 |
Town of Gorham
July 22, 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
DOUGLAS BOYCE AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
THOMAS HUGHES BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
CLARK NEILY
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The secretary called the roll and all Board members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Meeting of July 1, 2002.
Harold Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to postpone approval of the minutes to the next meeting. Motion CARRIED 7-0. [7:04 p.m.]
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT-“GORHAM HANNAFORD” Request for minor amendment to eliminate the esplanade and construct the sidewalk at the curb line along Main Street. Zoned Urban Commercial (UC); M102/L149&155.
B. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT “HEARTWOOD” Request for amendment to the approved building envelope for the locations of homes. (Zoned Suburban Residential (SR); Map 117/Lots 1-78.
The Chairman indicated that it had been suggested that these two items be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT-“GORHAM HANNAFORD” Request for minor amendment to eliminate the esplanade and construct the sidewalk at the curb line along Main Street. Zoned Urban Commercial (UC); M102/L149&155.
Douglas Boyce stated that he had recused himself from prior discussions on this item in the past and would step down again.
Susan Robie MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to remove Item A off the Consent Agenda. Motion CARRIED 6-0. (Douglas Boyce abstaining) [7:04 p.m.]
The Town Planner, Deborah Fossum, explained that this is a request of the Town as a result of some of the work going on along Main Street. Ms. Fossum suggested that the Public Works Director address the Board to discuss the work being done and the reason for the requested amendment.
Gary Lorfano, Public Works Director, explained that when the project was approved, the Town began using the Main Street Implementation Funds to work with this developer and Gorham Savings Bank, and Design Dwellings in the future, to upgrade the curbing and sidewalks along Main Street, and indicated that a section of hot top curb from Rite Aid to Gray Road will be replaced by the Town with granite curb; that the Hannaford project has granite curbing and concrete sidewalks along Railroad and Mechanic coming out on to Main Street, but did not include anything in front of the Mobil Station, and went up to the property line at Subway. Mr. Lorfano indicated that new drainage has been installed in conjunction with the Hannaford project from the intersection of Mechanic Street to in front of CookHardware prior to the paving by the State. He said that the Town has decided to put granite curbing and sidewalk in front of the Mobil Station, in front of Subway, in front of Design Dwellings, and is looking to extend the sidewalk from Key Bank in front of Po-Go to match into the brick sidewalk, with the hope that in the future in the Village the curb could be replaced with granite at all four corners and replace the brick sidewalk with concrete. He indicated the request tonight involved coming along the corner around the Mobil Station, that Hannafordreasonable opportunity to request that the Board look at putting the sidewalk in the two short areas on each side of the Hannaford entrance on the curb line to allow more loam and seed on the back side of the sidewalk. He said his concern is if in the future the area could not be maintained, it would have to be replaced with concrete, giving a 9 foot sidewalk in those areas.
Mr. Shiers asked how wide the esplanade would be. Mr. Lorfano replied that in front of the tree, from the back of the curb to the face of the tree is about 8-1/2 feet, so a 5 foot sidewalk would make it very tight, maybe about 4 feet. Mr. Shiers asked Mr. Lorfano to confirm the size of the section from the Hannaford entrance to the Mobil Station to the east; Mr. Lorfano indicated perhaps 50 to 55 feet, and going to the west there is about 140 feet total with the tree in the middle, which would make two 55-60 feet sections. Ms. Robie asked what would happen in front of Subway; Mr. Lorfano replied that the sidewalk would be placed on the curb in that area. Ms. Robie asked whose decision it was to place the sidewalk on the curb; Mr. Lorfano replied that it was his and the Town
Managerbehind the hydrant to make sure ADA requirements are met, and that it will also be necessary to widen behind the mast arms of the new signal light system. Mr. Grant commented that on both sides of Main Street toward Gray Road there is some kind of esplanade except in front of Cumberland Farms, and he believed that it should be done according to plan. Mr. Grant referred to the re-striping of Main Street and that it is now more dangerous for a pedestrian to walk being so close to the street, and if the esplanade fails, then it can be replaced with concrete. Ms. Robie said that more consistency would be achieved if the esplanade is put in in front of Subway as well. Mr. Hughes stated that it appeared to be a trade off of whether the ease of maintenance was worth the trade off in safety. Mr. Grant polled the Board and said there were two choices: to move the sidewalk out next to the granite curbing or build according to plan. Mr. Parker stated
that he favored leaving it the way it was planned with the esplanade; Mr. Shiers concurred, stating that it should be as originally planned in the Comprehensive Plan, all the way to Elm Street, and that the standards in the Code should be maintained; Mr. Hughes said he preferred the esplanade as outlined in the plan; Mr. Grant, Mr. Neily, and Ms. Robie concurred, with Ms. Robie saying she would like to see the esplanade go all the way to Elm Street and around the Mobil Station as well, which the Town is adding.
