 |
Town of Gorham
November 18, 2002
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
DOUGLAS BOYCE, Vice-Chair. DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
CLARK NEILY AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
THOMAS HUGHES NATALIE BURNS, Esquire, Town Attorney
MICHAEL PARKER
RICHARD SHIERS
Members Absent:
HAROLD GRANT
SUSAN ROBIE
In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, Douglas Boyce, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Assistant Planner, Aaron Shields, called the roll, noting the absence of Harold Grant and Susan Robie.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 4, 2002
Richard Shiers MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to postpone approval of the minutes of the November 4, 2002, Planning Board Meeting to the first meeting in December. Motion CARRIED 4 ayes
2. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for subdivision amendment to allow construction of a multi-modal recreational trail through Lot #3 in the Riverwood Subdivision, connecting the Mountain Division Trail to the proposed Shaw Park property owned by S.B. Gorham, Inc. Zoned R/SZ; Map 72/Lot 25.003
Mr. Boyce stated that the applicants have requested that this item be postponed to the December 2, 2002 Planning Board agenda.
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to postpone this item to the December 2, 2002, meeting of the Planning Board. Motion CARRIED 5 ayes
3. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discuss a proposal for a contract zone change to allow development of a retail facility off Route 114/South Street and McLellan Road. Zoned R; Map 5/Lot 26.
Mr. Hughes disclosed that he had lived in this neighborhood for about 15 years, up to about a year ago, but stated that he did not feel he should be disqualified from considering this item.
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to allow Mr. Hughes to continue to participate in the discussion on this item because it does not appear that he has any conflict of interest in so doing. Motion CARRIED 4 ayes
Chris Genest, General Manager of Hudson Quarry Corporation and Genest Concrete Works, appeared on behalf of the Genest family, owners of Genest Concrete Works, located in Sanford, Maine, and Hudson Quarry, a retail outlet, located in Hudson, New Hampshire. Mr. Genest said the Board is being asked to consider a contract zone to be established for a landscape and masonry supply yard on the proposed site located on the corner of South Street and McLellan Road. He said the site was chosen for its spacious setting, proximity for delivery routes and position relative to various nurseries and garden supply yards, to resemble most of the agriculture business in the area, the difference being the product: natural wall stone, retaining wall product, garden paving stones, and aggregates. He said that the
building used for retail sales and for storage of product would resemble that of a large rural barn, surrounded by carefully designed garden areas to display product for sale, with the utmost importance placed on attention to details of the building and consideration of the rural surroundings in order to properly market, promote and sell the product. Mr. Genest then introduced Rick Licht [P.E.] of Land Use Consultants to explain the project.
Mr. Licht stated that he wished to focus on certain items: (1) to convince or convey to the Board the need for a contract zone and how the project fits into the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and (2) the details of the site plan. He said the current site, about 20 acres, is zoned rural, and that while retail operations are not specifically permitted within the rural district, under Permitted Uses are “… agriculturally related business uses, including machinery sales and service, seed and fertilizer sales and similar uses.” He said that while the proposed used is not specifically an agricultural use, it is a similar type of use, commenting about the proposed building, its surrounding gardens, and proposed buffering. Mr. Licht quoted from Section H of the Code about the “…unusual nature or unique location of the development proposed…” stressing the compatibility of the proposal with the permitted uses within the original zone, saying he believed the use would be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Licht then touched briefly on the site plan, pointing out the statement to be made by the proposed building and the use of products that Genest sells through garden-type displays, that there would be no processing on site, that it would be a wholesale/retail operation with trucks delivering products in bays, and that there would be entrances off 114 and McLellan Road, subject to MDOT review. Mr. Licht, addressing abutters
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, stating for the information of the public that this is a pre-application conference, that the developer is present to make its first presentation to the Board and to learn what the public thinks, that as the project goes forward a formal application would be required from the application, and that at that time the Board and staff would review that application for a contract zone. She said that a public hearing would be held before the Planning Board before any recommendations were prepared for the Council as required by the contract zoning process, and that the Town Council would hold a public hearing before making the final decision on whether to rezone or not. She said that should the area be rezoned as a specific contract zone area, the developer would return with a
site plan and proceed with the site plan review process at Planning Board level.
