 |
Town of Gorham
January 7, 2002
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, Chairman DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
N. A. MARTIN AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
MICHAEL PARKER NATALIE BURNS, Esq., Town Atty.
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
DOUGLAS BOYCE
CLARK NEILY, Vice-Chairman
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and introduced the agenda. The Assistant Planner read the roll noting all present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 19, 2001; DECEMBER 17, 2001
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to postpone approval of the November 19, 2001, minutes, as they were not available. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to accept the December 17, 2001, minutes. MOTION CARRIED 6-0 1(Neily abstained due to being absent at that meeting).
2. GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION H-PIT / SITE PLAN The Superior Court has remanded this matter to the Planning Board to enter additional findings on the amendment to the Riverwood Subdivision Plan to create a 20-foot trail easement on Lot 3.
Michael Parker disclosed that he had a conversation with the plaintiff in August 2001, which was then followed up by a letter suggesting that he [Mr. Parker] would be unable to be impartial in this matter. Mr. Parker stated that he believed he could be, but preferred to excuse himself to avoid controversy for the Town.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to excuse Michael Parker from the item. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 (Parker abstained).
Deborah Fossum gave the staff report. Ms. Fossum explained that on May 21, 2001, the Planning Board approved an amendment to the Riverwood Subdivision to create a 20' trail easement across one of the lots in the subdivision to allow the State to construct and maintain a section of the Mountain Division Trail System. Ms. Fossum stated that Dianne and Craig Reynolds, lot owners in the subdivision, appealed the Board's decision. Ms. Fossum continued, saying that the Superior Court remanded the decision on the trail easement back to the Planning Board for additional findings, outlining the following specific areas it would like the Board to review and clarify 1) whether Shaw Bros. Inc. had sufficient right, title or interest to be before the Board; 2) whether the Board had considered the appropriate criteria under the
State Subdivision Statute; 3) whether the Board properly reviewed several restrictive covenants that were made enforceable by the Town in the conditions of the original subdivision approval; and 4) whether the Planning Board ignored a prior condition (Plan Note 8) of the subdivision approval which prohibits fill or construction within 50' of an intermittent watercourse. Ms. Fossum noted that the Court did feel that the applicant had provided the Board with evidence of sufficient right, title and interest and that Shaw Bros., Inc. did submit another letter to further support this claim. Ms. Fossum directed the Board to clarify the record on the remaining issues, requiring the applicant to submit a full set of design plans for the construction of the trail that meet the original Protective Covenants and Plan Note 8 placed on the plan.
The Chairman asked the Town Attorney to outline the proper procedures the Board should take.
Ms. Natalie Burns, Esq. directed the Board to 1) accept comments from the Plaintiff's Attorney; 2) ask the Reynolds if they would like to add anything to Mr. O'Brien's statement; 3) give Shaw Bros. Construction and its attorney the opportunity to make an additional presentation; 4) open the matter of the remand and the easement issues up for public comment; 5) discuss what they had heard and the requirements of the remand; and 6) provide the staff with guidance for preparing the Findings and Facts.
Dianne Reynolds, plaintiff, 21 Partridge Lane in the Riverwood Subdivision (Lot 1), spoke for her husband Craig and herself. Ms. Reynolds asked the Board to make the proper decisions and to, with all fairness, take into account the fact that the residents of the Riverwood Subdivision had purchased lots trusting that the Town would enforce the restrictions it had set up. Ms. Reynolds asked the Town to enforce its rules and protect its residents
Daniel Shaw, Pres., Shaw Bros. stated that while the plaintiff claimed to own the easement, the Court did find in favor of Shaw Bros. Mr. Shaw stated that the easement was a step or one phase until the State comes back with a trail design plan. He described it as a 50trail across the easement as well to tie the park in with the trail. Mr. Shaw said that the Court answered the "big question "of" who owns the easement.
