 |
Town of Gorham
November 4, 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
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
Members Absent:
CLARK NEILY
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Assistant Planner called the roll. Mr. Clark Neily was absent. Mr. Grant read the Agenda items, noting that Item 5 had been withdrawn by the applicant.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 7, 2002.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of October 7, 2002. DISCUSSION: Mr. Parker noted that on Page 5, Item No. 4, the phrase “…private septic and private water…” should be corrected to read “…private septic and public water…”
MOTION CARRIED 6 ayes
2. AMENDMENT TO THE STREET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chapter II, Sec. V, Minimum Standards for the Design and Construction of Streets and Ways G. 4) h) Pavement deadlines for the placement of the final road course surface.
The Town Planner, Deborah Fossum, presented the staff report, stating that the current Code does not permit contractors and developers to place final surface pavement on new roads under construction after October 1 or before May 1, which is somewhat different than State standards, with which most developers and contractors are familiar. The State standards allow paving up through October 15 and as early as April 15, weather and temperatures permitting. The Council has sent this proposed amendment to the Board in order to permit contractors and developers to place the final surface paving coat between October 1 and October 15 and April 15 and May 1, subject to certain temperatures and approval of the Public Works Director. This proposed amendment much more closely mirrors the basic dates within the State
standards.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed amendment to the Land Use and Development Code, Chapter II, Section V., G. Street Construction Standards and Specifications, H. Base and Pavements, paragraph (2) to extend the deadlines for the placement of the final surface coat of paving. Motion CARRIED 6 ayes
3. AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chapter I, Sec. VIII Rural District to replace the Rural Land Management System with a Net Residential Density Provision and modifications to related density and net acreage provisions.
Mr. Grant commented about the ongoing work on the ordinances relating to growth management studies, and said that this amendment is not connected with land use or rezoning, but is instead an amendment to the Rural Land Management System for a new method that the Planning Board asked the Council for to calculate the density a developer is allowed to have in the RLMS. Mr. Grant explained the RLMS point system calculation, which can result in lots ranging from 60,000 to 200,000 square feet.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, stating that the purpose of the amendment is to simplify the methodology used in determining the allowable density of rural subdivisions, while retaining a method which takes into account the physical capacity of the site and creating a more equitable system for calculating the density of the subdivision. The proposed amendments also include clarification of several defined terms. They retain two features of the old systems: (1) the allowable density is based upon the suitability of the land for development and (2) there is a flexible lot size provision which could allow a lot as small as 40,000 square feet on better soils within the development. Ms. Fossum said that in most situations the density of development allowed under the new system will be more or less
similar to that allowed under the current system. Ms. Fossum said that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are a first step in implementing the stated goals in the Plan for the determination of density. Ms. Fossum then reviewed the specific proposed changes to the ordinance: (1) changes to the definitions of “net residential density” and “net acreage;” (2) in the “Rural District Purpose Section” the purpose statement has been amended to reflect the type of development that the Board currently sees as ongoing in the District; (3) removal of all provisions referring and relating to the “Rural Land Management System,” replacing it with a net residential acreage deduction calculation; (4) replacing the phrase “net residential acres” with “net acreage of the site;” and (5) striking the phrase “residential acreage” in the Multi-Family housing section and
replacing it with “net acreage.”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant referred to page 4, “Purpose Statement,” where the following sentence was stricken: “Therefore, the purpose of this District is to designate areas of the Town in which agriculture and rural land uses are encouraged.” Mr. Grant also read other text, which the Board crossed out: “… and the development of large scale residential uses is discouraged.” Mr. Grant spoke of the workshop minutes where Mr. Eyerman said that large-scale residential uses used to be discouraged under certain conditions such as developing only a certain number of lots per year or the imposition of an access limitation provision along arterials and collectors. Mr. Grant suggested re-instating the sentence so that it reads, “Therefore, the purpose of this District is
to designate areas of the town in which agricultural and rural land uses are encouraged” and delete the rest dealing with discouraging large-scale residential use. Ms. Robie said that she believed the permitted uses support Mr. Grant
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to add the following sentence on page 4 to the section entitled “Purpose Statement:”
“Therefore, the purpose of this District is to designate areas of the town in which agricultural and rural land uses are encouraged.” Motion CARRIED 6 ayes
Mr. Grant referred to page 6, “Individual lots in a subdivision may vary in size as long as the subdivision conforms to the overall net residential density of the parcel. No lot for a single family home can be smaller than 40,000 square feet in area,” asking if a this would cause a problem with a clustered development. Ms. Fossum said she would defer to an opinion from the Town Mr. Parker suggested that the wording be “No lot for a single family home in a conventional subdivision can be smaller than 40,00 square feet in area.” Mr. Hughes suggested “Individual lots in a conventional subdivision…”
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to insert the word “conventional” before the word “subdivision” in the top line on page 6. Motion CARRIED 6 ayes
Mr. Grant asked about page 9, second line down, where it appeared that the word “public” has been crossed and the word “private” has been added, under performance standards for multi-family housing. Ms. Fossum said that in the past, there had been confusion if someone was building a private road for a multi-family housing project, they had to meet the public street standards, whereas now there are private road standards for up to ten units which require development of a private road and a 50-foot right-of-way and meeting certain standards, and it seemed to make more sense to change from “public” to "private” to come into line with road standards.
