 |
Town of Gorham
October 7, 2002
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, Chairman DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, Vice-Chair. 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 7:00 p.m. The secretary called the roll and all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that this item be amended to include the minutes of September 9, 2002, meeting, with any suggested corrections, and that the minutes be taken up in seriatim so that any Board members not present at a meeting will not have to vote on the minutes of that meeting. Motion CARRIED 7 ayes
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of September 9, 2002. Motion CARRIED 5 ayes
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of September 16, 2002. Motion CARRIED 5 ayes
2. STREET ACCEPTANCE REPORTS
A. “GATEWAY COMMONS DRIVE PHASE II,” GATEWAY COMMONS DRIVE in GATEWAY COMMONS SUBDIVISION offered by KASPRZAK LANDBANK, INC.
The Planning Director gave the staff comments, describing the street acceptance application and stating that Gateway Commons Subdivision was approved in January of 1998, containing a total of 76 single family house lots and four streets, Gateway Commons Drive Phase I, Clearview Drive, Portal Way and Timber Ridge Road, which were accepted by the Town as public streets in November of 2001. Gateway Commons Drive Phase II is the last road to be completed in the subdivision and the final phase of the development, serving 20 lots, is 1519 feet in length altogether, including both phases, terminates in a turning circle with a right-of-way provided off the circle to an adjacent parcel of vacant land, and there is one fire hydrant located on this section of Gateway Commons Drive. Ms. Fossum reported
that the Town contracted with SYTDesign Consultants, from Cumberland, to inspect the roadway construction, and Peter Tubbs, the inspecting engineer, has made regular inspections and has indicated that all the roadway and related improvements are in order, he and the Public Works Director recommend approval, although no written report was as yet in hand. Ms. Fossum said that the developer has provided an Offer of Cession for the roadway, the proposed deed including drainage easements and the required transfer of tax forms have been submitted; however, the Town Attorney is unable to review the documents due to a potential conflict of interest and has recommended that the documents be forwarded to another outside legal firm for review. She said she is recommending that the Board forward this street acceptance request to the Council with a recommendation for acceptance subject to the outside legal review.
Mr. Grant asked Ms. Fossum how the road would be classified in the Townthat a private way could be extended off a road such as this one in the future, but expansion of a public road might be prevented or create a situation where a developer took a risk and extended the roadway and then went to the Council for acceptance. Mr. Shiers asked what was the width difference in the two roads; Mr. Grant replied referring to page 140 in the Land Use and Development Code, Item A, “Rural Access Street issue a “show stopper” for this acceptance request, but to alert to the fact that the issue was one to watch for in the future. Mr. Shields pointed out that the next application for acceptance took the issue into account, resulting in a section of roadway being constructed in a larger size to accommodate future development. Ms. Fossum said that the base standards are the same for both rural access and rural subcollector roadways and that widening the roadway would be difficult in the future because it is curved.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to recommend acceptance of Gateway Commons Drive (Phase II) in the Gateway Commons Subdivision, as offered by Kasprzak Landbank, Inc., subject to completion of the legal review by an outside legal firm. Motion CARRIED 7 ayes
B. “SLEEPY HOLLOW DRIVE” in STONEFIELD SUBDIVISION offered by GILBERT HOMES
The Planning Director gave the staff comments on the application, stating that Gilbert Homes is requesting acceptance prior to final paving for Sleepy Hollow Drive, that the subdivision was approved in August of 2001, and contains a total of 14 single family house lots, 13 of which are accessed from Sleepy Hollow Drive and 1 from Harding Bridge Road. She said that Sleepy Hollow Drive is 1800 feet in length and runs between Huston Road and Harding Bridge Road, that the developer has provided a right-of-way to an adjacent 28-acre parcel of undeveloped land currently proposed for a 12-lot subdivision, which would be called Stonefields II. There are 3 fire hydrants installed in the subdivision but there is an ongoing discussion between the Fire Department and the developer concerning the possible
relocation of a hydrant that was not placed where the Fire Chief wanted to see it and that the Chief might be making a separate recommendation to the Council in the event resolution is not reached between himself and the developer. The Town contracted with SYTDesign Consultants for construction inspections; Peter Tubbs, the inspecting engineer, has made regular inspections of the roadway and related drainage structures and has worked with Public Works Department on the project; the Portland Water District has inspected and approved the installation of the water lines, hydrants and related structures; an Offer of Cession, the proposed roadway deed, and required transfer tax forms have been submitted and reviewed by the Planning staff and the Townaccount” into which 150% of the estimated cost to complete the road is placed, which in this case is calculated at $29,482.50. Ms. Fossum said that staff recommends acceptance of Sleepy Hollow Drive, prior to placement of final paving, subject to the following conditions, to which the developer has agreed: (1) submission of drainage easement deeds; (2) submission of a revised Offer of Cession; and (3) submission of a maintenance warranty.