Mr. Grant asked Ms. Burns to give her legal opinion on whether the Board had already approved the design and construction of the easement or whether it had simply approved the construction of an easement. Ms. Burns responded that her opinion was made clear in the brief that the Town filed with the Court in which she argued that the Board had not made its final Findings on trail deign and construction, but that it had simply approved the legal creation of the easement on the subdivision land of Lot 3. As evidence, Ms. Burns referred to a memo to the Board from the Planner written at the time of the Board's decision informing the Board that there would be
additional review processes for the design of the trail. Ms. Burns said that in her opinion, all the Board did in relationship to this easement was to approve its creation and the resulting amendment to the subdivision plan. Ms. Burns pointed out that the Board did not receive a list of the specific uses of the trail, hours of use or how the crossing of the intermittent water body would be accomplished, all things that the Board would look at in the final review of a trail, in a phased process if desired. Ms. Burns explained that the Court responded that it could not tell what exactly had occurred and that it wanted the Board to clarify. If the Board felt it had approved the final construction and design plans, Ms. Burns stated that the Court said that the Board should prepare to make additional findings. But, if the Board determined in fact that it had only approved the creation of the easement, then it should state that and add conditions of
approval requiring certain reviews when the trail construction does come back for final review.
Mr. Grant suggested that at the time of approval, many Board members might have assumed that the design of the trail was exempt from Planning Board review based on information provided by the State Department of Transportation.
Mr. Boyce asked to review plans showing exactly where the easement would be.
While plans were being passed on, Mr. Grant explained that for cost reasons, the State planned to construct a pedestrian bridge crossing the Presumpscot River using the old Gambo Bridge, where granite pillars are still in place, which would then require an easement across Mr. Shaw's land to get back to the railroad bed on the other side of the river. The Planner added that in recent weeks, the Me. Dept. of Transportation has decided that it will build a temporary bridge across the railroad trestle and a new parking area in Windham so that there will be a temporary improvement across the Presumpscot River that snowmobilers and pedestrians can use to cross on. Ms. Fossum further noted that the State has not abandoned its long-term plan for Gambo Bridge and the connector loop. Mr. Grant added that there is a
historical site on the trail, the Old Gunpowder Mills, which people can visit by using a trail that follows the planned route.
Mr. Boyce asked for an enlarged plan. Mr. Boyce asked to confirm that he voted for the plan because his signature did not appear on the plan. Mr. Boyce said that if the Board did not have a specific design to look at, it would mean that the Board had approved the location of the easement and not the specific design parameters as to its implementation. Ms. Burns responded that the minutes and the signed Findings of Fact both indicate that Mr. Boyce was present and did participate in the decision. Mr. Neily agreed with Mr. Boyce's recollection that the Board did not approve a specific trail design, and so that review and approval should be done at a later time. Mr. Martin agreed that the issue was briefly discussed and that it was evident that the trail design would need to be revisited by the
Board at a later time. Ms. Robie recalled that the gentleman from the Dept of Transportation stated specifically that the trail had not been designed yet. Mr. Grant asked Ms. Burns if the Board had created sufficient findings to show that it had approved a trail easement but not the design of the trail. Ms. Burns requested that the Board take a short break in order for her to draft some proposed findings with the Town Planner based on the evening's discussion. Mr. Boyce asked whether there would be further discussion on other findings following the recess. Ms. Burns replied that the Court has strongly suggested that there be some additional conditions of approval and references to previous conditions and restrictive covenants included within the revised findings. Ms. Burns stated that the remand order does not require the Board to make an additional finding on Shaw Bros.' right, title or interest, but that Shaw Bros. did submit additional
supporting information which will be filed with the Findings.
Stretch Break 8:45 to 8:55 PM
The Town Attorney read the proposed findings of fact as follows:
1. This matter is before the Planning Board as the result of a remand order issued by the Superior Court in the case Reynolds v. Town of Gorham, Superior Court Docket Number AP-01-029.
2. The Planning Board originally heard this matter as part of an application submitted by Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc. for approval of a gravel pit expansion, the creation of recreational facilities on another parcel, and creation of a recreational easement across Lot 3 of the Riverwood Subdivision Plan.
3. At the time of the application, the Planning Board conducted several workshop sessions and public hearings on the applications.
4. As part of those proceedings, the Planning Board reviewed a proposed cross-section of a portion of the proposed recreational easement.
5. The Planning Board also received information concerning the Mountain Division Trail, for which the proposed recreational easement will serve as a link.
6. At the time of the Board
7. At the time of the Board
8. At the hearing on the remand, the Board accepted a written submission from the attorney for the Plaintiffs as well as hearing a presentation from him and from Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds.
9. The Board also received from Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc. and SB Gorham, Inc. an additional written submission concerning the relationship of the two corporations, as well as hearing a brief presentation from Dan Shaw, the President, about the easement.