Susan Robie MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter I, Section VIII, Rural District, to replace the Rural Land Management System with a net residential density calculation and modifications to related density and net acreage provisions as follows: Chap. I, Sec. V Definitions, Sec. VI, A. Urban Residential District, Sec. VII, F. Suburban Residential District, and Chap. II, Sec. IV, B. Performance Standards for Multi-Family Housing. Motion CARRIED 6 ayes
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for Final plan approval of 10 lots on 28.59 acres off Harding Bridge Road and Huston Road. Zoned R/SZ; Map 50/Lot 6.
Andy Morrell, BH2M staff engineer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated that the following has been done: (1) all the notes on the planning profile sheets have been moved to the subdivision plan; (2) minor comments from the Portland Water District have been addressed and the PWD has accepted the plans; (3) they have written a letter to Inland Fisheries and Wildlife that the issue about the 100-foot buffer strips is not relevant to this project and are awaiting a reply; (4) Site Design has no further comments on the project; (5) Central Maine Power is doing its final review; and (5) a National Resource Protection Act permit has been submitted and a site location permit, and while DEP has not yet approved the project, there are no major issues and approval is anticipated shortly.
Mr. Shields presented the staff report, stating that the total number of lots being developed in Stonefield Phases I and II, 24, is much less than the total number of lots supported by the Rural Land
Management calculations of 31 lots as presented during the build-out of Phase I. Mr. Shields said that the development will be served by two rural access roads coming off from Sleepy Hollow Drive. So far as DEP is concerned, Mr. Shields said that under Condition of Approval No. 2, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits before construction can begin. He noted that the Fire Chief wants to reserve the right to locate any fire hydrant in the subdivision. Mr. Shields also said that instead of dedicating the 100-foot Portland Water District easement to the Town of Gorham, discussions with the Town Planner and the Town Manager established a preference for dedicating the 100-foot strip to the Portland Water District in fee from Huston Road to the end of the project. Mr. Shields that the legal documents have been reviewed by the TownShields confirmed to Mr. Grant that on the Mylar, with respect to the 100-foot PWD easement, instead of the words “to be conveyed to the Town of Gorham” the language would read, “to be conveyed to the Portland Water District.”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce referred to Mr. Morrellis more than 2100 feet up from the Little River and 60 feet vertically above the Little River on the site. He said that he believed the issue arose because the “streams” on the site have been labeled as “intermittent streams,” when in fact he believes they are more of a drainage way. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Shields if this James Pellerman is the same individual on the Appeals Board and, if so, he would know the territory and perhaps his decision should be waited for. Mr. Shields said he has no knowledge about Mr. Pellerman, but they will still have to get their approvals as part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Morrell said that Bill Bullard at the DEP feels as he does and is also awaiting a response from Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant Gilbert Homes
5. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment of an approved plan for a lot line change between St. Anne
Mr. Grant stated the applicant has requested that the item be postponed.