Michael Parker MOVED and Harold Neily SECONDED a motion to grant the Town
Ms. Robie asked about the esplanade in front of Subway; Mr. Grant stated that it was Mr. Lorfanoshould pursue the matter with Hannaford.
Mr. Boyce resumed his place with the Board.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
B. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT “HEARTWOOD” Request for amendment to the approved building envelope for the locations of homes. (Zoned Suburban Residential (SR); Map 117/Lots 1-78.
Mr. Hughes asked to be recused from discussion of this item and the next Agenda item involving Heartwood.
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Parker SECONDED a motion to recuse Thomas Hughes from the discussions of Consent Agenda Item B and Planning Board Agenda Item 3. Motion CARRIED. 6-0 (Thomas Hughes abstaining). [7:20 p.m.]
Susan Robie MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to remove Item B from the Consent Agenda. Motion CARRIED 6-0 (Thomas Hughes abstaining). [7:21 p.m.]
Ms. Fossum presented the staff report. She stated that in a cluster subdivision such as Heartwood, the Board is allowed to approve reduced set back and lot frontages and lot areas in the development in exchange for certain design considerations that the developer provides. The developer originally proposed, along with reduced lot sizes, reduced building envelopes in order to create a certain neighborhood effect. As indicated in the applicantapproved by the Board and recorded at the Registry of Deeds, and that Ms. Fossum and the Town Attorney have developed two sets of alternative language, the first of which would allow the Code Enforcement Officer to make a determination of where a building could be located on the lot at the time a building permit is pulled, and the second of which would allow the Town Planner to actually grant de minimus change approval to the applicant on a lot-by-lot basis as circumstances seem to require. She said that in the second proposed language, the decision could be written in a de minimus change decision document that could be recorded at the Registry and be on record for the future.
The two proposed language options are:
1. “The building envelopes shown on the plan depict preferred locations for the single family residences to be constructed on the lots in the Heartwood Subdivision. However, where topographic or other natural conditions prevent or limit the construction of a dwelling unit in the preferred location on the lot, the dwelling unit may be constructed outside of the depicted building envelope provided that the setback requirements of the Suburban Residential District as modified by the original approval for the clustered development and listed in the Zone Information Table are met.”
2. “Where the applicant for a building permit in the Heartwood Subdivision is able to demonstrate to the Town Planner that topographic or other natural conditions prevent or limit the construction of a dwelling unit within the depicted building envelope, the dwelling unit may be shifted outside of the depicted building envelope the minimum amount necessary to allow the construction of the residence, provided that no change shall be permitted that is not in compliance with the setback requirements of the Suburban Residential District as modified by the original approval for the Clustered development and listed in the Zone Information Table and the Town Planner shall issue a document approving the de minimus change, which
document shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds by the property owner.”
Ms. Fossum also said that the Code Officer has stated that he would permit accessory structures to be outside the restricted building envelope but within the overall zoning envelope of the lot.
Susan Duchaine, SOLD, Inc., advised the Board that the concept of Heartwood was to hold the houses close to the road to give as much of a neighborhood feel as possible. She said that in the final drawing of the plans, however, there came back envelope lines which in some cases are 60 to 70 feet from the back line, which do not take into account the building of larger houses. She said that in some cases, there is a half acre lot but they have limited themselves to a 70 foot house, and in other cases ledge has been encountered and the house could not be put back further because of the back envelope line so the house was placed closer to the road with a steeper driveway. She indicated that in some instances potential buyers have simply opted for smaller houses. Ms. Duchaine indicated
that she was not in favor of a case-by-case decision process and that she felt her language was more appropriate in clarifying in the Registry that although the intent of the subdivision is to follow the building envelopes set forth by the developer and approved by the Board, the prevailing set back would be what the Board granted, 35 feet in the front and 15 feet on the sides and rear. She said that some of the envelopes are 70
Mr. Grant and Mr. Shiers discussed the question of putting the envelopes on the plans, that it was not intended to place restrictions on the applicant, and that if the set backs of 35 feet in the front and 15 feet from the sidelines were met, the remaining part of the lots could be built on. Mr. Shiers referred to some of the lots which are wide in the front but which taper dramatically toward the rear, which limit the size of a house that can be built on them, and said that as long as the set backs were met, he was more than willing for the applicant to use what portion of the lot was available. Mr. Grant said his memory was that when a cluster development concept comes before the Board, the Board negotiates the setbacks with the developer, the setbacks are not specifically written in the
Code, and that the building envelopes were put on the plans to show that the lots had big enough areas for decent sized houses to be built on them, but that it was not the intent to prevent the developer from moving a house to a better part of a lot should ledge or other adverse terrain be encountered. Mr. Shiers asked Ms. Duchaine if she had surveyed and widened out the lot sizes when the number of lots dropped from 83 to 78; she replied that she had, and the back envelope line is the problem, that it can be 60 or 70 feet away from the 15-foot rear set back.