Conclusions:
a. Based upon the above facts, the Planning Board concludes that its approval of the amendment to Lot 3 of the Riverwood Subdivision was an approval of the creation of an easement for recreational purposes.
b. The Board also concludes that it did not approve a final trail design or construction plan or review final proposed uses or use restrictions on the trail at the time of its approval on May 21, 2001.
c. The Board reaffirms its May 21, 2001 approval of the creation of the easement across Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision, as well as its findings of facts and conclusions adopted as part of that approval, including the finding that the applicant had sufficient right, title or interest to pursue the application for the amendment to the subdivision.
d. The Board amends its approval of the creation of the recreational easement across Lot 3 of the Riverwood Subdivision to make it subject to the following conditions of approval:
i. Review of the final design and construction plans for the trail for compliance with 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4404, subsections (4), (8), (12) and (16).
ii. Review of the final proposed uses and use restrictions on the trail for compliance with Covenants 3 and 11 of the Riverwood Subdivision, which were made enforceable by the Town through a condition of the original Riverwood Subdivision approval.
iii. Review of the final design and construction plans for the trail for compliance with Note 8 on the Riverwood Subdivision plan.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adopt the findings, conclusions and conditions as outlined by the Town Attorney. MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (Parker abstained). [8:00 PM]
N. A. Martin MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion not to waive the 10 O
Mr. Grant suggested that the Board decide whether it would like to reconsider Agenda Item 7, while keeping it in order of the agenda.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to reconsider Agenda Item 7, which is a request to reconsider the preliminary subdivision plan for “Sebago Gateway” off Barstow & Wilson Roads, and keep it in the order of the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
3. SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation from 12/03/01)
Request for site plan approval of a 750 student, 140,000 SF middle school on 58.01 acres off Weeks Road. Zoned SR; M20/L3 & M24/L4.
William Neily, Chairman of the Gorham School Committee, reminded the Board that a Citizen Committee involved in the planning stages has tried to make an efficient use of the funds available. Mr. Neily introduced Lyndon Keck of PDT Architects and Bill Hoffman, Civil Engineer of DeLuca Hoffman.
Lyndon Keck briefly described the architectural details of the project's master plan and first phase.
Mr. Keck responded to questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Keck stated that a 4' high chain link fence would be installed around the detention pond. Mr. Keck said that the cost to place 900 linear feet of power, cable TV and telephone lines underground on the school property would be $107,000. Mr. Keck distributed a breakdown of this cost analysis to the Board. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Keck requested permission to keep the poles and utility services above ground to stay within budget. Mr. Keck stated that the proposed sign will be 24 sq. ft., the maximum size permitted by the Ordinance, and that a condition could be placed on the plan restricting a larger sign. Mr. Keck stated that while the applicant is bringing the waterline up Weeks Rd. to the school, they don't want to
absorb the cost to extend the line beyond the school to connect with the new Heartwood Subdivision. Mr. Keck noted that the Portland Water District (PWD) has offered to make the extension at their cost. Mr. Keck introduced Peter Hedrick of DeLuca Hoffman, present to talk about proposed improvements to Weeks Rd. and Rt. 114, as well as about the sidewalk along Rt. 114.
The Chairman asked the Planner to share with the Board a telephone conversation she had received. Ms. Fossum stated that at the end of the working day, between 4:30 and 4:45 PM, she had taken a call from the developer of Heartwood Subdivision, an abutter to the project, who claimed that she has never received notification of any of the meetings or site walks. Ms. Fossum stated that abutter lists prepared in the Planning Office appear to back this claim. Looking around, Ms. Fossum noted that neither Ms. Duchaine nor her representative were present at the meeting. Ms. Fossum informed the Board that Ms. Duchaine is asking the Town to delay approval until she has the opportunity to discuss the two or three issues raised where the Middle School interfaces with the adjacent Heartwood Subdivision.
Mr. Grant stated that Ms. Duchaine also called him at home, outlining her issues with the water loop and with the storm water drainage that may impact her subdivision. Mr. Grant explained that because of this, the Board would not be able to take final action until the next meeting.
