Town of Gorham
January 14, 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 called the roll noting all present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 19, 2001
Clark Neily MOVED and N.A. Martin SECONDED A MOTION to accept the minutes
of
November 19, 2001. DISCUSSION: None. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 (Parker
abstained
due to being absent that meeting).
2. SITE PLAN - "MIDDLE SCHOOL" - WEEKS ROAD - GORHAM SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING (continuation)
Request for site plan approval of a 750 student, 140,000 SF middle school
on
58.01 acres off Weeks Road. Zoned SR; Map 20/Lot 3 & Map 24/Lot 4.
William Neily, Chairman of the Gorham School Committee, stated that
consultants Lyndon Keck of PDT Architects, William Hoffman, P.E., of
DeLuca-Hoffman Associates, Inc., and John Doxie, Chairman of the Building
Committee were available for comments.
The Planning Director reported that the applicant has requested that the
Board postpone its final decision to February 4, 2002. Ms. Fossum stated
that a meeting attended by representatives for Sold, Inc., the Town, the
Gorham School Department, and the Portland Water District, was held
following the January 7, 2002, Board meeting. The following items were
discussed and agreed to 1) that extending the water line to Matthew Drive
would not adversely impact the Heartwood Subdivision; 2) that the original
design for the Heartwood Subdivision did not take into account the correct
stormwater flow of the Middle School site and that this should be adjusted
in the design of Matthew Drive by the subdivision's engineers; 3) that the
Weeks Road intersection improvement would not carry drainage to South
Street
where Sold, Inc. is required to install a side walk in association with the
Heartwood Subdivision project.
Ms. Fossum reviewed the issues covered in the Agenda Memo 1) construction
of
esplanades along South Street to Running Spring Road; 2) positioning of
sidewalks along Weeks Road, noting that sidewalks at the back of the ROW
would possibly require grading easements from property owners and would
increase snow removal operations; 3) underground versus overhead utilities
from Weeks Road to the school [along the school access road]; 4) evaluation
of potential impacts on a neighboring well; 5) budget limitations, Planning
Board prioritizing of its desired improvements and upgrades, location of
amenities, i.e. bike racks, on the plan for long-range planning; 6)
clearing
of the proposed ball field areas; and 7) overflow parking along the access
road.
Ms. Fossum recommended an additional Condition of Approval requiring that
the School Department provide $1,200.00 to the Town for the design for
drainage improvements to the pond area on the other side of Weeks Road that
is to be constructed by the Public Works Department.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED
Shawn Frank, P.E., Sebago Technics, Inc., representing abutter Sold, Inc.,
confirmed that the January 10 meeting with representatives from the school
department and Portland Water District had resolved most of his client's
concerns. The remaining main issue is the work proposed along South Street,
and its impact on the construction of a sidewalk by Sold, Inc. sometime
during the year 2002 along the westerly side of South Street from Quincy
Drive to Weeks Road. Mr. Frank stated one concern was how the drainage
coming from Weeks Road onto the section was being handled. Mr. Frank also
noted the difference in esplanades not required by ordinance and can see
the
same problems with ROWs and therefore would like the same type of
flexibility associated with the esplanade.
Mr. Frank stated one of Sold, Inc.'s main concerns with construction of a
sidewalk on South Street is the location of the water line and ditches, and
if in fact, it is even possible to build one on that side of the street. He
suggested possibly relocating the sidewalk to the opposite side of the
street to the Park South project. Their primary concern is the proposed
construction on South Street southerly of the Weeks Road intersection and
proposed turning lanes and islands. Mr. Frank stated that because a
sidewalk was proposed in that area by the Heartwood project, that it is
their contention that is makes sense to have one contractor, one developer
be responsible for all the work within that particular section within the
South Street ROW. It would be their request that any final approvals be
conditioned upon all work or drainage, curbing, sidewalks, etc. being the
responsibility of the School Department up to the end of their proposed
work
line with Sold, Inc. picking the project up from there.
William Hebert stated he hoped the Planning Board would support placing
utilities from South Street to the School underground, and that now was the
time to do it.
John Doxie, Halter Lane, Chairman of the Middle School Building Committee,
spoke on the makeup of the committee, and the decision process that has
gone
into each line item for the last couple of years. Mr. Doxie was afraid the
Board might be making decisions prematurely and pleaded for them not to.