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to postpone the item. Motion CARRIED 6 ayes
6. PRIVATE WAY PLAN Request for approval for a proposed 850
Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the private way plan as conforming to the standards for 2 to 6 lot private way to eventually serve two lots. He described the road as gravel, coming off McLellan Road and crossing a steep gully, which will have a 30” culvert, and then over a flat area over a small wetland to access a buildable area at the back of the site. Mr. Greer said that a neighbor has asked that some trees be planted along the private way; Mr. Greer has spoken to the developer who is interested in talking to the landowner to negotiate something that may help, but the developer does not want this to become an issue this evening and would like to get the plan approved as drawn. Mr. Greer stated that the Conditions of Approval are
acceptable and he is asking for approval.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, stating that the proposed private way is presently to serve one lot and will be designed and constructed to serve 2 to 6 lots, which would permit the developer to create a second lot, that staff felt that it was more appropriate that the plans show only one lot and that the applicant has removed the second lot shown on an earlier submission to avoid the appearance of having the Board approve any lots or to avoid the implication of creating a subdivision. Mr. Shields said the applicant has applied for all appropriate NRPA and MDEP permits, which must be received prior to construction. Staff has asked the applicant to draft maintenance agreements so that in the future if an additional is conveyed, all the appropriate paperwork is in place, which is also included in the
Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Grant discussed a letter received from Mr. Hebert expressing concern about the proximity of the private way to another property. Mr. Grant stated that the Board
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Wayne Young, McLellan Road, asked to confirm that the applicant can place a road right beside his property line and he has no control over the situation. Mr. Grant replied the applicant can build his private way right up to the edge of the property line, but if it were to be a town road and service several houses, the Board would probably look at the issue and perhaps ask for buffering and the Board has no jurisdiction in this case.
Bill Hebert, whose parents
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant Sierra Construction7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discuss a proposal for a 8,204 SF building expansion for Lake Region Furniture at 673 Main Street. Zoned RC
Mark Sengelmann with Port City Design appeared on behalf of the applicants and described the project as a 6,600 square foot retail expansion on the front of the existing building, moving out toward Route 25, and a smaller 3,400-warehouse addition in the rear, with lot coverage increasing from 63% to 68%. To accomplish that, it is proposed to remove a small section at the rear. He indicated they would like to raise the façade of the building, punctuating the front with a large central entrance, with the materials being stucco, brick, glass and some metal roofing, and creating a better landscaped buffer and pedestrian esplanade. He discussed the two large curb cuts on the north and south sides, explaining that it was their intention to neck down the south entrance to more of a 90-degree entrance for
safety reasons. He said that at the north entrance the Cairns property prevents the necking down as much as they would like, but they will add some striping to make it more of a 90 degree entrance and exit point, pulling it away from the Bartlett Road intersection and making more space. He said the landscaping will be upgraded in the front and around the sides of the property. He said that the applicants are seeking a reduction in the required parking so as to enlarge their building and a parking count has been compiled by the applicants, showing an average of 17.8 customers per day together with 15 employees, an aggregate of 30 spaces, with a total of 51 spaces being provided. He also discussed truck and delivery vehicle site circulation being planned for the south entry and locating the service court more toward the rear of the property. He said that the oil storage building will remain in its present location. Mr. Singleman discussed the
utilities and septic system, with plenty of space for enlargement of that system if necessary. He said that the large sign presently on the site will remain, and there will be additional signage on the façade of the building. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, he confirmed that the site is on public water.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, suggesting that the parking issue is a key consideration, which needs to be addressed by the Board as the Board has the authority to reduce the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Shields said that as this particular retail store is not a high volume operation, 17 to 20 customers per days is reported as the norm. However, if the Board agrees on a reduction in the required number of parking spaces and the future use of the facility changes, the present proposed number of spaces may be inadequate, and plan notes and conditions of approval should be very clear that the parking reduction does not apply to any future use. Mr. Shields said that there probably should be some septic plan provided for the possibility that the present system might fail. He also
told the Board that insofar as the warehouse is concerned, the applicants will appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 21, 2002, for the enlargement of a nonconforming structure, and that the Planning Board can review the proposal pending the outcome of that appeal. Mr. Grant asked what is the zoning abutting the site; Ms. Fossum replied that it is industrial surrounding it.
Mr. Shiers complimented the applicants for reinvesting in the Town and said that hopefully the Board could work with the applicants on their parking issue, so long as it is understood that a change is tailored to the applicants
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Neil Weinstein, Esquire, representing David Cairns, Portland Cover, LLC, commented about the potential loss of parking spaces, truck traffic in and out of the site under the proposed changes, a need for access to Bartlett Road, snow storage, present inadequacy of the septic system, and referred to the law suit by Lake Region against Portland Cover over the question of parking in the setback area, buffer requirements, and a right-of-way easement impact potential. He said that if his client is required to provide traffic studies, etc., then Lake Region should do likewise. Mr. Weinstein said that the proposed improvements were attractive and would be a definite improvement over the present facility.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant directed that staff schedule a site walk.