Mr. Boyce reiterated that tonight
Mr. Boyce acknowledged each individual piece of written correspondence:
Jim and Joanne Means, 7 Beatrice Drive
George and Sheila Knight, 33 Mahlon Avenue
Michael and Janice Johnson, Mahlon Avenue
Leo, William and CathyEllen Hebert [178 Brackett Road]
Corinne Feeney, McLellan Road
Matthew and Angela Poirier, 38 Mahlon Avenue
Joshua Saucier, 18 McLellan Road
Craig and Carol Robinson, 18 Mahlon Avenue
Antoine and Dorothy Picard, 10 Mahlon Avenue
Russell Frank and Sydney Coombs, 31 Mahlon Avenue
Les Berry, BH2M Engineers
At Mr. Boyce
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Les Berry, 30 Mahlon Avenue, spoke of the pro and con ambiguities in the Comprehensive Plan which could be employed in considering this request, but stressed the diagram entitled “Land Use Plan,” which he felt summarized the intent and goal of the Plan to protect the rural zone. He also referred to a past contract zone request in the same area on which the Planning Board made a negative recommendation to the Town Council.
Joanne Means, 7 Beatrice Drive, expressed concern about warehouse buildings, noise and truck traffic.
Joshua Saucier, 18 McLellan Road, expressed concern that as the closest house to the site, he would be most impacted, the inappropriate and incompatible nature of the proposal, the truck traffic, the proposed product storage areas, and the dust.
Judith Berry, Esquire, 30 Mahlon Avenue, addressed the Town Attorney
Fred Pelletier, 51 McLellan Road, commented that MDOT probably would not permit access to or egress from the property at Route 114 because of the posted 50 miles per hour speed limit and that McLellan Road is residential except for the golf course. He commented about adjacent deeryard and said he would not have moved to 51 McLellan Road had he known the site might be developed commercially.
Mr. Boyce asked those to stand who were present in opposition to the contract zone. [60-65 people stood] He also asked those in favor of the project to stand. [none stood]
Mike Marchand, 9 Mahlon Avenue, spoke about the other commercially zoned areas in Gorham, mentioning as an example the realtors in the Village, Amato
Paula Marchand, 9 Mahlon Avenue, read from their letter which the Board apparently had not received: “We are opposed to the proposed zone change to the rurally zoned corner of Route 114 and McLellan [Road] and particularly opposed to a hardscaping products retailer in this location. After reviewing the Town of Gorhamlots of dust, adds considerable traffic safety problems exiting and entering roadways, and will increase traffic congestion.”
Mr. Boyce stated that the Board had received the Marchand
John Richard, 31 McLellan Road, expressed his concern about noise, traffic and the state of McLellan Road and that his septic system is very close to the road should it be modified. He stated that McLellan [Road] carries a great deal of traffic at peak hours.
Janine Chesley, 16 Beatrice, commented about impact on freedom of children to play.
Pam Milliken-Garza, 26 McLellan Road, asked Board to send a negative recommendation.
John Dunn, 2 Beatrice, spoke of the incompatibility of the project with the current rural atmosphere of McLellan Road, child safety, and the potential traffic problems.
Sherry Garnett Gaston, 36 McLellan Road, spoke of her concern for her children and the incompatibility of the project.
Cindy Hammill, 11 Straw Road, spoke about the incompatibility of the project to the neighborhood.
Elsie Black, 380 South Street, spoke about traffic concerns.
Steve Parmeter, 30 McLellan Road, spoke about destruction of farmland, incompatibility of project, potential of additional commercial development, pollution, and impact on wildlife.
John Donovan, 35 Mahlon Avenue, spoke about potential traffic problems on Route 114 and McLellan Road, incompatibility of project.
Dorothy Picard, 10 Mahlon Avenue, spoke about impact on the environment and possible impact on her water supply.