Mr.
Doxie -stated that theirs was a fixed budget that cannot be adjusted. He
stated that if a budget decision was reduced to either underground
utilities
or lights in a theater, it would be for lights.
William Neily stated his concern regarding the lack of a code standard for
utilities placement, and that there appears to be no studies that support
underground verses overhead installation.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED
William Hoffman, PE, De-Luca-Hoffman Assoc., reviewed the South Street
improvements, including the intersection of Weeks Road and the widening of
the east side of Route 114 for purposes of constructing a left turn lane to
Weeks Road; and two points of interface with the sidewalk, 1) a granite
curb
radius with a tip down to receive the Heartwood sidewalk which would be
loamed awaiting the adjoining sidewalk from the subdivision; and 2) further
south, there is an area for discharging to an under drain to the existing
ditch, which Heartwood should tee into the under drain. Mr. Hoffman did
not
see any conflict due to different construction schedules. He stated that
the
under drainage flowed east to west and would not impact the storm drain
sizing or capacity and was about 550' from the intersection of South and
Weeks Road, being at the extreme southern end of the proposed school
improvements.
When asked by Mr. Shiers, Mr. Hoffman answered there would be storm drains
on Weeks Road at the south west corner of the intersection. He stated that
due to ponding of water on the Carrier property, the area would be widened
with an inlet and under drain connecting with the Canterbury Pines
subdivision inlet and acknowledged that that was a concern of abutter Sold,
Inc.
Mr. Frank spoke again noting his concern that the sidewalk would not be
able
to be constructed on that side of South Street due to physical constraints,
i.e. existing waterlines, that there are too many unknowns. He was
concerned
about one project being on top of another.
Mr. Grant summarized the outstanding issues as still being the Weeks Road
sidewalk, underground power to the school, Weeks Road drainage and design
Ms. Fossum read a letter from Sonja Frey of Solomon Drive into the record
addressing continuation of a 4' sidewalk on Solomon Drive and safety
concerns for children. Ms. Fossum stated that the Public Works Director,
Gary Lorfano, has suggested the placement of bollards at either end to
which
Mr. Hoffman agreed.
Ms. Robie addressed sidewalk esplanades under Page 145 of the Code, which
states "that sidewalks may be located at the curb with zero esplanades."
Mr. Hoffman then reviewed the positioning and design of the South Street
sidewalks with the Board and the widening of only portions of the esplanade
to 7' preserving 16 of 17 trees.
Ms. Robie stated that she would propose maintaining a 5' esplanade the
length of the area to be developed between Running Springs and Weeks Road.
Clark Neily and Harold Grant disagreed citing virtually no loss of trees in
the process and increased snow storage area. When asked by Mr. Boyce, Mr.
Hoffman stated the travel way would be 12' with 6' shoulders with no
parking
on that section of South Street further along South Street. When asked by
Mr. Boyce on the appropriateness of this cross section and how it might be
extended, Ms. Fossum stated that Mr. Berry has indicated that even with the
water lines in Weeks Road, the sidewalks, with drainage, filling of the
ditch line, and placement of walkways behind the telephone poles on South
Street should fit within the ROW. Mr. Boyce then stated either width of
esplanade would be satisfactory as long as bicycles are accommodated in the
ROW area. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Shiers and Mr. Parker agreed with the
most
recent proposal utilizing a combination of five and seven width esplanades.
When Mr. Parker stated his concerns for young bikers in the area of the
turning lanes, Peter Hedrick of DeLuca-Hoffman suggested the school
instruct
riders to use the alternative bike route of Running Springs Road.
Mr. Hoffman then explained the Weeks Road intersection including the
acquiring of a 300 SF portion of the Carpenter property located on the
corner and exchange for landscaping. He stated that the 700' of sidewalk
will be on the north side of the road with no esplanade to preserve
existing
trees, buffering and stone walls. The repaving of Weeks Road to the most
southerly school exit only driveway will include re-striping and two speed
tables.
