 |
Town of Gorham
April 1, 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
CLARK NEILY, Vice-Chairman AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
DOUGLAS BOYCE BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
THOMAS HUGHES
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:59 PM and introduced the agenda. The Secretary called the roll noting all Board members present.
1. REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD
A. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING MEMBER / INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER
The Chairman recognized outgoing member N. A. Martin and incoming member Thomas Hughes.
B. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
The Secretary called for nominations for the position of Chairman:
Clark Neily NOMINATED and Michael Parker SECONDED HAROLD GRANT for the position of Chairman; nomination CARRIED 7-0.
The Chairman called for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman:
Michael Parker NOMINATED and Susan Robie SECONDED DOUGLAS BOYCE for the position of Vice-Chairman; nomination CARRIED 7-0.
C. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
The Chairman asked for three members for the Ordinance Committee and the Private Way Sub-Committee:
Volunteering for the ordinance committee were: Ms. Robie, Mr. Grant, Mr. Neily, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Parker, Mr. Robie and Mr. Shiers.
Volunteering for the private way sub-committee were: Mr. Grant, Mr. Boyce and Mr. Shiers.
Mr. Neily requested that the Board reappoint the sign committee. Volunteering to serve were Mr. Boyce, Ms. Robie and Mr. Neily.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 4, FEBRUARY 11, and MARCH 4, 2002
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED approval of the Minutes of February 4, 2002; motion CARRIED 6-0 (Hughes abstaining);
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED approval of the Minutes of February 11, 2002; motion CARRIED 6-0 (Hughes abstaining);
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED approval of the Minutes of March 4, 2002; motion CARRIED 5-0 (Grant and Hughes abstaining).
Mr. Hughes requested that he be excused from the discussions on Items 3 and 4.
Susan Robie MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED that Mr. Thomas be excused from the discussions on Items 3 and 4; motion CARRIED 6-0 (Hughes abstaining). [7:06 PM]
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - “PARK SOUTH” Request for approval of an additional building unit type that will not increase the total impervious area allowed or cause any one type of building unit to exceed the 25% limitation allowed for any one building unit type per the 02/12/01 Gorham Planning Board approval of the Park South Site Plan amendment. Zoned Suburban Residential; Map 24/Lots 10.001-10.036.
No discussion.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to approve the request by Design Dwellings, Inc. for approval of an additional building unit type that will not increase the total impervious area allowed or cause any one type of building unit to exceed the 25% limitation for any one building unit type allowed under Plan Note 14 of the February 12, 2001 Gorham Planning Board approval of the Park South Site Plan; motion CARRIED 6-0. (Hughes excused). See attached Conditions of Approval. [7:09 PM]
4. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment to Condition #10 of the Conditions of Approval requiring the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of South Street. Zoned Suburban Residential; Map 117/Lots 1-78
Mr. Parker stated that while he was not present when the Heartwood Subdivision was approved by the Board, he had read the package provided to the Board and believed that he was prepared to participate in the discussion on the item and asked that he be allowed to participate and not be recused. The applicant being in agreement,
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion permitting Mr. Parker to participate in the discussion of Item 4; motion CARRIED 4-0 (Parker and Robie abstaining; Hughes excused). [7:10 PM]
Ms. Robie stated that she had not been present when the Board approved the Heartwood Subdivision but that she had watched the video and studied the package provided to the Board and believed that she was prepared to participate in the discussion and asked that she be permitted to participate.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion permitting Ms. Robie to participate in the discussion of Item 4; motion CARRIED 5-0 (Robie abstaining; Hughes excused). [7:11 PM]
Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant, detailing the problems involved with the Condition #10 requirement for the proposed sidewalk construction along the west side of South Street, which included the presence of a Portland Water District water main, which would preclude the installation of curbing, catch basins and subsurface storm drain system. He noted that such installation would prevent the existing drainage from the roadway crown to the ditches along the road. Mr. Stinson indicated that as a result of discussions with staff and the Town review engineer, the applicant would be willing to install a sidewalk on the back side of the drainage ditch on South Street which would allow the present drainage to work and would also provide the required sidewalk. Mr.
Stinson indicated, however, that there is not sufficient right of way along some sections of South Street, thereby requiring that the Town work with the applicant in securing the necessary easements. Mr. Stinson asked that the Board re-think Condition #10 and help the applicant come up with an option that meets the intent of the Condition in order to provide the required sidewalk.