10-Minute Stretch Break
8. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discuss a proposal for a for a 42-lot residential subdivision on the Robert Gordon property off Fort Hill Road and Queen Street. Zoned R-MH/SZ; Map 47/Lot 39; Map 45/Lot 23.
Shawn Frank, P.E., Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants Vicky and Gary Smith, also present. Mr. Frank described the project, which involves an 87.49 acre parcel to be divided into 42 single-family house lots, with the preliminary RLMS calculations leading to a minimum lot area of 80,000 square feet for a total of 47 permitted lots. He said that the Greentree subdivision borders the parcel on the south and the Fort Hill Farms subdivision is to the north, with access into the parcel via Queen Street, approximately 2200 feet in length, and Mercier Road, which would be upgraded from a private way to public road standards. Approximately 4 lots would be accessed from Queen Street. The applicants have had discussions with MDOT about the improvements proposed to Queen Street, which should
correct any sight distance problems. The project would be served by underground utilities, public water extended up Fort Hill Road to the project, which they have discussed with the Portland Water District, public fire protection and individual on-site sewerage disposal. Mr. Frank said that the development would be constructed in phases, with the first phase being 14 lots, and subsequently the developer would submit an application for the remaining development and apply to MDEP for a site location development permit.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, suggesting that the RLMS calculations involving the lots on Queen Street should be carefully studied, and referring to the letter that staff has forwarded to the Town Council about the status of Queen Street and the Council
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Janet A. Coffin, owns the lot which abuts Queen Street and the Gordon property, asked about her private well which is 26 feet off the center of Fort Hill Road, and asked if buffering would be provided to protect her property. She is concerned about the impact of roadwork on her property. Mr. Grant said that her comments would be taken into consideration.
Dick Sherman, Fort Hill Farms: Commented that if the applicantsdue to topography, streams, etc. and some of the proposed lots would have to be adjusted.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shiers commented about the status of Queen Street to be determined by the Town Council. He also spoke about the possible impact of access management limiting the number of curb cuts. Mr. Grant commented about this being an opportunity to open up at least 2200 feet of what could be a major connector between 114 and 202 and that might be in the best interests of the Town. Mr. Grant spoke about taking a site walk during hunting season, and asked if the Board would want to take their site walk on a Sunday. Mr. Boyce asked whether public sewer could be extended into the area; Mr. Grant replied that the question could be put to the Portland Water District but that he believed the sewer line ends near Tommyhas authorized the Portland Water District to undertake a study of areas where sewer and water expansion is necessary.
Mr. Frank said that the applicants will try to work with the abutters as the project develops. Mr. Grant directed staff to schedule a site walk.
Mr. Hughes asked to be excused from the discussion on the next Agenda item. Mr. Grant replied that Mr. Hughes has been excused in the past on this item and is excused again.
9. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment of Condition #10 of the Conditions of Approval requiring the construction of a sidewalk along the westerly side of South Street. Zoned SR; M20/L1+2 & M2/L4.
Shawn Frank, P.E., Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant, who was unable to be present. Mr. Frank gave a brief history of the sidewalk requirement of Condition #10 and indicated that the applicant is asking the Board to reconsider its earlier decision on the location of the sidewalk to allow it to be located behind the ditch. Mr. Frank said that the present (third option) proposal before the Board is to extend granite curbing along the existing edge of pavement along South Street from the Weeks Road intersection as far as practicable, provide an esplanade along that section with the sidewalk in the Town right of way, and at the point were it was no longer practicable again from a topographic standpoint, to relocate the sidewalk along the back of the ditch, working with staff and resubmitted to
the Board. When the plan was agreed to, the developer would then bond the sidewalk work before the end of the year to allow development of Heartwood to continue, with the sidewalk construction work being done in the spring.