Mr. Neily said that “maintenance warranty” sounded like roadway maintenance, but he was concerned why completion of the road was not a condition. Ms. Fossum replied that the 150% road improvement account guarantees completion of the road, and the maintenance warranty is more of a defect warranty. She said that the Public Works Director would probably require a $5000.00 warranty, in addition to the $29,482.50 which will be used for the final paving, loaming and seeding of the shoulders, any associated drainage work, etc., associated with final completion. Mr. Neily said that a condition should be the final completion of the road as accepted by an appropriate engineer; Ms. Fossum reiterated that this was a request to accept the road prior to final paving and that the
Towna maintenance guarantee per the Subdivision Ordinance. At the conclusion of the one-year warranty period, the owner shall request the Town Engineer to prepare a second written report of inspection prior to the release of the improvement,” and said this language is what condition 3 in the suggested motion refers to. She also read the following language from the Street Acceptance Ordinance: “Notwithstanding paragraph c above, a street may be accepted by the Town Council prior to final paving provided that 150% of the cost of completion as estimated by the Town Engineer is deposited in a road improvement account with the Town.” Ms. Fossum said that if the Board wanted to add “Submission of a maintenance warranty and provision of the required road improvement account” this would tie it directly to the two requirements in the Code. Mr. Boyce asked if the Council would have picked up this item had the Board not added the
language tying it to the Code; Ms. Fossum replied that it is part of the report and the applicant has agreed to do it. Mr. Boyce asked if the hydrant location, which is under discussion between the Fire Chief and the applicant, was placed in accordance with the subdivision plans. Ms. Fossum said that the hydrant was not actually shown on the plans but was referenced in several memos between the Fire Chief and the developer, that the developer placed it about 100 feet from Huston Road within the subdivision itself, but the Fire Chief would prefer that it be relocated to the intersection of Huston Road and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Mr. Shiers asked if the Fire Chiefsometimes there are field adjustments made for such things as hydrants during the construction phase, and this time the Fire Chief was not made aware of this hydrant placement. Ms. Fossum said that while three hydrants were required on site, only two were shown on the plan that the Board signed off on and no one caught the fact that there were only two. When the developer was made aware of the need for the third hydrant, it was placed without the Fire Chief knowing of its location. When asked by Mr. Grant, Ms. Fossum said it was her recommendation that the Board forward the request for street acceptance, and that the Fire Chief will have the opportunity to provide his input to the Town Council. Mr. Parker said that since the road is in conformance with the plans as signed by the Board, he believed that the Board should approve the request for acceptance and let the Fire Chief work it out at the Council level. Mr. Hughes asked what would happen if the
150% did not cover the actual cost of the road; Ms. Fossum replied that that has not happened in the past and that the amount is conservatively estimated, but technically the Council accepts a road “as is,” and if the 150% does not cover the cost, then the Town and tax payers would have to pay the difference. Mr. Grant said that the Director of Public Works prefers to oversee the application of the final coat, rather than having the developer do it.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to recommend acceptance of Sleepy Hollow Drive in the Stonefield Subdivision, prior to placement of final paving, as offered by Gilbert Homes, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of the drainage easement deeds;
2. Submission of a revised offer of cession; and
3. Submission of a maintenance warranty and provision of the road improvement account.
Motion CARRIED 7 ayes
3. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
Santo Didonato appeared on behalf of himself and his brother Frank, stating that they owned property off Waterhouse Road where they would like to create a five-lot subdivision, with approximately an 800 to 1000 foot gravel private way, keeping one lot apiece for their own private homes and selling the remaining three lots. Mr. Didonato asked that a site walk be scheduled as soon as possible.