William Hoffman briefly reviewed some of the civil engineering changes made to the site plan, including an added berm and larger turning radiuses for the driveway entrances. Mr. Hoffman noted that a formal easement would not be required to access the detention pond. Mr. Hoffman referred to the letter from the PWD outlining its proposal to loop the water main to Heartwood Subdivision, noting that the applicant would be willing to grant a 30' easement along the access road to the PWD to accomplish this, as shown on the plan. Mr. Hoffman stated that the issue raised by an abutter of whether the construction of the pond would impact his well, is still being researched. Mr. Hoffman stated that in response to a request from the Gorham Recreation Dept., additional benches, picnic tables and other site
amenities are now shown on the master plan. Mr. Hoffman stated that the applicant is still awaiting comments from the Maine Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) on proposed off-site improvements to Solomon Drive, Weeks Road and Rt. 114 (sidewalks and granite curbing). Mr. Hoffman introduced Mr. Peter Hedrick, and Todd Morey of DeLuca Hoffman, both present to answer questions about the traffic study, which has been permitted by the MDOT, and the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Weeks Road and Rt. 114.
Mr. Hoffman responded to three questions raised by Susan Duchaine, developer of Heartwood Subdivision 1) the ability to loop between the Middle School and Heartwood Subdivision will need to be coordinated with the PWD without the involvement of the applicant; 2) drainage flows toward the subdivision today are twice what they will be once the project is built, as some of the current runoff will be directed to the detention pond; and 3) while Ms. Duchaine is concerned about a drainage line that discharges in the area where she must build sidewalks on Rt. 114, it is a 6" under drain only and will not receive surface flow. Mr. Hoffman stated that the Gorham School Department would like to work with Ms. Duchaine to avoid simultaneous work on Rt. 114. Mr. Hoffman noted that the Middle School has an agreement
with SoLD, Inc. to connect public sewerage to drain toward the Heartwood Subdivision.
Mr. Peter Hedrick, Traffic Engineer with DeLuca Hoffman Associates, presented and analyzed the plans for proposed sidewalks and for a traffic signal at the intersection of Weeks Road, considering the impact of the proposed bypass on South Street. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Hedrick to expound on the traffic sensors associated with the traffic signal. Mr. Hedrick replied that there will be a southbound turn lane on South St., northbound a left turn lane will be added, and a right turn lane will be added coming off of Weeks Rd. The northbound left turn will be aided by a green arrow to cross the heavy southbound volume in the morning, primarily for school bus traffic. The through traffic on South St. and both movements on Weeks Rd. will occur at the same time. Mr. Hoffman explained that there will be a
sensor in the northbound left turn lane so that it will only show the green arrow if there is a vehicle sitting there waiting to turn left, and sensors on Weeks Rd. will only trigger the green light if a vehicle is waiting to turn out of Weeks Rd. for at least 8 seconds. Traffic signals will operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week, with the option of flashing during late night hours (though discouraged when using sensors), and will favor traffic on South St.
In response to Mr. Shiers, Mr. Hedrick replied that the traffic control computer can be programmed to accommodate different traffic needs at different times of the day, e.g., a longer green light for Weeks Road on school mornings. Mr. Hedrick responded to Mr. Martin by saying that the red light on South St. would be 21 seconds at a maximum. Mr. Martin stated that he was hesitant about stopping heavy traffic in the morning, especially being that two schools and a subdivision have been turning out of Morrill Ave. thus far without the assistance of a traffic signal. Mr. Grant reasoned that it is hard to argue against "the experts" if they determine it is necessary. Ms. Robie asked whether the light would still be necessary if the speed limit was reduced further out on South St. Mr.
Hedrick replied that his recommendation was based on the lower speed limit already. Mr. Hoffman explained the design of the sidewalk (from Weeks Rd. to Running Springs Rd.) for Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant asked if the esplanade meets Code standards. Mr. Hoffman replied that the width would be 5' rather than the Code requirement of 8'. Mr. Grant replied that the Board could not wave street standards. Mr. Boyce stated that plans submitted to the Town for off-site improvements may not have been distributed to Board members. Mr. Boyce also asked if there would be accommodations made for bicycles traveling on Rt. 114. The Planning Director explained that sets of plans came in on Friday, which were discovered Monday morning and are currently available to the Board. Mr. Grant stated that the Middle School Project will be built to last 60 years, and that if the Board is to address infrastructure he would like the opportunity to look at the final plans in
greater detail. Mr. Boyce asked the applicant to share any graphic that may shed light on the off-site improvements. Mr. Parker asked the applicant where the Town would put the snow in the winter when plowing Weeks Rd. if the bituminous curb stops abruptly for a sidewalk. Mr. Hoffman replied that snow would be deposited onto the sidewalk until it was cleared later. Mr. Grant asked whether the overhead utility pole locations are shown on the plan in the vicinity of the sidewalk. Mr. Hoffman answered that they are. Mr. Martin noted that Street Standards are meant to direct the construction of new roads, and not for improvements to existing roads, so that therefore it would be difficult to hold the applicant to the Street Standards. Mr. Martin further stated that it would be unfortunate to create a huge unnecessary hurdle for the Town.