When asked by Mr. Shiers, Mr. Hoffman stated that the public ROW on the
south side Weeks Road was 6'. Mr. Lorfano then spoke in detail on snow
removal in general, both with and without esplanades, and ended by urging
consistency in order maintain removal in a more timely manner. Mr. Hoffman
noted that the curbing would be bituminous on Weeks Road except for the
radius at South Street to which Mr. Lorfano noted that there would be
literally no support for bituminous curbing with an esplanade and sidewalk
behind it, where as bituminous curbing with just a sidewalk would have more
support and lessen the risk of damage. Mr. Hoffman noted that there have
been substantial improvements to bituminous curbing with the addition of
fiberglass to the material for better tensile strength in cold weather.
When polled for the preference of curbing along Weeks Road, Clark Neily
stated that the Town be held to the same standards as private developers by
utilizing bituminous. Mr. Grant and Mr. Shiers supported granite. Mr. Boyce
stated he would support bituminous but suggested having the School
Committee
decide given the limited overall project budget. Ms. Robie, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Parker concurred but all preferring granite, budget allowing. When
asked
by Mr. Boyce, Mr. Hoffman stated that the current opinion of cost for the
off-site improvements is $580,000. compared to the original referendum
proposed amount of $372,000. Mr. Lorfano then suggested "mold 2"
bituminous
for Weeks Road. Mr. Hoffman then suggested concrete vs. granite curbing,
but
acknowledged that it was not as strong.
Lyndon Keck addressed the utilities stating that the original estimate from
CMP and Neill & Gunter, the consulting engineer, for 900' of underground
service on school property for $107,000 did not include underground service
along Weeks Road. When Ms Robie asked the rational for placing power
overhead, Mr. Keck stated the sheer size of the project but noted both the
high school and current middle school also have overhead service. He stated
the 900' underground service in question was from Weeks Road to the fourth
pole in the bussing area. When asked by Mr. Martin, Mr. Keck stated that
the location of the building site was chosen for its minimum noise and
sound
impact on abutters, with the least amount of slope. Ms. Robie and Mr.
Martin
both supported underground in new development, which coincides with other
large campus like USM. Mr. Grant concurred. Mr. Keck stated that the
$107,000 for underground service did not include lighting poles in that
area. Mr. Boyce and Mr. Neily supported underground, but suggested leaving
the choice to the school department given the limited budget. The final
poll
for underground service was in favor 4-3 (Neily, Boyce Parker against).
Stretch Break 9:00 to 9:10 PM
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to waive the "Ten O'
clock Rule". DISCUSSION: None. MOTION CARRIED 6-1 (Martin against).
Mr. Hoffman closed his presentation by noting that the site plan drawings
had been modified to show fencing around detention pond, and that S. W.
Cole
Engineering's evaluation has been received and indicates no significant,
adverse impact to the abutting well resulting from site construction.
Ms. Fossum confirmed that a final site report would be prepared and
distributed for the 02/04/02 meeting along with the draft Findings & Facts.
3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - "OVERLOOK FARM" (name pending) - off 216
SEBAGO LAKE ROAD - STEVEN W. & PATRICIA M. RAND
Request for preliminary approval of a 3-lot clustered residential
subdivision on 15 acres off Sebago Lake Road. Zoned Rural; Map 72 / Lot 47.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION Steven Rand, representing himself, introduced the
project and summarized its status, review by the town and various phases
the
project had passed through to date as a result of those comments, i.e. the
steepness of the road, and location of the building envelopes. Mr. Rand
stated his preference for a 3-lot cluster rather than a 5-lot conventional
subdivision, as being more logical due to the layout of the land, and the
existing 1880's house that would otherwise have to be demolished for a
conventional subdivision. He noted that the choice for clustering is not
an
attempt obtain to a variance to relieve a hardship. Mr. Rand stated his
flexibility on the ownership of the common open space, preferring that the
lot owners would commonly own that with the trails being retained and
maintained for snowmobile use. He stated he would have no objection to
replacing replanted trees that may not survive with the posting of a bond.
He closed by stating that a proposed ROW extension to adjacent property
would not be in the public's best interest, being somewhat contrary to
whole
clustered concept, and as such, he requests that it not be required.
Timothy Brown, P.E., BH2M, addressed erosion sedimentation and road
grading,
noting that due to the applicant being able to obtain an easement, the road
entrance was relocated to enable a longer curve radius and flatten out the
slope to maintain an 8% grade. He stated that at the request of the
Planning
Department, the potential homes have been relocated higher on the slope;
and
that Albert Frick has completed the septic system design.