Deborah Fossum summarized the staffapplicant
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: None offered.
Discussions took place about the need for the sidewalk and what it would take to put it in as originally discussed and as presently suggested. Mr. Grant, Mr. Boyce, Mr. Shiers and Mr. Neily concurred that it would be useful to look at various alternatives for placing the sidewalk during a site walk; Mr. Neily suggested that the Town
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that this item be tabled to a future meeting time after the site walk has been held; motion CARRIED 6-0 (Hughes excused). [7:31 PM].
Mr. Hughes returned to the meeting and resumed his place.
5. DISCUSSION Discuss proposed new pit operation expanding the former Ernest Lowell Pit from 2.9 acres to 5 acres. (This is considered a new pit operation because its registration lapsed in 1992.) Zoned Rural & Suburban Residential; Map 93/Lot 15.
Thomas S. Greer, P.E., Pinkham & Greer, appearing on behalf of the applicant, thanked the Board for having a site walk and getting this item on the agenda. In response to comments by Board members and the Town review engineer during the site walk, Mr. Greer reported as follows: the gravel road to the pit will be upgraded; to make the application complete, a topographic survey is being prepared to put together a grading plan; additional test pits are being done with a geologistthis should make drainage easy; some screening will be done at this pit, which will be quieter than crushing but will have some noise impact, which will be mitigated by the construction of a berm 10 to 15 feet high between the house on the right side of the property and the pit; they are willing to discuss with the Board having different hours of operation for screening than the pit operation itself; the operational plan calls for 60 to 80 loads as a weekly average; the recommendation of the Public Works Director requiring trucks to turn left into North Gorham Road is a workable restriction on pit operations and a sign will be posted reminding drivers to turn left fully loaded; the Public Works Director
Aaron Shields, Assistant Planner, summarized staff comments noting that at the March 25 site walk with the Board, abutters and staff, the applicant showed where existing expansion of the pit would occur in order to reclaim the pit. The applicant has identified how it plans to come into compliance under Section IV of Chapter 1 but may end up still having to elaborate on a more complete submission. As a result of the site walk, Mr. Shields noted the following concerns: the inadequacy of the entrance on Hurricane Road to handle any increased traffic; as part of its operation statement in its next submission, the applicant needs to clarify if equipment will be loaded or unloaded up on the street; the Public Works directordetails of the pit are unclear and need to be addressed before the application comes back; the abutters have a dug well and are concerned about contamination from calcium chloride to their well, and although a preliminary answer from the review engineer indicates that there would be no impact on the well, this needs to be looked into; it is unclear how internal drainage will be accomplished. Mr. Greer has provided some new information about slopes, topography and the water table but it is not clear if he still seeks waivers any more about topography, ground water table, details on the grading and reclamation plans.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
Jeff and Lori Rich, 68 Hurricane Road, who live in the house abutting the pit, stated their concerns about quality of life if the pit operations increase, concerns about noise and volume. Mrs. Rich asked how trucks and loads would go in and out; Mr. Greer replied that most of the business would be out Standish/North Windham/North Gorham Road and most likely the return trips as well, that the Public Works Director felt that empty trucks could use Wilson Road and loaded trucks would come from North Gorham Road. Mrs. Rich asked if something could be done to deal with engine break noise; Mr. Grant indicated that perhaps signs could be put up in residential areas. Mr. Rich stated that he would like to speak at a public hearing on the matter. He indicated he would be happy to meet with Mr. Greer and that he
would allow the applicant to test his well. Mr. Boyce stated he would like to make sure that there is a venue available for the neighbors to negotiate with the applicant on operational constraints such as screening hours, perhaps with staff, even before the application comes back before the Board again, and suggested that Mr. Rich speak to staff.
Scott Balcolm, 98 Wilson Road, asked what the time line was for the application and how many meetings might be left. Ms. Fossum responded that the applicant was present to get feedback from the Board and to hear comments from the public in order to complete its application. Once the application was submitted, there was no set time line. The Planning Board would hold a hearing and it was possible the Board could take action on the application at the same time, or, depending on what issues might be raised, another meeting could be scheduled. But there would be at least one more meeting on the issue.
