get away from issues that commercial business brings, and that more curb cuts would add to the traffic problem as would more signal lights. When Mr. Neily asked about the letter, Ms. Sanborn stated that her 2 contact lists consists of 64 residents who are against the rezoning, and that she personally communicates with them by both e-mail and mailings as issues arise.
Mr. Neily cautioned that due to the long process involved, not to assume the rezoning would be automatic, i.e. more public hearing with both the Planning Board and the Council where additional comments can be presented.
Andrew Lambert, 25 Tapley Drive, spoke against, citing traffic, and the rezoning being self-serving for one taxpayer and that no one else had a need for. Mr. Lambert requested hydro geologic maps be made available. He stated that the rezoning to bring existing businesses into compliance appears to be the result of someone not initially doing their job, and cautioned against rezoning all of South Gorham just to bring a few businesses into compliance. He stated the area has no immediate need for any additional businesses that are already within reach.
Burleigh Loveitt, 180 Flaggy Meadow Road, in his capacity as a private citizen, not as a Town Councilor, stated that the proposal is inconsistent with 1) the Comprehensive Plan, 2) reasonable planning principals, and 3) common sense. Mr. Loveitt noted that strip development is decried in the Comprehensive Plan and that the Comprehensive Plan states that no commercial development should be anticipated in South Gorham until the traffic issue is addressed. The Plan also describes a green gateway to Gorham. It does not anticipate plastic signs every 200utilities available. Mr. Loveitt recommended commercial available in areas supported by public utilities. He stated that this is a change involving a whole section of Town with no visible support from residents. The amendment will compound the traffic situation in the already congested T-shaped intersections of South Gorham and strip-malls on Route 22 will give the effect of the Route 302 section of Windham. He urged the Board to conside r if this was really the end-result desired.
Hans Hansen, County Road, applicant, stated that he had 110 signatures in favor of the project, and that growth is inevitable and is not stoppable. He noted that the area already supports many existing businesses covered by the amendment. Mr. Hansen stated that it is not his intention to create a strip mall effect. And, closed by stating the people who created the traffic congestion are the same people who complain about it, the new residents.
Muriel Pasanen, 41 Burnham Road, stated she supported rezoning as one method to raise taxes from businesses.
Carol Dyer, 9 Burnham Road, spoke against the amendment.
Douglas Boyce stated that he was not prepared to vote on a recommendation to the Council the same meeting a newly introduced amendment is proposed. Mr. Boyce suggested a Planning workshop for further decision to be followed by another meeting and continued public hearing. It was noted that the public hearing could be reopened in the future.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED (Closed by Mr. Neily.)
Mr. Shiers stated that the neighborhood should be functional for the community and fit into the Comprehensive Plan; and that the current agricultural project is a huge commercial development and does not fit due to traffic, sewer and water issues. Mr. Parker stated that the amendment does not fulfill proposed need, that the neighborhood does not need further services, and that the traffic should be kept flowing, not slowed by adding more turn-offs. Ms. Robie, Mr. Neily, and Mr. Martin agreed, stating that further discussion of the amendment at a workshop meeting would not change opinions, and would possibly make the concept of a strip development only marginally acceptable for the area.
Michael Parker MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED to respectfully recommend to the [Town] Council that the proposal for a South Gorham Neighborhood Center District not be moved forward and that it be dropped.
DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENT:
Susan Robie MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a further recommendation that the Town Council not reconsider a zoning change in South Gorham until 2 conditions have been met: 1) the By-Pass has been specifically located; and 2) the Comprehensive Plan has been modified to embrace such a zoning change.
MOTION CARRIED ON AMENDED MOTION 6-0.
MOTION CARRIED ON MAIN MOTION 6-0. [8:51 PM]
Stretch Break 8:51 To 9:01 PM
Mr. Martin and Mr. Neily requested to be recused due to perceived conflicts of interest.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to recuse Mr. Martin and Mr. Neily from Item 3; MOTION CARRIED 4-0-2 (Martin and Neily abstained).
Mr. Boyce assumed the role of acting Chairman.
3. ITEMS CARRIED FORWARD FROM 09/10/01 PLANNING BOARD MEETING:
10. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Pre-application conference on a proposed gravel pit expansion, 61-unit subdivision and the relocation of Farrington Road. Zoned Rural (R); Map 62/Lots 1, 10, 18-20; Map 79/Lot 4.
Douglas Boyce stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Grant will also request to be recused from this item, and explained that the balance of the Board represents a minimum quorum of four members necessary to deliberate at this and future meetings.
Walter Stinson, P.E., Sebago Technics, Inc., representative, gave a complete overview of the concept plan, explaining that the following have been completed: a perimeter survey, five-foot contour maps, high-intensity soils survey, wetland delineation, and rural land management calculations required under the Ordinance.
Ms. Fossum gave the staff report and stated that the project would be subject to both subdivision and gravel pit ordinance reviews, but that the Town Council would address the request for movement of the road, not the Planning Board.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED
Sandra Jensen, 67 North Street, asked how a project of this scope appearing to belong in a Suburban District, would be appropriate for a Rural Zone. Ms. Jensen noted the density calculations and erosion factors as being very close to the 120,000 SF minimum lot-size requirement and asked for guidance as to understanding and accuracy. She also expressed concern over drainage of wetlands and creation of additional traffic. Ms. Fossum explained the rural land management system.
John Pitzi, 60 Farrington Road, expressed concern over traffic, the rate of high speed on Farrington Road, and if trucks would be using Farrington Road. Mr. Stinson stated that gravel trucks would be using Hall Road, not Farrington Road.
Arnold Rosario, 34 Farrington Road, requested to receive meeting notification, and expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and impacts on wetlands and existing wildlife.
Daniel Lewis, 294 Buck Street, was concerned about wetland relocation, the use of wetlands by the Fire Dept., traffic, and rerouting of Farrington Road.
Clifford Raymond, 298 Buck Street, was concerned about compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic, wetlands, required minimum lot size, DEP approval, site laws, storm water, ground water impact, flooding and infrastructure. Mr. Raymond asked for an explanation of the "MUD" soils not on the Legend.
Edward “Mac” Crane, 25 North Street, stated his disbelief that a project that does not fit the Master Plan would be considered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED
In view of the hour, Mr. Parker called for an end of the sketch plan discussion. Mr. Stinson closed by requesting that a site walk be scheduled.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn; MOTION CARRIED 4-0. [9:55 PM]
Penelope Overton
_________________
Clerk of the Board
September 17, 2001
3. ITEMS CARRIED FORWARD FROM 09/10/01 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
7. PRIVATE WAY - “DUCATI DRIVE” - off FORT HILL ROAD
APPROVED
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicants and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;
3. That no additional building permits and no final occupancy permits may be granted until the Private Way has been constructed according to the approved plans;
4. That no additional lots shall be created without the Private Way being compliant with all current regulations of the Land Use and Development Code and further Planning Board approval would be required;
5. That prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for any of the lots served by the private way, the Inspecting Engineer shall certify to the Code Enforcement Officer that the private way has been constructed in accordance with Chapter II, Section V, and the approved Private Way Plan; and
6. That the original plan of the private way and the approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan shall be returned to the Town Planner.