The Assistant Planner, Aaron Shields, presented the staff report, stating that the 19.65 acre parcel development as proposed by the applicants would consist of five lots, two for the Didonato brothersresulted in an Overall Suitability Rating of 19, giving the applicants a 120,000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit, permitting the total lot amount that the applicants are requesting.
Ms. Robie asked how close the parcel is to the by-pass right-of-way and is that of any concern to the Boardfuture vehicular movement and the location of the proposed right-of-way has been established and can be located on the ground, development which encroaches on the proposed right-of-way shall not be permitted unless the area of the right-of-way is reserved for future road construction or the Town is offered the opportunity to purchase the right-of-way at its fair market value as determined by an independent professional appraisal. She said she believed that the Council had incorporated this language in the Council order, which designated their preferred route. Mr. Didonato said that before he purchased the property he met with the Town Manager and discussed the issue of the by-pass, and the Town Manager said that the by-pass should have no impact on putting the subdivision in because a determination has to be made of the best location for the by-pass in order to avoid houses, etc. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Didonato said he met with the Town
Manager some time in early April of this year. Mr. Grant said it was important to verify the location of the by-pass right-of-way to avoid possible problems; Mr. Neily concurred.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant indicated that a site walk would be scheduled. [7:40 p.m.]
4. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated that certain changes had been made to the applicantfit the site both architecturally and physically; he demonstrated a model which had been made to illustrate how the design of the buildings has been changed to resemble four individual houses connected by garages, more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, saying that the roof lines have been changed as well to add more architectural and visual interest and porches have been added to the front and back of the buildings. Mr. Greer showed an illustration of the two different styles being contemplated, showing a larger center structure with two smaller masses on the ends. Mr. Greer also pointed out the storm water management, bringing the storm water collected from the paved areas into a detention basin in the center of the site to control peak flows leaving the site. He referred to a letter from Portland Water District and its suggestions about a new right-of-way to provide PWD access. He also said that there will be a separate booster pump
station to boost pressure for the units to supply both the domestic needs and sprinklers and mentioned PWD
The Assistant Planner presented the staff comments, noting the fact that the number of units has been decreased to 40 from the original 45. In response to a query from Mr. Grant, Mr. Shields said that the applicant was allowed 46 units when the density calculations had been done, but that 40 units seemed to fit the final design better. Mr. Shields said that staff would recommend that with the recent changes done, the Board review another visionary drawing similar to the one first presented, inasmuch as the view corridor over the top of the hill has been reduced from 450 feet wide to about 300 feet or less. He said that the applicant has changed the buildings so that they are now 190 feet long, as opposed to the original structures being between 120 to 180 feet, that the Board should review closely
whether or not the architecture of the buildings does indeed meet the multi-family performance standards of massing, character, relationship and yard treatment, and whether or not the design meets the character of a New England neighborhood. Mr. Shields said he believed that the applicant was on the right track but not at 100% yet, which of course was up to the Board to decide. Mr. Shields said that it is unfortunate that cluster septic systems are no longer permitted in the Town of Gorham, as they are superior to what is being proposed now, but the applicant can have one septic system for two units, which he has set around the perimeter of the roadway on the top of the ridge where the best soils are. He referred to the last 5 or 6 septic systems to be provided in the final phase, which are to be located in the most suitable soils in the area but which will entail removing a grove of trees in order to get the mains and pipes through the woods, which had been a
concern of the Boardabout the proposed improvements to the intersection of Barstow Road and Route 237, requiring a part of the property having to be purchased from the Portland Water District to make the improvements. Mr. Shields also commented that the proposed improvements to the intersection of Barstow Road / Route 237 and the proposed improvements to the corner where the access drive will be entering Barstow Road require council approval and / or acceptance and therefore this is another matter that needs to be reviewed for its timing in relation to any possible approvals. Mr. Shields referred the Board to the notes prepared by SYTDesign Consultants and its evaluation of S. W. Colepresented was not relevant to this project and asked what the Board felt about the marketability of the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
George Skillin, 157 Barstow Road. Compared the project to the proposed casino with its presently proposed huge wall of buildings; expressed concern about tree cutting to put in septic systems, felt that the traffic statistics are inaccurate and trip generation information is incorrectly based on a one-car garage; traffic impact study did not include Westcott Road information; concern about sewage; status of buildings to be erected behind the old Barstow house at 136 Barstow Road; and status of Barstow Road.