Janice Lebrecque, 13 Hurricane Road, expressed her concern for the problems farmers have in the use of their land and the delicate blending required to embrace and preserve large tracts of land.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Parker commended the applicant for his responsiveness to the site walk questions, especially the drilling of test wells, creation of a topographic map to show how the pit would look, and dealing with sound pollution issues with the construction of a berm. Ms. Robie concurred with Mr. Parker and stated she believed that the reclamation of the land would improve the Town of Gorham. She indicated that she hoped the Riches and the other abutters could work out mutually agreeable operational methods so that it could go forward. Mr. Neily asked if the reclamation would be complete within five years; Mr. Greer responded that five years was their best estimate and that they would begin the reclamation with the area near Hurricane Road. Mr. Neily indicated that the expansion of the pit to 2.9 acres,
which the current applicant had nothing to do with, was in violation of the code as it should have been only 1.8 acres. Mr. Grant expressed concerns about what kind of equipment was going to be hauled and whether the road would be able to accommodate it; he also inquired about what kind of screen would be used. Mr. Shiers indicated a concern about tire sweeping and plans for a wider entrance. Mr. Grant indicated he did not believe a tractor-trailer would be appropriate on Hurricane Road and suggested that the applicant re-think that. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Greer about the use of the tree stumps resulting from the pit expansion; Mr. Greer replied that they would be used in the berm. Mr. Grant and Mr. Shiers indicated they did not believe that was good practice near a dug well; Mr. Grant asked the applicant to think that stump usage over. Mr. Grant stated he believed that the 4:1 or 5:1 slope was a much better solution to control erosion. In
connection with the 5 year reclamation figure, Mr. Grant asked Mr. Greer to come back with a lifetime figure so that in the event someone went out of business there would not be a bigger hole in the ground. Mr. Greer agreed to do so. Discussion concluded at 8:25 PM.
6. DISCUSSION/PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN Discuss preliminary plan application for a 13-lot subdivision on 26.81 acres off Fort Hill Road. Zoned Rural; Map 85/Lot 17.
Mr. Hughes stated that he had reviewed the package sent by staff on this item and believes that he can participate.
Aaron Shields stated that he is an abutter to this project and has not been involved in the Department
Lester Berry of BH2M appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Berry stated that after a site walk in early December, when they started on their proposal, the title opinion revealed that they did not own Hackmatack Road as they originally had thought, so they proposed a 1300 foot road from Route 114 with a future connection to Plummer Road (an old town road). However, staff recommended a connection to Hackmatack Way, so a solution was envisioned whereby a loop would be created by Hackmatack Way being offered to Inland Development. Inland would want the road brought up to speed with regard to gravel, drainage ditches and the owners assuming their proportional share of the cost of the water main extension with Inland doing the paving. Another solution would be to simply end the public road at that
point. Applicant is requesting direction from the Board on how to proceed on this item first.
Mr. Neily asked if Mr. Berry and Inland had shared their plan with the owners on Hackmatack; Mr. Berry replied that they had not approached anyone but would certainly discuss the issue if the owners wanted to participate but wanted to get direction from the Board first. Mr. Neily emphasized that Inland must also participate; Mr. Berry agreed that it would. The Board concurred that a looped road would be preferable and directed Mr. Berry to arrange a meeting with staff and the abutters to discuss the matter. Staff and the applicant need to review possible legal ramifications that may be involved should the road not be turned over in its entirety to the Town. In discussing the grading of Annieslopes cut at 3:1, most slopes will be off the Town road right of way, slope easements will not be necessary as the road will be built before the lots are sold, the road would not be offered to the Town until the slopes are stabilized and finished, and all drives will be graded out. Mr. Berry stated that the maintenance easement to the detention ponds, which they will re-work, will be reached by a spur road connecting to Plummer Road. The spur would have to be a public road for future use and the developer would grade out Plummer Road. They are not claiming any ownership to Plummer Road and will leave their boundary line at the edge. Mr. Berry stated that the Portland Water District review indicated that the water system comes out of Standish. The pressure at the hydrant where the connection will be made is 100 psi; each house will have to have a pressure-reducing valve. PWD believes that as water comes downhill into the project the psi could
reach 120. PWD will allow the applicant to extend it.