Warren Washburn, 15 Washburn Drive, concerned with the projectPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Parker asked the applicants if they had considered other, differently zoned sites in Gorham. Mr. Genest replied that they had, and this was their first choice of several locations, not all located in Gorham, and they had decided to pursue the contract zone option before pursuing any of the other sites. Mr. Boyce expressed the appreciation of the Board to all those who spoke, and reiterated the earlier procedural explanation about public hearings before the Board and the Council. Mr. Neily expressed concern about the size of the project, the outside storage, the projectGorham
In response to the public comments made, Mr. Licht said the applicant understands the concerns of the abutters and that there are issues to deal with. He affirmed that the applicant did try to meet with the abutters. He also said that there are permitted uses to which this use is similar, not that there are worse uses, and that there are a number of things beyond houses and barns which are permitted in the rural zone.
Mr. Parker said that from a business standpoint the applicant would be most welcome in Gorham, and the major issues for the applicant to deal with on this site are the traffic issue, the buffering noise, the visual aspect of open storage areas, and dust control. Mr. Shiers said he feels that this is not a unique or different agricultural use, but is one giant step forward to commercial, and that the applicant has some substantial hurdles to overcome. He said that the applicant has other options rather than using this rural area for a commercial facility; that zoning is basically all about putting things into appropriate places; that he has a concern about the size of the project, using 10 acres of the 20 acres involved; about the use of 114 for access and egress under DOTnecessitating the possible substantial reconstruction of McLellan Road if Route 114 cannot be used. Mr. Boyce remarked about the commonality of concern among the Board members and the Board
The Town Attorney, Natalie Burns, said she had nothing to add to the BoardMs. Fossum said that if the applicant pursues the contract request, it would prepare a formal contract, submit it to staff for review, after the review, a site walk with the Board would be scheduled, and then a public hearing would be scheduled on the actual contract. Mr. Boyce thanked the applicant and the public and suggested that anyone wishing to be notified of a site walk speak to staff. [8:40 p.m.]
10 Minute Stretch Break to 8:50 p.m.
4. SITE PLAN Discuss a proposal for a new recreational sports complex off Narragansett Street. Zoned ND; Map 39/Lot 4.
Les Berry of BH2M Engineers appeared with the applicant, Steve Martin. Mr. Martin presented photos of domes to the Board relative to the size of the project. Mr. Berry then discussed what they believe is the core issue, which is the scope of the project and how much parking does it require. Mr. Berry said that the ordinance has no good parking requirement “fit” for this project, the closest being an arena, and the parking requirement for that is one parking for 4 seats, but that this project has a bench along the side which could seat 100 people, or 25 parking spaces, which would not be enough. He discussed 3 facilities in Maine which are somewhat comparable: (1) the Howard Sports Center in Saco that has 225 parking spaces for a 160-child day care center, 3 basketball courts, 2
fields, a bar and a fitness center, all of which comprise a magnitude much greater than this dome; (2) the Hampton Dome near Bangor, which has about 50 parking spaces, which are not enough; and (3) the Topsham facility which has a 120-child day care center and which has about 100 spaces, which seems adequate. Mr. Berry commented about the tentative schedule for activity which Mr. Martin provided, with a typical weekday in Field A during the summer would be senior walking and fitness center, Field B or C would be golf driving range, and with weekends being somewhat busier, and referred to the activity schedule provided by the Howard Sports Center. He discussed possible scenarios of usage and parking requirements and special event requirements, and said that they feel that the 116 or so parking spaces proposed in Phase 1 would be adequate, with room for additional spaces if required. In reply to a query from Mr. Neily, Mr. Berry said that they could probably get 50
or 60 more spaces. The Code Enforcement Officer is to give the applicant an interpretation of the “paving” requirement in the Code for parking spaces, with the graveled spaces probably having to be paved. Mr. Berry said that the applicant has asked for a waiver of the traffic study required by code for any proposal exceeding 50 spaces or generating more than 100 trips during peak hours because they do not believe they would ever hit the 100-trip trigger, the site has almost unlimited sight distance, and the bulk of the traffic at the project would be off-peak, Saturdays or Sundays or evenings. Mr. Berry said that the fire protection issue still remains to be resolved with the Fire Chief or find an appropriate sprinkling method for the dome.