Ms. Fossum passed to the Board an illustration from a standard zoning dictionary showing a building envelope. She explained that on all of the plans that are reviewed, subdivision plans show a lot line, and within the lot lines the building envelope is always portrayed by a dashed line, and that is why the Board requested some sort of schematic showing that there was suitable area on each lot for a building. A discussion of the two alternate language proposals established that the Code Enforcement Officer would make the decision under the first suggested language proposal, and the Town Planner would make the decision under the second proposal, that the second proposed language provides more protection for some property owners in that the decision would be recorded in the Registry of Deeds,
but that the second proposal would in fact slow down the building process. Ms. Duchaine said she believed that either of the two proposals would create a title attorneysurvey, wherein a house is located within a lot, and if one is shown not as indicated in the Registry, then the surveyor needs to determine if in fact the inconsistency has been properly documented, whereas her suggested language would be one document recorded that applies to the subdivision so a title lawyer or a surveyor would have all the necessary information on the subdivision plans. Mr. Parker indicated he favored giving the developer reasonable latitude in the simplest way possible; he read Ms. Duchainesaid she could live with the first proposal of having the Code Enforcement Officer make a determination. Ms. Fossum explained her belief that the second proposal would resolve several title concerns in that a document would be recorded in the Registry about a specific lot and would be clear documentation that a lot had in fact been reviewed and approved by the staff. Mr. Grant indicated that he did not favor the Planning Department getting involved as it would be too cumbersome. Ms. Duchaine rejected a suggestion by Ms. Fossum that the plans be re-drawn for the as-yet unsold lots. Mr. Parker stated that he believed that the first proposal could be used but it should not be a blanket release, and that it would apply to topographic requirements and a desire to build a larger house, to which the Board members concurred. Several suggestions were made by Mr. Parker, Mr. Boyce, and Mr. Grant to amend the first proposal. Accordingly, a recess was taken to
allow Ms. Fossum to re-draft the first proposed language. [8:21 p.m.]
Board Recesses until 8:41 p.m.
Ms. Fossum read the proposed new language as follows:
“The building envelopes shown on the plan depict preferred locations for the dwelling units. However, where the Code Enforcement Officer determines that topographic or other natural conditions prevent or limit the construction of a dwelling unit in the preferred location on the lot, or where a larger building is desired, the dwelling unit may be constructed outside of the building envelope provided that the setback requirements of the Suburban Residential District as modified by the original approval for the clustered development and listed in the Zone Information Table are met.”
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED the following amendment to the Heartwood Subdivision Plan, to read as follows: “The building envelopes shown on the plan depict preferred locations for the dwelling units. However, where the Code Enforcement Officer determines topographic or other natural conditions prevent or limit the construction of a dwelling unit in the preferred location on the lot, or where a larger building is desired, the dwelling unit may be constructed outside of the building envelope provided that the setback requirements of the Suburban Residential District as modified by the original approval for the clustered development and listed in the Zone Information Table are met.” Motion CARRIED 6-0 (Thomas Hughes abstaining). [8:42 p.m.]
3. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment to condition of approval requiring construction of sidewalk along South Street. Zoned Suburban Residential (SR); Map 117/Lots 1-78.