Applicant did submit its plan to CMP, which said that perpendicular crossings would be best and that it would be reviewing the plan again after preliminary approval from the Town. Connection to trails would be at Plummer Road. Mr. Parker expressed an interest in seeing how drives and building envelopes would cross the CMP easement; Mr. Berry indicated that no drives or building envelopes would be located in the CMP easement.
Ms. Fossum stated that the item was placed on the Agenda for discussion purposes only, mainly so that the developer could get some feedback. The threshold question dealt with looping the road through Hackmatack way, and she would be happy to meet with the abutters, Mr. Berry and the Town attorney to try to work something through. Had the Board been concerned about the proposed grading and slopes along the roadway, she would have facilitated a meeting with the Public Works director and Tom Saucier, the consulting engineer reviewing the plans, but the plan presented by Mr. Berry sounds reasonable and the issue should disappear. She is pleased to know that individual lot grading plans will be provided with the application as the design moves forward, and believes that the other issues were well
addressed and will be reviewed again by staff as the revised plan comes in.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
David Seehusen, 2 Hackmatack Way, abutter on Hackmatack, expressed his concern about being required to pay costs of upgrading the road, but indicated he would be willing to meet with the developer and staff to discuss the matter. When Mr. Neily inquired if all the abutters were on private wells; Mr. Seemusen concurred.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Parker asked if Mr. Berry felt he had sufficient direction from the Board to proceed to the next phase of the process; Mr. Berry replied that if the abutters do not want to participate, then they need advice from the Town attorney as to how to proceed. Mr. Neily indicated he felt that it would be in the abuttersgravel has not been graded, and the ditches are incomplete and unstable. He would want the abutters to bring the gravel and the ditches up to what they were supposed to have been. Mr. Boyce stated it would be beneficial for the applicant to investigate what sort of expense is involved and to do the homework. Mr. Grant said he believed that the section of road is an ideal place to build a road and get the potential of two additional lots, which could take care of upgrading cost, and he would like the applicant to take a look at that. Board concurred that its consensus is to pursue the loop road option. Mr. Berry stated that he understood the Board
Stretch Break 8:50 to 9:05 PM
Mr. Parker moved that the ten o
7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION Discuss proposed 6-lot subdivision and 1,050
Mr. Hughes indicated that he had reviewed the package provided by staff and would like to participate in the discussion.
Wayne T. Wood, surveyor, appeared on behalf of the applicant to present a revised road plan to accommodate the Board
Aaron Shields, Assistant Planner, stated that staff had had a chance to review the new proposal. He said that the applicant found it could not locate the entrance as originally presented to the Board in the November 11, 2001 proposal to meet design standards of the ordinance with street intersection distance as well as grade and site distance, so they now plan to obtain an easement from the abutter to bring the road down further. He stated that this new proposal goes much further in meeting the standards of the ordinance and the design standards for street intersections. He said that the private way will access the property over the abutting landownerat the new proposed entrance. If at that time the Board is more comfortable with the new location applicant will put together a new application for preliminary approval. The proposal is being reviewed only as a pre-application. Staff has spoken to the applicant about rural land management calculations, location of the road in regard to flood plain, and shoreland zoning, but believes that there is ample space for the building envelopes and the applicant is well on the way to working on the details. So far as the fire pond is concerned, we have seen pictures that the fire pond fills up quickly after each rain, and this new proposal could increase the pond level by directing sheet flow from the road and the ditches into the pond. Mr. Shields indicated that the fire chief would like to see if during the construction the side slopes and berm around it could be increased to elevate the capacity even further, since the bottom of the pond is ledge and
cannot be excavated.
Mr. Boyce suggested that this location is convenient to a site walk for South Street and should probably go before the South Street site walk. Mr. Neily indicated some concern about the placement of building envelopes on the site due to the presence of wetlands. Mr. Shields replied that the applicant has shown some possible building envelopes on the site, but these may change if the road is reconfigured or once they determine where and if there is flood plain or shoreland zoning or stream protection associated with the wetlands. They have some flexibility. Mr. Shields indicated that the fire pond easement is included in this land. Concurring with Mr. Neilyconcluded at 9:15 PM.
8. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN Discuss proposed change of use and new parking lot at 134 School Street. Zoned Urban Residential; Map 101/Lot 8.