Mr. Shiers asked Mr. Frank how many feet are involved; Mr. Frank replied that he did not know but would be happy to sit down with staff to come up with a number. Mr. Shiers asked for confirmation that the developer would place granite curbing, an esplanade, storm drains and sidewalks from a point starting at Weeks Road to some place, the length of which is still unknown, where it would more make sense from a drainage point of view to put the sidewalk behind the ditch. Mr. Frank concurred. Mr. Shiers said he would prefer that the applicant return with a definite number. Mr. Frank said he would be happy to do so but would like some feedback from the Board about the proposed option. Mr. Shiers about the easements required, saying he believed that the public right of way ranges between 66 to 80
feet, so are these grading easements or easements over private property. Mr. Frank replied that the majority of the easements are for grading and drainage easements associated with the construction of the sidewalk and some of the ditch work may have to be regraded anyway. Mr. Shiers said that if the applicant could come back with a design with which the Board could review and agree on, he could go along with this current approval. Mr. Grant said he generally agreed with Mr. Shiers, but he had a question of Mr. Berry, the TownFossum agreed. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Frank to come back with a cost estimate for this proposal in order to bond the sidewalks to cover Condition #10. He said that he is willing to go along with the proposal, based on Mr. Berryrises to help with the catch basins, and we want to make sure that the road will drain. Mr. Berry also said a better location of the water main would be helpful. Mr. Parker and Ms. Robie agreed that the applicant should provide the information requested by Mr. Berry. Mr. Berry said that the first 200 or 300 feet should be easy to get granite curbing, but to get it out to the compact zone will be harder. Ms. Robie expressed a major concern about safety, saying that so long as the speed limit is 35, the sidewalk, esplanade and granite curbing are fine, but as soon as the speed limit is over 35, she believes that the sidewalk should be behind the ditch. Mr. Parker said while he wasnsidewalks. Mr. Parker believes that the best possible engineered sidewalk plan should include paving of Weeks Road and the full sidewalks in Heartwood. He said he does not like seeing the Board negotiated out of certain things that belonged in the infrastructure of Heartwood and then backed down upon with those elements given up not restored. Mr. Boyce concurs with the consensus of looking at this third option of having the sidewalk partly adjacent to the roadway and partly behind the ditch. He echoed Mr. ParkerGrant replied that the current plan needs to be evaluated, that it is hypothetical right now. However, Condition #10 exists for “granite curbing, esplanade, drainage, sidewalk” from Weeks Road to Quincy Drive, and he would like to see a cost estimate based on that Condition. Mr. Berry confirmed that the sidewalk from South Street in Quincy Drive connecting to Heartwood. Mr. Frank said that he was there to talk about the engineering details of the sidewalk, and that he couldnbe a design plan developed and peer reviewed before it comes to the Board, that this option seems to be an acceptable path to pursue and the applicant needs to work out the details. Ms. Fossum agreed that it was the right course of action. Mr. Parker said he did not think it was the right course unless the Board is assured that the infrastructure will be restored that was given up to get Condition #10. Mr. Grant said he agreed with Mr. Parker, but once the final plan comes before the Board, an attorney needs to be present to deal with the issue Mr. Parker has brought up. Mr. Parker said he believed that it could be dealt with when the new engineering plan is developed for a new Condition #10. Mr. Grant said he had already asked.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Richard Shiers MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED 5 ayes
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Barbara Skinner
Secretary to the Board
_________________________, 2002
R:\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN110402 sec draft.doc
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN Approved
Conditions of Approval:
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 de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;
That the applicant shall meet the following requirements, as outlined in the Fire Chief
A. A hydrant shall be placed on the water main extension at the corner of lot 24 and the new roadway.
B. The cost of the hydrants and their installation shall be the responsibility of the developer, and shall become public hydrants once the Town Council accepts the streets. The final location of each hydrant shall be approved by the Fire Chief at the time of installation.
C. The names of the streets shall be properly named and signed with a Town approved street sign. The names of the streets to be approved by the Police and Fire Chiefs.
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;
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;
That the applicant will assure that each home have installed the appropriate water pressure booster pump as requested by the Portland Water District;
That prior to occupancy each house within the subdivision shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round;
That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Fire Chief and Police Chief;
That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Planner; and
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
6. PRIVATE WAY PLAN Approved
Conditions of Approval
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 applicants 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;
That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;
That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant will establish a performance guarantee with the Planning Department to cover the cost of constructing the paved apron;
That prior to occupancy, all homes shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round;
That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Town Engineer and Police Chief;
That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant shall request a pre-construction meeting with the Town staff and the Town's inspecting engineer and will be responsible for the scheduling and coordination of all required inspections and testing during the construction of the Private Way;
This approval is for a private way that may serve 2-6 lots and any future divisions must have a maintenance agreement approved by the Town of Gorham Planning Department;
That within 30 days of approval or prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Tax Assessor;
That prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for any of the lots served by the private way, the Town
That these conditions of approval and the private way plan shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan and decision document shall be returned to the Town Planner.
| |