Ms. Fossum presented a review of the amendment request, stating that when the Heartwood subdivision was approved by the Board, there was a Condition of Approval requiring the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of South Street between Weeks Road and Quincy Drive (formerly known as Darren Drive) with a granite curb and appropriate drainage and the construction of a sidewalk from the intersection of South Street along Quincy Drive into the subdivision. She stated that the applicant returned to the Board some 6 months ago indicating that the required construction along 114 would be difficult and costly to perform and various agencies such as the MDOT were not enthused about the project, and requested an amendment. She said that the Board held a site walk in April and indicated to the applicant that
they would like to see a plan designed for sidewalks at the back of the right-of-way, which has been presented to the Board. She indicated that the Town
Mr. Neily commented that the Board recognized that installing 1800 feet of granite curb, filling in the ditch, installing drainage, and building a sidewalk is a very challenging and costly undertaking, and he wondered if the plan could be only for sidewalks and have some of Weeks Road paved instead, which could result in substantial savings to the developer. Mr. Grant asked if the applicant had a cost estimate for installing sidewalks being located behind the drainage ditch; Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, Inc., the applicantSouth Street, with water sheeting off, so there is no way to direct the water to a series of catch basins, and the present plan is designed to provide pedestrian safety. Ms. Duchaine replied to Mr. Grantpedestrians further away from South Street, and that drainage is a problem, and that he is in favor of the proposal with a caveat he would introduce later. Mr. Boyce concurred with Mr. Parker in that the current proposal fulfills the function of pedestrian accommodation which the Board seeks, and that the Board is looking to respect the fact that when the original application was granted, the applicant would have funded the cost of the previously proposed sidewalk 100% but in modifying the proposal to the current one, the cost is less, so that the Board is looking to have the project made whole by having improvements made, including the sidewalks, to give the full value of what was originally presented. He said that the scope of some items, such as internal sidewalks, were deleted within the project and the BoardBoyce said that if the originally proposed sidewalk plan would have cost $100,000 and the current plan costs $70,000, then there should be $30,000 offered for other improvements. Mr. Grant said that the Board was trying to get a reasonable cost from the developer for infrastructure needs for both Heartwood and Park South Condominiums that the development is responsible for requiring, such as the sidewalk, and the improvement of Weeks Road, which currently is a dirt road but which the development is causing to have to be paved. Mr. Grant said that while the Board considered the improvement of Weeks Road, it did not require it of the developer in light of the extensive work that the original South Street sidewalks would have entailed. Mr. Grant said he concurred with what other Board members said that if the applicant would pave Weeks Road, which he believed the Public Works Director has estimated the Weeks Road work at a cost of $38,000, and the present sidewalk
plan costing $70,000, he would agree with the applicant
Ms. Duchaine said that while the Board might see her saving $25,000 on sidewalk installation, she saw herself spending $70,000 on sidewalks which she never intended to spend to begin with. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the proposed impact fees and building permit fees, that the Town was trying to get something for nothing, that the Town hadn
Mr. Parker stated that impact fees were not on the agenda for discussion and the Board should continue with its deliberations about the sidewalks and Weeks Road. Mr. Grant agreed and reminded the Board that the Code is applied to all projects which come before it, and if a development causes a need for new infrastructure, that is the Boardgranite curbing, storm drains, an esplanade and sidewalks. Mr. Grant said that the originally planned sidewalk was to go in and connect with existing sidewalks within the subdivision as well. Ms. Fossum concurred. Mr. Boyce spoke of the specific elements of infrastructure removed from the project prior to final approval in order that the developer be able to offer the sidewalk along South Street that the Board was looking for, which was deemed more important than duplicative interior sidewalks. Mr. Parker said he would grant approval of the modification to the sidewalk plan if it is offered along with the paving of Weeks Road, and if Weeks Road is not going to be included in the package, then he would favor staying with the original sidewalk plan. Mr. Boyce indicated a certain neutrality about the developer needing to pave Weeks Road, and indicated that in order to retain the value originally granted to the project, he would be satisfied if perhaps
some of the interior infrastructure could be added back in to the project, in addition to the current proposed sidewalk plan, and the Town could use its own resources to take care of Weeks Road in its own time frame. Ms. Robie said that she was not a member of the Board when the original proposal was reviewed but she had listened to the tapes, that there were three or four sections of sidewalk that were omitted when the agreement was made to put in the South Street sidewalk, and that she favors the modified plan with either the paving of Weeks Road or restoration of some of the interior infrastructure to “come back to where the deal was made.” Mr. Grant summarized the Boardpaved, and (3) everyone agrees that if neither (1) or (2) can be met, then the original sidewalk plan will prevail. Mr. Boyce agreed with Mr. Grant
Ms. Duchaine reminded the Board that the Towncover the needed upgrade of Weeks Road including drainage improvements. Mr. Berry said that without seeing the calculations, he suspected that $38,000 was a little heavy for just pavement, that there was probably some other work involved, and that more inspection of the road would be required. Mr. Parker said that since there seems to be a majority on the Board who favor include paving Weeks Road in a final decision, he would recommend that the item be tabled until there is a definitive answer from the Townpreparatory work if the Board wants to pursue the option of the sidewalk behind the ditch and the paving of Weeks Road; Ms. Duchaine said she would not agree and would have to go back and re-bid her sidewalks and review putting the sidewalks back into the subdivision. She also said that the easements to the right-of-way are not in place to build the sidewalk behind the ditch, which would prevent building the sidewalk on South Street. Mr. Grant said that 4 members of the Board favor the modified sidewalk plan with the paving of Weeks Road and the applicant wants to know who would prepare Weeks Road for paving, so that information would need to be obtained. Mr. Grant also said that the question of easements along South Street needs to be pursued for either location of the sidewalks, but staff needs to know which sidewalk option will be chosen. Mr. Boyce said he believed the Board needed to provide the application with the direction of pursuing the current
sidewalk option so the staff can pursue the easement question, and in the meantime the applicant can continue to refine costs estimates for both the sidewalk and other infrastructure as it may see fit to offer in addition to the sidewalk. Mr. Grant disagreed with Mr. Boyce
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to table this item until the next meeting of the Planning Board. DISCUSSION: Mr. Grant stated that the purpose of tabling the item is to evaluate what is necessary to pave Weeks Road, who would pay any additional costs outside of the paving, and to look into easements for putting the sidewalks behind the ditch. Mr. Neily and Mr. Parker concurred. Motion CARRIED 5-1 (Richard Shiers) and (Hughes abstaining). [9:20 p.m.]