STAFF COMMENTS Aaron Shields summarized the staff report as provided the
Board earlier, addressing the cluster subdivision having 7.5 acres of open
space, a 720' private way, public water, underground utilities, reduced
frontage for Lot 1 and reduced setbacks for 1 or 2 lots. He confirmed a
proposal to relocate a portion of the road by easement onto an abutter's
property, and that all but a handful of items have been revised, and those
can be addressed at the time of final subdivision approval. He noted that
the some of issues remaining are the length of the performance guarantee
for
the tree replantings, and a Board finding for a roadway extension to the
abutting parcel. Mr. Shields agreed that it might not be in the public's
best interest to require a right of way due to the topography of the site.
When asked by Mr. Grant, Mr. Shields reconfirmed that all eight issues by
the review engineer have been found satisfactory by Town staff for a
cluster
subdivision.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD None were offered.
BOARD DISCUSSION: When asked, Mr. Rand also stated that a binding contract
for the purchase of the easement from abutter MacKenzie [212 Sebago Lake
Road] was pending approval of the subdivision. When Mr. Martin and Mr.
Neily
noted the project name being similar to a road, Mr. Rand stated new names
have been submitted for consideration.
Discussion for findings on clustering and a ROW: Mr. Parker questioned the
length of a performance guarantee for the transplanted trees. All were in
favor of clustered development as being the best design for the site and
waiving a requirement for a right of way to adjoining lands was not
realistic given the topography and wetlands of the abutting parcel. Mr.
Boyce stated that the only suitable portion of the site allowing a ROW was
now part of the building envelopes. In response, Mr. Shields stated that an
opinion was being obtained from an arborist for the performance guarantee
to
then be made a condition for final approval.
Mr. Shiers asked that the developer be cognizant of the fact that all
terrain vehicles and dirt bikes can be detrimental to the landscaping, and
requested that it be addressed in the homeowners' association documents.
Clark Neily MOVED and N. A. Martin SECONDED a motion that the Planning
Board
grant preliminary approval of the proposed clustered subdivision as
outlined
provided the applicant make all final changes discussed and submit all
remaining documents for final review and approval. (No further discussion.)
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
4. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN - "SEBAGO
GATEWAY" - off BARSTOW & WILSON ROADS - JOHN T. HAWKES
Request for reconsideration of the Planning Board's denial of the
preliminary subdivision plan for Sebago Gateway to allow the applicant to
submit additional material to address the concerns raised by the Planning
Board at the December 17, 2001, meeting. Zoned SR; Map 90 / Lot 3.003.
When asked for clarification by Thomas Greer, Ms. Burns confirmed that the
Board has already approved reconsideration that allows the Board to now
consider new information. Mr. Neily disclosed that he has now reviewed
all
information from the previous 12/17/01 meetings [for which he was absent].
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mr. Greer, representative for the applicant,
explained estimates obtained for placement of both overhead and underground
utilities, and that due to cost, he is now requesting overhead based on the
$20,000 versus $60,000 for underground for this 5-lot project. He stated
that the figure did not include telephone or cable; that the developer
would
also assume the cost bringing power from the street to the lot; and that
the
developer would being constructing the shared driveway [for Lots 3&4] as
part of his initial cost. Mr. Greer asked that the purchaser of Lot 5 be
responsible for the driveway installation, recognizing the existing
floodplain and the DEP permitting being in place.
STAFF COMMENT: Aaron Shields gave the staff report, confirming the resolve
for the shared driveway for the Lot 3 & 4 and separate driveway for Lot 5.
He stated that the construction for lot 5 would require certificate of
compliance from a surveyor or registered engineer, and that the Board must
decide if a performance guarantee is still warranted from the developer for
faulty construction; that due to wetland concerns by the Board, the
developer is be responsible for costs for all necessary inspections for
both
on site and off site improvements as agreed upon in writing. He stated 1)
that paved aprons are now required to be shown on all plans; and the Board
needs to decide if the utilization of public water needs to be extended to
Lot 6.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Calvin Beaumier, real estate broker representing the
buyer/applicant, stated that all other homes in the area are on wells; and
when approached, abutter Wing and other neighbors were not interested in
bringing in public water due to cost.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Parker was in favor of the current proposal for
subdivision. When asked by Mr. Boyce, Mr. Greer stated the homeowner's
contractor would run the overhead power from the lot-line pole to the
house,
not the applicant. When asked by Mr. Martin if it was possible to have
underground power from the lot-line to the home, Mr. Greer stated that
would
be the homeowner's option and reminded the Board the Code did not require
it.