Dwight D. Anderson, P.E., of DeLuca-Hoffman Associates, appeared on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the application, which is to utilize the 134 School Street site as office space and construct a new parking lot of 90 spaces, with a proposed access drive which will come at the existing area by the McClellan House and which will route through and tie back in with the residence hall access at Campus Avenue. The project will be kept away from the stream by the required 25 feet, it will meet the required set backs from the property line for the parking area, and sidewalks will be incorporated. The septic system for 134 School Street will be taken out of service, the septic tank will be filled, and 134 will be connected to the public sewer and its driveway eliminated. Storm water will be handled in the
same manner as the residence hall with a water quality unit in the lower corner of the site and discharge to the existing drainage channel. A new driveway culvert will be installed and lighting will be also incorporated into the project. The intent is to have the project done some time in August.
In response to a question from Mr. Parker to describe the lighting, which way it is directed and its intensity, Mr. Anderson replied that while the actual design is not done, the intention is to meet standards to prevent spill with cutoffs to keep light away from School Street. The applicant will hire an electrical consultant and power will come from either the residence hall or the twin towers.
Aaron Shields, Assistant Planner, stated that the applicant is present for a pre-application conference so a site walk could be scheduled if necessary. The property to the rear of 134 School is the proposed site for the 90 space parking lot, and as part of the approval, the applicant would be asking for a change of use of the single family residence into some type of administrative offices. They propose to eliminate one entrance on Route 114, which comes out of 134 School Street, and then upgrade the entrance at McClellan House to accommodate the parking lot traffic. This lot would be connected to the existing entrance and exit way of the new dormitory and when it is appropriate staff would ask that any modifications be reviewed carefully with regard to site distance, draining, grading, and current
roadway conditions. The Public Works director and the Police Chief have not yet commented but are expected. Internal and existing traffic patterns need to be reviewed carefully. The applicant needs to show that its lighting will not affect the residences on Route 114.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None offered.
When Mr. Neily inquired what parking costs students; Mr. David Early, USM, responded that it is $35 per year for students and that beginning this fall, all students will be required to pay the fee as part of their tuition.
Mr. Boyce commented that it is appropriate at this time to comment that with the continued growth of the University property, we should think about some improvements to 114 and question whether this new parking should not be served with internal access only getting its access from the existing Campus Avenue and perhaps giving consideration to upgrading the intersection of Campus Avenue and 114 to accommodate it as the major University entrance that it is. Mr. Grant agreed with Mr. Boyce and suggested that the issue be evaluated at the site walk. Ms. Robie asked what size the parking spaces would be; Mr. Anderson replied that they would be 9 by 18 feet. Mr. Grant indicated that a site walk would be scheduled. Discussion concluded at 9:30 PM.
9. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION & PRIVATE WAY Discuss proposed 3-lot subdivision and private way on 5.59 acres off Brookwood Drive. Zoned Suburban Residential; Map 96/Lot 1.004.
Lester Berry of BH2M made the presentation on behalf of the applicant, stating that the access to the 5.59-acre parcel of land is through an easement obtained from Brookwood Subdivision and also has access on Nason Road, which is right down a CMP easement. However, CMP does not want a driveway going parallel to the power lines. Applicant is present to hear comments and request a site walk.
Aaron Shields, Assistant Planner, summarized the staff report as follows: in the late l990s, a similar proposal was presented which failed but now is back again. This proposal is basically a 3-lot subdivision with a private way coming off Brookwood Drive, across the conservation land that was part of Brookwood subdivision. The acreage has as 50-foot strip of land connected with Nason Road, but due to access problems with CMP the applicant cannot get permission from CMP to build a roadway there. Back in the 90s there were some problems about the [Brookwood Subdivision] easement and the strip of land, but after many hours of research, review and attorneyfrom the original grantor and developer of Brookwood subdivision, giving the applicant the right to construct this roadway over that easement or strip of land to serve no more than 3 residential units. In the past the applicant was told that permission would be needed from MDEP to construct a roadway over the conservation land in that MDEP was a third party grantee as part of the conservation easement, which qualified it as exempt under MDEP Site Location Regulations. MDEP has now said that regardless of the status of that conservation easement, they have no issues with the private way crossing over the conservation land because MDEP never accepted third party grantee of that conservation land.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jeremy Hammond, 69 Brookwood Drive, expressed concern about the possible violation of the conservation easement, limitation of future access, and possible traffic problems.