Mr. Parker suggested that the Board go through the issues that seem to have been resolved and to finalize those as much as possible, and then to vote to postpone the Board's final decision until it has had time to review plans for sidewalks and off-site improvements and to hear testimony from Ms. Duchaine. Mr. Grant noted that he had a list of issues for the applicant to address. Mr. Boyce asked the applicant to explain a discussion with the Town regarding the need for a left turn storage lane for traffic turning onto Morrill Ave. Mr. Hedrick replied that the MDOT has already issued a permit and deleted the requirement for a left-turn lane from the permit after reviewing analysis and recommendation by DeLuca Hoffman that no left-turn lane is warranted at Morrill Ave. and South St. Ms. Fossum
clarified at Mr. Boyce's request that the Town had decided to not create a lane at that location being that the lane is needed only for a short period of time in a historic district where the speed limits are already reduced and where turning traffic serves to keep speeds down. Ms. Fossum also pointed out that traffic turning onto Morrill Ave. will be reduced when the Middle School traffic is diverted to the Weeks Rd. access road. Mr. Hedrick added that accident reports showed that a left turn lane would not reduce the accident rate.
Ms. Robie asked the applicant to address drainage along South Street. Mr. Hoffman first noted that there have been several earlier submissions of off-site improvement plans for Weeks Rd. and Rt. 114 available to the Town before Friday. Mr. Hoffman than replied that Rt. 114 drainage is picked up along the street and than travels across the McCormick property on the easterly side of Rt. 114 to a pond. Mr. Hoffman added that formal catch basin inlets will replace driveway culverts between the driveways, noting that this project will not alleviate current ponding conditions on existing lots. Mr. Hoffman, in responding to the Street Standards issue, stated that the Town's peer review engineer has not raised the width or lack of esplanades as an issue. Mr. Boyce again asked to see plans for the
roadway improvements. Mr. Grant said that he would like to review them at home and the Board concurred with Mr. Grant.
Mr. Shiers asked the Chairman to poll the Board on its preference for overhead vs. underground utilities. The Planning Director reminded the Board to invite public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No comments were offered.
Mr. Shiers stated his preference that utilities be placed underground from Weeks Road to the school property. Mr. Neily asked that the projected CMP underground cable cost of $36,000 be reexamined. Mr. Grant stated that he would need to review the placement of sidewalks and telephone poles before making a decision about the placement of utility lines, though agreeing with Mr. Shiers that some part would need to go underground in order to meet the special exception criteria. Mr. Martin recalled that light poles would be necessary anyway on the drive and that power would be carried on those light poles. Mr. Keck replied the applicant would reinstall aluminum poles (gaining a $3,600-$4,000 credit from CMP) to hold wires and lights for the drive, and that if the applicant is required to go underground,
it would have to install new poles for the lights on the drive. Mr. Martin stated that he would hope that the power could go underground across the school property. Ms. Robie stated that she also has a preference for underground utilities on the school property, though she would not vote against going overhead if the applicant cannot find the money. Mr. Neily added that he prefers underground on the school property, but that he still would like to look at cost, considering that this is a big, long-term project. Mr. Grant noted that wires over the sidewalk are not desirable. Mr. Boyce stated that it is an aesthetic issue which must be weighed against the expense, and asked that this go on the alternate list of items to obtain fixed pricing for from a contractor, which could then be placed on a priority list of "nice to have but not essential" items, along with other amenities that the School Committee could pick from based on their
budget. Mr. Parker asked School Committee Chairman, Bill Neily, if the Committee had discussed overhead vs. underground utilities. Mr. Neily replied that they had not, but reminded the Board that extra funds appropriated for off-site improvements would only be taken away from the budget intended for the school building itself. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Neily if the School Committee is content with the 4' fence around the detention pond. Mr. Neily answered that the 4' fence should meet concerns about kids' safety. Mr. Grant noted that the placement of utility lines is not just a matter of aesthetics, but also raises a safety issue if any of the poles are knocked down in a pedestrian area. Mr. Neily replied that it would also be a safety issue in other areas of town. Mr. Shiers suggested that $107,000 is not excessive in relation to the building cost of $22 million, on a site which may be further developed in the future. Mr. Grant stated
that the Board does not yet seem to have a consensus about the placement of utilities.