Mr. Hughes returned to his place with the Board.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to waive the 10:00 o
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION - off STRAW ROAD Request for final plan approval of a 4-lot subdivision on 19 acres off Straw Road. Zoned Rural (R); Map 5/Lots 21.
John Kuchinski, P.E., BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the application, requesting final approval.
Aaron Shields, the Planning Assistant, presented the staff report and stated that the plan has gone through final revisions and staff is satisfied with the plan and the Review Engineer is satisfied. He said that problems involving the fire pond no longer exist as all the houses will be sprinkled, and the Fire Chief is satisfied. The flood plain issue has been worked out, with the applicant having performed the entire required study, there is a flood plain elevation, and all the standard notes have been added to the plan. He said that in the Conditions of Approval there are requirements concerning the 100-year flood plain and which certification needs to be met with the Code Enforcement Officer, and there is a Condition of Approval requiring that all the driveway ends be paved.
Mr. Parker asked about lot 4
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to grant Pines of Portland
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - “AUTUMN BROOK” Request for preliminary plan approval of a 3-lot subdivision and private way off Brookwood Drive. Zoned Suburban Residential/Manufactured Housing (SR-MH); Map 96/Lot 1.004.
Timothy O. Brown, P.E., BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Kevin Allen, who was also present. Mr. Brown stated that they had met with the Review Engineer and staff to iron out any problems. He said that a nitrate study had been performed by Gillespie for the test pits shown, and should the buyer of a lot want to change those locations, they will have to go back through Gillespie to see if alternate locations can be used. Mr. Brown indicated that Mark Hampton had provided the wetlands delineation and within the right-of-way is an area of about 500 or 600 square feet which is the only wetlands delineated on the lot. Mr. Brown indicated that storm water considerations have been reviewed by the Review Engineer, and the drainage plans have been modified to include two infiltration
areas, one of which provides for chambers underneath the road, plastic chambers with collection pipes will put the water into the ground and no water will be going off site. He said no wetlands will be dried up. Mr. Brown indicated that discussions with the Fire Chief have been held and they have recently received survey information on the length of the roadway where fire protection requirements are 2000 feet to the house, and from the existing hydrant, it is 1940 feet to the end of the private way, so two of the lots could possibly meet the 2000 foot requirement within the building envelopes. Mr. Brown said that while it is not reflected in the current plan, should the third lot not meet the 2000-foot requirement, the house would have to be sprinkled. Mr. Grant asked if the Fire Chief was satisfied with the applicantthat applies to the entire home or the lot limit, but Mr. Shields said it is his recollection that the home has to be located within that 2000 feet. Should that be the case, and one of the lots is not located within the 2000 feet, Mr. Shields said it can be taken care of simply by requiring that house to be sprinkled. Mr. Shields said that an envelope needs to be placed on the plan which would probably encompass even the lot next door, as well as a plan note.