Harry Fleming, owns property adjacent to Barstow land, stated that he is new to the area but does not believe the proposed development fits into a New England character; expressed concern about safety of Barstow Road.
Brian Wyseck, 23 Bear Run. Expressed concern about the results of the Environmental Impact study that arsenic may be present and suggested that wells on Bear Run and surrounding areas be monitored and tested now if this project continues.
Nancy Kane, 126 Barstow Road. Stated that the timing of the traffic study, completed during the latter part of the summer, a time of the year when many people are on vacation and that it is not a fair representation of the traffic during the rest of the year.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shiers thanked the applicant for the Environmental Impact review, stating that the study showed nothing dramatic or alarming, recommending some relatively simple items for the applicant to take care of, and putting to rest many issues previously expressed. Mr. Shiers spoke of the applicantnarrow, resulting with the buildings being grouped around one another. Mr. Shiers said he could not accept the 20 units of Phase II on a dead end private road, which he did not believe was acceptable development for the Town of Gorham or the neighborhood. Mr. Parker commented that there seemed to be some change in the use of the undeveloped land and asked Mr. Greer to clarify where the backup leaching beds would be located should any one fail.
Mr. Greer replied that the TownHazelton was whether or not the applicantand wondered why there was no slope deduction in the land calculations; Mr. Greer said he would look into the question, but said he believed they fell outside what was allowed by the Code. Ms. Robie said she believed there was land out there that had a greater than 20% slope. She asked if it was going to be a single private way; Mr. Greer replied that based on the Fire Chiefto ten units on it. Mr. Grant said that there is a definition in the Code for a classification of a street called a “private way” but this is not what Mr. Greer was talking about, that Mr. Greer was talking about it remaining private versus becoming a public street. Ms. Fossum said there is a length limitation in the standards for public roads, the standard is determined by the number of units, and the more units to be served could shift the construction standard upward for a public road, and nothing in the Code mandates that the developer offer the road to the Town. Ms. Robie asked, given the number of units, which are proposed, to what standards does the road have to be built; Ms. Fossum replied that it was a rural subcollector and the number of units exceeds what would be permitted on a rural access. Mr. Greer asked if the Board felt that a “t” intersection overall is what they want to see, which was the original design, and they
would return to it. Mr. Grant commented that the Board has the authority to make a recommendation of what they would like to see, the applicant can follow the suggestion and the Public Works Director can have his input, which the Board will respect, but the Board does not have to be bound by that input. Mr. Greer said that the plan now shows a curve with an access road coming off the center of the curve; the original design was to eliminate the curve, have the road come to a stop at Barstow Road and then take a right, or coming from the other side, stop at Barstow and turn left, with essentially a three-way stop sign. Mr. Grant asked staff if any Board decision on this issue required Council approval; Mr. Shields replied that in conversations with the Town Manager, any realignment or taking of land or acceptance needs Council approval, and the sequencing of timing is “tricky,” a catch-22 for the applicant. Mr. Grant then gave the illustration of
events concerning Farrington Road and the gravel pit extension; Ms. Fossum explained that the Planning Board approved a set of plans showing the new Farrington Road that would be constructed and the portion which would be abandoned upon acceptance of the new construction by the Town Council, but the developer would have to construct the new segment of roadway and go to the Council to ask for approval prior to do any mining in the abandoned section of the roadway. Mr. Greer said they needed to have feedback from the Board that they are heading in the right direction, they need to negotiate with the Portland Water District several items including the booster pump, realignment of the rights-of-way, possible purchase of parcel on Route 237, at which point they know they will have a project that the PWD can buy into. Mr. Greer commented that the Board had asked the applicant to contribute to the reconstruction of Barstow Road, and they anticipate that they will make that
offer to the Council in order for it to accept the offer in lieu of actually doing the work on Barstow Road, so that when the Town reconstructs Barstow Road they would do it according to the wishes of the Public Works Director. He said the applicant has provided the design guidelines for the 237 intersection. Mr. Grant asked for clarification that the applicant originally proposed donating $90,000 for improvements to Barstow Road; Mr. Greer replied that they offered $2,000 per unit, which now would be $80,000 or $2,000 times 40 units. Mr. Grant asked whether that sum was not just for the improvements to Barstow Road but improvements to the intersection as well and at 237; Mr. Greer concurred. Mr. Grant said that was not his original understanding, which was that the applicant would do the work at 237 and at the intersection and also contribute the $90,000. Mr. Parker and Ms. Robie agreed that was their understanding as well. Mr. Neily said he