Mr. Grant asked the Town Planner to work out the water looping issues with the applicant and Ms. Duchaine before this item appears before the Board again.
Mr. Shiers questioned why the design required parking spaces along the access entrance. Mr. Keck replied that the Department of Education agreed to 224 parking spaces, but that because of available funds, 145 spaces would be provided, with additional parking available for larger events at the school and for future athletic fields as shown in the master plan.
Mr. Boyce asked whether all curbing on-site will be bituminous, unless otherwise noted, and asked for detail about the curbing off-site. Mr. Hoffman replied that all curbing on Rt. 114 will be granite and curbing along Weeks Road will be bituminous; while all bids made for on-site work will be bid for bituminous curbing with a bid alternate to upgrade curbing to granite, except for along the bus drop-off area which would have concrete curbing. Mr. Boyce shared his opinion that granite curbing is a premium, more permanent material that adds value to a property and provides aesthetics. Mr. Boyce added that in light of budget constraints, the curbing upgrade would be more important to him than placing utilities underground, but that he feels comfortable letting the School Committee make the difficult
decisions on how to spend the funds so that educational needs can be weighed against desirable but nonresidential infrastructure upgrades for the project. In response to a question from the Planning Director, Mr. Hoffman stated that the School Committee has not already prioritized the bid alternates.
Mr. Grant identified outstanding issues as follows: placement of utilities; concerns of the developer of Heartwood Subdivision regarding water looping and storm water drainage; meeting the special exception criteria; and sidewalk and esplanade issues on Weeks Road. Mr. Grant asked staff how the Board could waive the Street Standards for the smaller esplanade. Ms. Fossum replied that this is an upgrade to an existing right-of-way and that the applicant has come as close as they can to meeting the requirements of the ordinance, and for that reason, the Board could approve this design. Mr. Keck asked whether the suggestion to postpone the installation of the traffic signal had been put to rest. The Board indicated that it agreed with the applicant's proposed traffic signal placement and
installation schedule. Mr. Boyce asked staff to direct the Board when to reconvene on this item so that Ms. Duchaine is properly notified. While the Planning Director discussed with the Town Attorney about notification procedures, Mr. Hoffman asked to clarify a few things. Mr. Hoffman stated that the sidewalk would go on the north side of Weeks Road and the power lines would go on the south side. Mr. Hoffman noted that the esplanade width was designed to be sensitive to not disturbing mature trees, shrubberies and improvements on properties along Weeks Road and for two homes on Rt. 114 where curbing will be placed to help retain an existing slope. Returning to the notification issue, the Planning Director responded that under the Special Exception standards, there is no set time for notice, and under Site Plan Review, abutters must receive public notice at least seven days before the public hearing, so at the earliest, the Board could continue the public
hearing to January 14th if it felt ready to address all the other outstanding issues. The Board took no formal action on this item.
Five minute Stretch Break
4. GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval of a gravel pit expansion off Farrington Road. Zoned R; Map 62/Lots 1, 10, 18-20; & Map 79/Lot 4.
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Request for preliminary approval of a 20-lot residential subdivision on 153.36 acres off Farrington Road. Zoned Rural; M62 / L1, 10, 18-20; & M79 / L4.
Douglas Boyce chaired this item being that the Planning Board Chairman and Vice-Chairman, along with N. A. Martin, stepped down. Mr. Boyce asked R. J. Grondin & Sons to present Agenda Items 4 and 5 at the same time. Mr. Boyce noted that the public hearing would be continued to another meeting.
Walter Stinson, Civil Engineer of Sebago Technics, represented the applicant. Phil Grondin and his son Larry were present, as was John Whitten of Sebago Technics. Mr. Stinson presented a brief history of the Parsons Pit Project dating from the 1980s, stating that extraction has occurred at about half the rate than it was approved for. Mr. Stinson then discussed the current proposal to expand the existing location, including a plan to relocate approximately 2100' of Farrington Road for about two years. Mr. Stinson stated that the Fire Chief would support the request to close Farrington Road with two conditions 1) that the applicant improve access to an existing fire pond; and 2) that the Town be allowed access over the Brown Road to Buck Street for emergency purposes. Mr. Stinson stated that
several test pits have been created and that the project would need to be permitted by the MDEP. Mr. Stinson also noted that R.J. Grondin & Sons has been in contact with the owners of the "Cotton parcel" to lease that land and mine that area, and that updated plans will be submitted which will include this parcel in the pit area. In response to staff review, Mr. Stinson stated that a 200' setback will be maintained from the Jones' land.