Mr. Shields presented the staff report, stating that the private way is to be located within the strip of land which crosses through Brookwood Subdivision, which was reserved as conservation land, that the applicant since the last meeting has negotiated with Gorham Trails and has a written agreement with Gorham Trails to be allowed to cross over that with his improvements and has shown that he has sufficient right to cross over this easement by way of an agreement with the developer of Brookwood Subdivision. Mr. Shields referred to some of the issues which arose at the April 17 site walk, one of which was the nitrate analysis, which has been done, showing that the nitrate plumes do not cross over any of the property lines, but there will be a plan note requiring new approval should any of the septics be changed. Mr. Shields noted that the wetlands have been delineated, showing a small wetlands area near one of the infiltration basins on the corner; the Fire Chief has posed the
question of the distance to the fire pond, which will be noted on the final plan; the drainage plans have been modified to accommodate drainage from Brookwood Drive to a proposed infiltration basin so as not to impact the wetlands area by, among other changes, proposing an infiltration area under the private way. He said that the chambers are rated so that they can be driven over by a WB-40 truck, and are designed to take the runoff from Brookwood and dispose of it. Mr. Shields said that the applicant has done all the test pits requested by Steve Bushey, the Review Engineer, who is satisfied with the proposal. Mr. Shields said that this design is the end result of discussions among several engineers. Mr. Brown said that the modification was brought about by where they found the ground water level. Mr. Shields said this system is an infiltration area underneath a private way that is collecting storm water from a Town road, and the Town attorney, who has
had experience with this situation in other areas, recommends that there be specific language in the road maintenance agreement with the three-lot subdivision, there has to be deed language, and there has to be plan note language so that anyone who buys into the development fully understands that there is public infrastructure under a private road, and if at any time maintenance is required, the cost for such maintenance will be borne through the maintenance agreement or the lot owners on the private way. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Shields said that the three lots are responsible for the maintenance costs because there is a drainage system in place, and if a road is placed over it, that one piece of the Towngive the Town the right to maintain it, billing the people on the private way. Mr. Shields said he met with the Public Works Director, who is familiar with similar circumstances and also requires the language in the maintenance agreement, deed language and plan note language to allow the Town to recover its expenses should maintenance be necessary. Mr. Brown commented that this maintenance of storm water systems is quite common because many towns do not want to take over the facilities so it is set up with a home owners association in a maintenance agreement, and DEP has wording in place that buying into a subdivision means buying into the maintenance of the storm water system. Mr. Grant commented that anyone buying into this subdivision will be aware of an apparatus in place under their private way that is servicing an already existing subdivision.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Jeff Johnson, abutter on Nason Road. Expressed his concerns about Brookwoodto know how anyone would know if the system under the private way failed.
Brian Farrell, Brookwood Drive: Discussed a letter to the Town from Michael Mullins at DEP which answered questions from Mr. Shields about the open space conservation easement surrounding the Brookwood Subdivision, stating that the DEP does not recognize the easement, and that the Subdivision itself to be illegal and not following Maine site law. He quoted from the DEP letter wherein DEP states that their position that the subdivision is in violation of the site law does not prevent or limit the Townactions could jeopardize the developer. Mr. Shields replied to a query from Mr. Grant that the letter from DEP came after Mr. Shields had spoken to DEP, that the letter was forwarded to the Townhas seen and standing water in various areas, and requesting that the Board consider a peer review of the wetlands on the parcel. Mr. Farrell also expressed his concern about whether the private way will be paved or graveled and asked that it be paved to be consistent with the roads in the Brookwood Subdivision.
Michael Hearn, Nason Road: Expressed his concern about wetlands and about a mechanism going to be put into place draining into his wetlands, and if the mechanism fails, to whom would he turn. He also expressed concern about the house which will have to be sprinkled and how a fire outside a house would be dealt with.