would like to see a new vision plan, especially of Phase I. Mr. Hughes referred to comments by Mr. Parker back in June about whether this is in a developed or an undeveloped area, that there are all styles of houses in the area and perhaps to apply the “New England” neighborhood restriction for the type of housing is not appropriate because he does not believe the rules hold if it is an undeveloped area. Mr. Boyce said he had no strong feelings either pro or con, he is favorable to the project and supportive of the concept, and agrees with Mr. Neily about wanting to see a new visual. Mr. Hughes said that the type of architecture would determine whether the buildings will sell and he would like to see what they would look like. Mr. Grant agreed with Mr. Boyce Mr. Parker said he would like also to see a panorama done from the home at the top of Barstow Road and the next house to see what will be seen in the new visual field which will replace totally open land. He also said that homeowners near open space should prepare to see development in the future. Ms. Robie said she would like to see some designated buffer areas clearly shown. Mr. Greer said that any part of the 80 acres that ends up in the conservation will have a buffer and “no cut” on it, with the exception of locating trails, and pointed out trees that will remain. Mr. Grant said he believed that there was a commitment of $2000 per unit dedicated for work offsite on Barstow Road, and any work required for the 237 intersection or on the curve was additional money; Mr. Neily concurred. Mr. Boyce said he would like to review the record to determine the allocation of the $90,000. Mr. Greer said he would review it with the
applicant, but it was his understanding that Gary was going to upgrade the road and that included the curve, that he was going to rebuild it either as a curve or if the Board chooses, a T-intersection, and as far as the 237 intersection is concerned, the sight distance was being reviewed at the time of the last meeting with the Board, and there was no concrete plan in place, but the Town owns a road that does not meet standards and is going to be rebuilding it and it is negligent to put an option before it that it can rebuild it and not take that option. Mr. Greer said they stand ready to provide the design for it, they will probably buy the property to allow it to be moved over, but they think that is as far as they should go. Mr. Grant said he cannot agree with the applicantpay for the improvements in order to accommodate the size of this project. Mr. Neily advised the neighbors on Barstow Road to heed the Chairman
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
Tim Brown, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He said that since the site walk, the applicant has met with the Portland Water District and with the City of Westbrook to discuss how to serve all the proposed lots with public water. Mr. Brown said that, based on the Boardaspect, construction schedule, etc., will all be provided in their preliminary review submission.
The staff comments were presented by the Assistant Planner. Mr. Shields referred to the Board
Mr. Shiers asked how many curb cuts would be required off New Portland Road; Mr. Brown replied that there would be three entrances. Mr. Shields said that staff would recommend a common driveway. Mr. Neily said that the Town Council has asked the Planning Board to take a hard look at adding additional accesses onto major arterials of the Town, and certainly New Portland Road is one of those, and he said that the applicant should be aware of the CouncilWaterrequired. Mr. Grant read from a letter from the Portland Water District “… requirement to close the gap between existing water mains on Longfellow Road, we are in essence asking the Town to make this a requirement of their subdivision approval. Our justification for this is that you are a developer and not an individual under the PUC regulations. You are developing lots on both ends of the gap and you own the land in the middle. The gap is not large, only about 320 feet, and there is little likelihood that others will step forward to close the gap in the future.” Mr. Brown commented that the area is fed from two different directions, in one direction to stop at lot #5 and in the other direction to end at lot #6, a 320 foot gap that they are asking the Town to force the developer to close. Mr. St. Pierre said he spoke to the Portland Water District and asked them to show him the requirement in the PU 65, and that they thought the
water would go in between lots #5 and #6 to serve lot #8. In response to a query from Mr. Grant, Mr. St. Pierre said that lot #7 has some 167 feet into the Gorham water line, lot #6 water would have to be extended, lot #5 water already stops halfway there, and lot #8 water would come from New Portland Road across his own land. Mr. Grant said he thought that the PWD was trying to connect two dead ends. Mr. St. Pierre said he thought the Portland Water District wants the developer to do the work. [9:29 p.m.]
6. ADJOURNMENT
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED 7 ayes
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
October 7, 2002
R:\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN100702 sec draft.doc
| |