Mr. Stinson stated that the applicant has a purchase and sale agreement for 153 acres, of which only about 32 will be used for the gravel operation. The subdivision application, Mr. Stinson said, is a plan to reuse the property once the gravel is extracted and the pit is completed. Mr. Stinson reflected that after conducting a substantial natural resource inventory, the applicant brought sketch plans for 61 lots before the Board in October. But that after the October meeting, the applicant talked to some of the neighbors in the area and, in an attempt to address concerns about the scope of the development, eliminated 41 lots. Mr. Stinson presented the current preliminary plan showing 20 lots on 154 acres, creating lots, which would be on average 7.5 acres in size, substantially exceeding Code
standards of 1.5
Mr. Boyce asked whether the "Cotton parcel" agreement would be completed in time for Board review of the parcel along with the rest of the proposal currently put forth. Mr. Stinson replied that revised drawings could be submitted to the Town by next Monday.
Mr. Boyce invited Board comment. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Stinson to explain the timing for the discontinuance of Farrington Road and the reopening of Farrington Road. Mr. Stinson replied that the roadwork would be completed and operating within two years in Phase I, and that in the interim, residents would need to take an alternate route around to the west.
Mr. Boyce invited staff comment. The Planning Director explained that she would be reviewing the gravel pit application and that the Assistant Planner, Aaron Shields, would be reviewing the subdivision application. Ms. Fossum stated that the gravel pit requires review under the Minimal Excavation Ordinance, while using some of the Site Plan Review and Special Exception standards. Ms. Fossum referred to her comments to the applicant, noting that she had spoken with Mr. Stinson that day about the additional information that staff is looking for. Ms. Fossum stated that in her memo to the Board, she had mentioned a pending Code violation that has occurred along Farrington Road, an issue that the Code Officer is aware of and is working on with the applicant to resolve. Ms. Fossum noted that, in
fact, the expansion of the pit should create an acceptable resolution according to the Code Officer. With respect to the discontinuance and relocation of Farrington Road, Ms. Fossum stated that the applicant made a presentation to the Council a month or so ago, but that the Council has not yet responded. Therefore, Ms. Fossum said, the Board would need to condition its approval on the applicant receiving the discontinuance approval and approval from the Town Council for the road to be relocated to another location.
Aaron Shields stated that 99% of his review comments on the subdivision application were technical in nature, and that after meeting with the applicant today, Mr. Stinson indicated that all of those issues can be shown on the plan, at which time a more complete assessment can be made.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Sandy Jensen, a resident of 67 North Street for sixteen years, reasoned that R. J. Grondin has not acted as a competent gravel pit operator because, for nearly seven years, it has violated the MDEP and Gorham Codes and its agreement with Mr. Parsons by overstepping the 100' buffer between the existing gravel pit and Farrington Road, and by in some places eliminating the 100' buffer altogether. Ms. Jenson asked for assurance that all operations would occur above the groundwater level. Ms. Jenson raised her concern that wildlife would be disturbed. Ms. Jenson questioned a potential conflict between the rights of the owners of the new subdivision lots and the proposed agreement with Mr. Phinney allowing him to harvest all trees over 10" in diameter until January 2008. Additional traffic,
most likely traveling above the posted speed, was another of Ms. Jenson's concerns, especially if Farrington Road is paved and plowed in the winter and if there is more development to the West. Ms. Jenson referred to a map, which she received at the site walk from Mr. Stinson. Ms. Jenson stated that after coloring in the wetland areas, it would appear that all the open space is wetland, making it unusable for light recreational activities. Ms. Jenson stated that this open space, as defined by the Gorham Open Space Committee, is her primary concern and asked that the Committee's recommendation be codified in the future. Ms. Jenson concluded by saying that she, her husband and most of the abutters and neighbors are opposed to the project in its entirety.