By way of clarification, Mr. Shields referred to the two people who have mentioned that there is water coming off of Brookwood down to the wetland, which used to be the case; however, since that was creating a problem, the applicant has gotten rid of that design so no longer will water collected off Brookwood be transported down to the wetlands of the adjacent property owners, and that water will now be contained in the unit underneath the roadway. Mr. Johnson asked if the containment system leaches into the ground. Brown addressed several items, stating that yes, the infiltration does leach into the ground in a natural way; he said that the maintenance agreement is not uncommon and they will work with legal counsel and staff to include wording that if the home owners are not taking care of it, the Town will
do whatever has to be done and bill the home owners; he said Mark Hampton is a certified soils scientist and a licensed site evaluator and provided the applicant with the information located on the plan, saying that there are a number of very small, 10 to 50 square foot depressions holding 2 to 4 inches of water, located through the center portion of the parcel, to which he gave great consideration but which he found no wetlands vegetation or hydric soils to support delineation of these wetlands. Mr. Brown said that Mr. Hampton used three criteria for wetlands: hydric soils, hydrophilic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology. Mr. Farrell again mentioned wetland plants he believes are present in the area, standing water, and hydric soils, and asked if the Town was not required to show wetlands on the plans.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant asked what the Board felt about Mr. FarrellBoard had to make that decision because the applicant would have to pay for a second wetland delineation. Mr. Parker said that from the site walk he could agree that not all “wet land” is “wetland,” but there was a lot of wet land on the site and if it is so controversial and supposedly other delineators have looked at it and said something different from the one who did it before, he would be in favor of having a peer review. Mr. Boyce said he is usually comfortable with a professionalmajority, and asked staff how to proceed. Mr. Shields said he had asked Michael Mullins of DEP to contact them any time there was a site walk on the property, which did not happen, although Mr. Mullins would know of any site that went out there. Mr. Shields said that having Mark Hampton and someone from DEP go to the site is certainly one option, and DEP would not charge the applicant to do that, or the other option would be that the Town would manage another wetland delineation which would be billed to the applicant. Ms. Fossum indicated that a neutral third party needed to be involved; Mr. Grant concurred and asked what the cost would be. Mr. Allen replied that it would be about $500 for a full delineation; Ms. Fossum said it would simply be asking someone to do a peer review and site visit. Kevin Allen told the Board that he had paid Mark Hampton $500 to do the wetlands delineation and that he has no association with Mr. Hampton other than that, and
he does not understand why the delineation is not sufficient. Mr. Grant said that the neighbors seem legitimately concerned, four of the Board members believe a peer review should be done, and the Board does not want to place undue burden on the applicant. Mr. Parker said he favored the option of having Mark Hampton meet with a DEP representative; Mr. Boyce said that Mr. Hampton may have enough records to make his case to the DEP. Mr. Grant said that this was very unusual and asked if the Board was in concurrence that staff should talk to Mark Hampton to work with someone from the DEP, with someone from DEP sending the Board a letter agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Hamptonwalk and that the abutters should be notified; Mr. Grant said they would take it under advisement. Ms. Fossum said that it is staff who will call DEP to set up a meeting as opposed to Mark Hampton initiating such a call, so that there is an independent third party involved in the peer review. At Mr. Grantprovide such confirmation.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant Kevin Allen
6. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - “TALL PINES” Request for preliminary plan approval of a 5-lot subdivision off Spiller Road. (Zoned SR (Map 77/L48.001 &M79/L16)
John Kuchinski, P.E., BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the application, requesting preliminary approval. He said that the last time the application came before the Board, the only remaining issue was the potential of ground water contamination and pursuant to the Boardlocated within those plumes or set within 100 feet of the septic systems.
Mr. Shields presented the staff report, saying the Sevee and Maher results from the further well drilling done show that a drilled well into bedrock with a cased seal showed no colliform contamination, and that some of the contamination in the shallow wells may have come from groundwater seepage. Mr. Shields said that S.W. Cole has done a peer review of that test and agree that the well drilling report is accurate, and that it has been recommended that certain types of wells not be placed on the property, such as irrigation wells, that a plan note be added to that effect, and that each lot will have one drilled well, cased in bedrock, capped and sealed. Mr. Shields indicated that the nitrate analysis speaks as well to a concern which Ms. Robie raised that the pond not be located within reach of the nitrates so
that all of the septics will have exact locations because of the length of the plumes, with notes on the plan restricting the location of the bed, with the nitrate analysis to be revisited should there be a proposal to move the bed; and that there will not be any septic systems within 250 feet of the pond. Mr. Shields said that the applicant has also provided a future development plan on the project as requested by the staff. Mr. Shields confirmed that the road ultimately will be turned over to the Town.
Ms. Robie asked if there was still a pond on the property; Mr. Kuchinski replied that there is a dry detention pond located on the rear of lots 3 and 5, mainly lot 3, which is restricted by the 250 feet. Ms. Robie asked why a right-of-way to Buck Street was not addressed; Mr. Kuchinski said that the future development plan does not include Buck Street. Mr. Neily asked staff who are the principals of Woodland Development Partnership, that he wants to have this information provided; Mr. Kuchinski replied that it is Al Juniewicz and Donald Gilbert.
Susan Robie MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion grant Woodland Development Corporation
Mr. Grant told Mr. Kuchinski to work with staff to set up a date for final approval.
7. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
Les Berry, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated (1) an 8 inch water main will be put in, giving potential for future extension; (2) granite monumentation will be put in on both sides of the street; (3) they believe that Plummer Road is an abandoned Town road and they are not claiming to the center of the road; (4) they have extended the right-of-way of Annie(8) they would be willing to work with staff to try to find some way of better protecting the “no cut” buffer zone; (9) they have no problem putting an easement on the boundary line for a water main extension to Sebago Knoll within the public way, but there is an intervening property for which an easement would be needed. Mr. Grant commented that the Portland Water District will not put water lines across someone
Ms. Fossum presented the staff report and confirmed that most of the areas for discussion have been dealt with. She said that she had spoken with the Public Works Director about the maintenance of the detention ponds who confirmed that the Town would take the maintenance. She said that she talked with the Town attorney and the Town Manager about Plummer Road and the Town does not officially know the status of Plummer Road, it has not been researched or a status declared, but there was a suggestion from an abutter that the issue be sent to the Town Council for determination, which could be a very long and complicated process. However, for the purpose of using Plummer Road to access the detention ponds, the Town Attorney and the Town Manager indicated that the simplest and most straightforward thing to do
is for the developer could give the Town an easement on its half of the road, and that the easement could refer to the rights of others in common. Mr. Grant said he believes that the language should state that if the status is that it is abandoned, and if the applicant does own to the centerline, then they do grant an easement, but that it is not confirmed. Mr. Berry said that basically they would grant the Town an easement if they have any rights to it. Ms. Fossum confirmed that whatever rights the applicant has, they grant to the Town. Ms. Fossum mentioned that the Public Works Director thought another culvert might be needed on Plummer Road at the end of AnnieTown attorney has suggested certain changes to the abutter
"The 20' no cut buffer shown along the rear property lines of lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be preserved in it's natural state and no cutting, trimming, or tree or vegetation removal shall occur, except to remove hazards. In the event that this buffer is disturbed and/or the conditions of this requirement violated, the individual lot owners (lots 9, 10, 11, and 12) shall be responsible for replacement of the lost buffer in kind. A planting plan shall be prepared, reviewed and approved by the Town Planner within 30 days of the disturbance. Upon approval of the plan, the buffer shall be planted within 30 days of the plan approval and within the normal planting season. "
Ms. Fossum pointed out the Town attorney suggested removal of the language requiring that lot owners forfeit their legal rights through a plan note.
Ms. Fossum also listed certain things which need to be finalized before final approval as follows: (1) final review of public water line extension by the Portland Water District and Gorham Fire Chief; (2) review by the Town Attorney of the proposed quit claim release deeds and any other legal documents needed to accomplish the upgrade of the Hackmatack Way private way to the standards for a public street prior to their execution, (3) concurrence from the Public Works Director and Town Attorney on the use of Plummer Road, and (4) letter from CMP indicating it has no concerns about or objections to the proposed crossing of the easement and approving the proposed locations of the electrical transformers. Additionally, a maintenance agreement, in which the private way property owners on Hackmatack Way have asked to be
included, needs to be in place should the Town not accept the road.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Owens McCullough, abutter, 49 Ritz Farm Road, said that the no-cut buffer is the most important item of consideration and it appears as though everyone is agreeable to some sort of language or deed restriction to enforce the no-cut, and asked Ms. Fossum if an infringement would be a code enforcement issue. Ms. Fossum confirmed that it was a code enforcement issue, and if there was anyone not in compliance with the approved subdivision plans who had been ordered to correct a deficiency and had not done so, the Town would initiate legal proceedings. He also indicated that if in fact the wells on the lots would be 100 plus feet away from the property lines, he would not be too concerned if the septics were toward the front of the lots. He also said that he hoped the applicant would be permitted to do the grass
shoulders.
Mr. Grant asked about the review engineerbelieved there needs to be some kind of policy plan in place for the future extension of water mains.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to grant Inland Development Corporation
8. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED 7-0. [11:11 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted:
______________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
July 22, 2002
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION - off STRAW ROAD
Approved
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the 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 and Zoning may approve;
2. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this subdivision;
3. That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated within the approved subdivision, the applicant shall arrange through the Planning Office a pre-construction meeting with the selected Review Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
4. That prior to the commencement of construction or land improvements or the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the developer shall pay the fee required by the Recreational Space Ordinance;
5. That prior to occupancy each house within the subdivision shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round; and
6. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Tax Assessor;
7. That all buildings within the subdivision must have its lowest floor, including basement, a minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood elevation and must have this elevation certified by a professional engineer, surveyor or architect prior to start of construction;
8. That all homes within the subdivision will be sprinkled and the sprinkler plans must be submitted to the State Fire Marshal
9. That all driveways shall be constructed with a 15” by 30
10. That these conditions of approval and the Final Plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