When Mr. Neily asked, he was assured that authorized permits would be
required for any building in wetland the specifications of which would have
already been reviewed thoroughly.
Mr. Shields was asked to confirm and verify with the Code Enforcement
Officer that that department monitors building activities in flood plain
areas. Mr. Martin asked for confirmation that no other new homes are
possible in the area requiring water services and if the water can be
looped
across the road to bring it closer to the lot lines. Mr. Greer stated the
applicant is required to install service leads from the water main but the
homeowner would then tie into the service lead with a shutoff at the
boundary line. He stated, by definition, public water was required for
clustered subdivisions with no choice for wells. Mr. Greer had previously
confirmed that a 5-lot subdivision could be built in a cluster format
without consideration for a sixth lot. When Mr. Martin asked again for
documentation from the Portland Water District stating that it would serve
no further purpose to extend a water main up Wilson Road with no further
development in sight, Mr. Shields stated the Wing property was the only
immediate parcel developable. Mr. Beaumier spoke on behalf of the
applicant,
stating that Mr. Wing has no interest in further subdivision or obtaining
public water. Mr. Greer stated that the cost for each service lead to cross
the road is approximately $1,500 for a 2" tap versus an 8" main extension.
Ms. Burns stated this provision of the code is one of the amendments that
the Board should think about making clearer. She stated this particular
proposal which does not count the land from the lot that will not be served
by public water in calculation the density bonus, and where it is one lot
of
six, her opinion is that the applicant could utilize density bonus for the
remaining five lots.
Mr. Grant suggested the addition of another Condition of Approval clearly
stating that wells are not an option and cannot be drilled. The Board
concurred when Mr. Parker suggested that if the Portland Water District
requires the applicant to cross the road with the water main, that the cost
be the responsibility of the developer, the same as power would be. After
more discussion, the Board was polled if permission were granted for 5
taps,
that preliminary approval should be granted: Parker, Boyce, Martin, Grant,
Neily and Robie in favor; Shiers against (favoring only one tap).
Mr. Shields stated that the out conveyance by Mr. Wing should be show on
the
plan. When Mr. Grant asked, Mr. Shields stated that the required paved
aprons should be both a plan note and a performance guarantee item
collected
either prior to the start of construction or at occupancy. Mr. Greer
agreed
to bonding at time of Certificate of Occupancy.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant
preliminary approval of proposed Sebago Gateway Subdivision and the
applicant make all necessary changes discussed and submit all remaining
documents for final review and approval. (No further discussion.) MOTION
CARRIED 7-0. [11:00 PM]
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION PLAN - off STRAW ROAD - PINES
OF PORTLAND, INC., GREGORY T. McCORMACK, PRES.
Request for a pre-application conference on a proposed 4-lot residential
subdivision on 19 acres off Straw Road. Zoned Rural; Map 5/Lot 21.
John Kuchinski, BH2M, represented the applicant and presented the overview
for the project. He stated that preliminary rural land management
calculations have been completed, noting that a complete RLMC will been
completed as well.
Aaron Shields summarized the staff report as outlined in the Agenda Memo
distributed earlier and made part of the records.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: William Hebert, Brackett Road, spoke against the
allowing of new development without the applicants providing public water
extensions; and in favor of promoting underground utilities and screening
with trees of the development from the street. Mr. Hebert stated that
growth
and development in Gorham is half-baked and will have adverse impacts on
taxpayers, i.e. the digging up of roads multiple times instead of once
[referring to Item 4]. Mr. Hebert closed by suggesting minimum 2-acre
[residential] lots.
BOARD DISCUSSION: In response to Mr. Parker noting the on-site brooks and
steep topography, Mr. Kuchinski stated that Mark Hampton Associates would
be
preparing complete Rural Land Management Calculations. Being no further
comments, Mr. Kuchinski closed by requesting a site walk.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED A MOTION to adjourn.
DISCUSSION: None. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. [11:10 PM]
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Penelope Overton
Clerk of the Board
January 14, 2002
| 