Daniel Lewis, 294 Buck Street, asked how many lots are currently in the 153-acre parcel. Aaron Shields replied that it is either two or three. Mr. Lewis then asked how much of the Brown Road access into the pit is currently paved. When told that it is unpaved, Mr. Lewis said that it may be a problem for emergency vehicles needing to travel at faster speeds. The abutter asked how long the expanse west of Farrington Road would be in operation. Mr. Stinson responded. Mr. Lewis stated that he is concerned about groundwater and well protection, wildlife and wetland preservation, the noise, traffic
Cliff Raymond, 298 Buck Street, read his letter to the Board. Mr. Raymond's letter expressed his opinion that the project does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Raymond noted that according to the Plan, large-scale residential development is to be discouraged in one zone only, the Rural Zone. Mr. Raymond read portions of the Comprehensive Plan to back the opinion that there is a high risk for groundwater contamination and that the sandy soils are not suitable for septic systems. Mr. Raymond used a map of his Internet research to argue that the density of the proposed subdivision is twice as high as the density of the current neighborhood. Mr. Raymond stated that his biggest concern is with the water supply and water quality. The abutter noted for the record that his
well has never gone dry, and asked that a substantial escrow account be set aside, for at least three years after all the subdivision lots are developed, to compensate for any negative impact to the wells of abutting properties. Mr. Raymond also indicated his concern that extraction would occur within the required buffer zone from residential properties because of the applicant's history of meeting this performance standard. Mr. Raymond stated that if Mr. Phinney harvested all trees over 10", it would be practically a clear-cut. "The open area is basically useless," said Mr. Raymond, because the area is very wet. Mr. Raymond suggested that the Board require the applicant to pave and increase the width of Farrington Road from the intersection all the way to Quail Ridge.
Jeff Christiansen, resident of 236 Buck Street for eleven years, stated that he chose to live in Gorham for its rural and village atmosphere in proximity to Portland. Mr. Richardson asked the Board not to view concerns expressed over development as "reactionary or backward thinking". Mr. Richardson asked the Board to carefully review not only whether the plan meets Code, but also if it is consistent with the Gorham Comprehensive Plan and whether the project might erode the quality of life for many who have "chosen to invest a part of their life to become a Gorham resident".
Ed Shevernel, 7 Quail Ridge Drive, stated that while he agreed with many of the issues already raised by abutters, they are not paying taxes on the property in question and so cannot restrict the applicant's use of the property. Mr. Shevernel suggested that Farrington Road is currently "an open dump" for mattresses, washing machines, etc. Mr. Shevernel stated that the people involved in this project "have lived and worked in Gorham a lot longer than any of us newcomers…. They have invested in this Town. Their families have gone to school in this Town and they are honest hardworking people. Their reputation is impeccable. They would never do anything to damage the Town that they have their business in and where they have lived and raised their kids." Mr.
Shevernel stated that while he doesn't like to see so much development in Gorham, "there is a difference between quality and quantity. Grondin's would give us quality."
Jason Terry, 288 Buck Street, described the project as "the rape of the land", where the beauty would be destroyed. Mr. Terry mourned the loss of rural land to increasing residential and commercial development, and asked the Board to avoid taking the step toward "the ugly face of suburban sprawl."
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to suspend the public hearing until a subsequent meeting, the time to be determined.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boyce asked the staff about scheduling. Ms. Fossum replied that these applications are "likely to come back on the February 4th agenda if the additional information discussed today is provided to the Planning Office by the beginning of next week" (week of January 14th). Mr. Parker repeated his motion to suspend the public hearing to the regular February meeting, provided that the applicant has come back with the appropriate information.
MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (Grant, Neily and Martin excused).
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Request for preliminary approval of a 20-lot residential subdivision on 153.36 acres off Farrington Road. Zoned Rural; M62 / L1, 10, 18-20; & M79 / L4.
See Agenda Item 4 for action on this item.
Scheduled Items 6 through 8 were postponed due to the Board's adherence to the 10 p.m. rule.
Item 9 was delayed to the regular meeting in February at the request of the applicant prior to the meeting.
6. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Request for preliminary approval of a 3-lot clustered residential subdivision on 15 acres off Sebago Lake Road. Zoned Rural; M72 / L47.
7. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for reconsideration of the Planning Board
8. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for a pre-application conference on a proposed 4-lot residential subdivision on 19 acres off Straw Road. Zoned Rural; M 5 / L21.
9. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for a pre-application conference on a proposed 12-lot residential subdivision (Phase I) on 25 acres of a 107.8-acre tract off Barstow Road. Zoned Suburban Residential; M87 / L21, 22, 23.
Before the night's meeting began, the Chairman had explained that the applicant requested to be removed from the agenda until the next regular meeting of the Board in February.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 4-0-3 (Grant, Neily and Martin abstained). [11:05 PM]
Respectfully submitted,
Esther J. Pelletier
Acting Clerk of the Board
January 7, 2002
| |