David Tukey, end of Nason Road, expressed concern about the new subdivision
Michael Hearn, Nason Road, expressed concern about wetlands and the development overall and asked the Board to keep an especial eye on this project.
Jeff Johnson, Nason Road, expressed concern about drainage and wetland issues.
Jack Donovan, 21 Nason Road, expressed concern about traffic flow and project development.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant directed the staff to schedule a site walk for this project. Discussion concluded at 10:00 PM.
10. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION Discuss revised concept plan for a 45-unit housing development (11 multi unit structures) on 107.8-acres off Barstow Road. Zoned Suburban Residential; Map 87/Lots 21&22.
Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham & Greer, presented the revised plan on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Greer highlighted the following: applicant will perform a phase one environment site assessment with test pits to determine potential contamination or hazardous material on site to handle disposal correctly; the applicant will provide a nitrate impact analysis, as this site will have an on-site septic system for the entire community located in an area with the best soils; the site will have public water supplied to it; all buildings will be sprinkled; will be putting in a booster pump station to provide better water pressure to the project, which will be temporary so far as PWD is concerned as they plan to put in a booster pump station on Barstow Road that will service the entire road; and lastly, the applicant
is proposing to provide funds to the Town of Gorham to help improve the condition of Barstow Road as part of their impact contribution. Mr. Greer stated that all of the homes in the area are very visible so high visibility fits in with the character of the neighborhood; therefore, some of the proposed buildings will be open and obvious, but they plan to put more units back in behind the woods to provide some buffering and spread the units out. Units are not yet designed but the plan is for small cottage and farmhouse style.
Mr. Greer noted they anticipate landscaping and walking paths to break up the visual mass of the buildings themselves, and storm water management in the form of man-made wetlands to both provide flow control as well as water quality enhancement. He noted that the biggest change is extending the road with a cul-de-sac at the end. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Greer identified two access roads, one being an access easement on top of the ridge for Portland Water District to get to their pipeline; and two, the beginning of a pedestrian easement to get to the Mountain Division Trail.
Aaron Shields, Assistant Planner, summarized the staff report, noting that after the site walk on February 2 and the applicantmore closely about this if the project proceeds to come to some idea of how much more would be needed to improve Barstow Road to accommodate the 45 units. Mr. Shields indicated that Mr. Greer did not address the question of viability of the project and its salability. Mr. Shields said that if the Board is not satisfied with the proposed multi family performance standards or it wants to consider other options they can certainly request that the applicant explore some other development concepts to be submitted for further review.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
George Skillin, 157 Barstow Road, concerned about the applicant
Donald Adams, 139 Barstow Road, expressed dissatisfaction with the project overall.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily stated he believes that the project is out of scale to the surroundings, would create a lot of traffic, and he would not endorse the project until Barstow Road is being properly re-built. He also stated that a very real environmental problem could exist which would be costly to eliminate. Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Greer to explain a graphic the Board members received; Mr. Greer described the graphic as showing the visual impact of the original project. Mr. Boyce said he believed the graphic was a helpful visual tool and went on record to say that he believed that the door should be kept open for review of the project, that it was possible for it to come into conformance, and that architectural treatment and landscaping can control the appearance of the common areas. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Greer
to provide a graphic as to what the modified view would be in the revised plan showing both a low point and the top of Barstow Road, and added that this project is different than the usual subdivision plan the Board has considered, because it would maintain the area as country and recreational amenities would be preserved. Mr. Grant indicated that he had concerns with site visibility at Barstow Road intersections and the condition of Barstow Road and stated he could not support the project until Barstow Road was improved. Ms. Robie concurred with Mr. Grant and stated that she felt the project did not fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Shiers expressed concern that the project would be a “hard sell.” Following further discussion about topographic constraints and building scale, Mr. Greer stated that he would discuss the matter once more with his client. [10:55 PM]
11. ADJOURNMENT
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. [10:55 PM]
Respectfully submitted,
___________________
Barbara Skinner
Secretary to the Board
April 4, 2002
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - “PARK SOUTH” Approved
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is limited to the specific amendment requested and is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant 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. All other applicable conditions of approval attached to the original site plan approval shall remain fully in effect; and
3. That these conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