The Assistant Planner Aaron Shields presented the staff comments, saying that staff as well did extensive research on similar facilities as the project is not a typical facility and is not easily categorized. He said that it is unclear whether this project will produce 100 trips during peak hours. But based on potential uses of the facility, as some other facilities have to supplement income to pay their mortgages by holding large events, Staff believes that it does have a potential of exceeding that number. It does not sound as though much traffic will be generated by normal daily schedules. Mr. Shields said the biggest question is event parking planning with many unknowns involved. Mr. Shields stated perhaps the numbers should be based on the number of people the dome can accommodate, the maximum number being 300
occupants. He said that the major concern of the Review Engineer, Tom Saucier, who has been involved in similar projects, was the uses of the facility and having to plan for maximum capabilities. Mr. Shields commented about the paved versus graveled parking requirement, that on a daily basis perhaps less than 40 of the proposed 116 spaces in Phase 1 would be used, but planning needs to be done for the maximum usage. He also referred the Board to the fire requirements that the facility must meet under BOCA, NFPA 102 Life Safety Code and the Town
Mr. Neily suggested that more information is required about how many people are involved in the various hourly activities in order to get a sense of the traffic impact. Mr. Parker asked the applicant how many soccer fields could be operated at one time in the complex; Mr. Martin replied two, that Field A is the overall field, and Fields B and C would be Field A broken down into two increments. He said that at the most there would be two fields with 4 teams playing at one time and the number of team participants could run between 10 to 15, or a total of 60 players at one time. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Martin how many soccer fields and parking spaces Moody Fields has, Mr. Martin replied that they have 5 fields, with about 100 to 125 parking spaces on grass and a broken pavement lot. Mr. Neily asked about
a backup system in case of collapse; Mr. Martin replied that there is a backup gas generator and if power were lost, it would take a couple of hours for the dome to come down, with dome pressure regulated by computer. Mr. Hughes asked if there were sprinklers installed in the domes in the photos Mr. Martin showed the Board; Mr. Martin replied that there were not. Mr. Shiers asked for clarification of Phase 2 and how the applicant saw the growth of the facility in the future as he could not see this project accommodating mass gathering special events. Mr. Martin said he would not want to limit the facility to not being able to accommodate a championship game, but while his original goal was to have 3 outdoor fields it became smaller in scope and he still hopes the larger field could be a showcase field for a championship game with the smaller field is a practice field. Mr. Martin said he would not be able to accommodate a mass gathering, but he would not want
to limit his option for a special event either. Mr. Shiers said it makes a difference if the traffic study is to be waived, and that he felt there is no need for a study as the proposal is not designed to handle large volumes of traffic. Mr. Martin said that large volumes of traffic could be transported by other methods such as a trolley between the high school and the facility. Mr. Neily suggested that perhaps there should be a discussion among staff, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief and the applicant about limiting the number of people to be permitted on the premises for safety reasons. Mr. Martin said he would not want to be limited to the number of people who could be brought into the facility but that he would not have the capability of bringing the 500 to 1000 people mentioned by Mr. Shiers into the facility. Mr. Parker commented that the applicant would need to apply for a public gathering permit for a large event, at which time the safety
and traffic flow alternatives could be presented. Ms. Fossum suggested that the Recreation Director could provide the information. Ms. Hazelton said that the Town has a mass gathering ordinance, over 500 people, with several check items such as parking and public safety documentation, how many toilets there will be, what the electrical source is, inclement weather policy. Mr. Parker said that large events in this facility would be governed by other Town ordinances and the Board does not need to cover it specifically in its approval of the site. Ms. Fossum discussed the University field house review and special events criteria and the parking management plan that Cheverus [H.S.] had to file for its special event, and that the suggestion to include the Chief of Police in a discussion about handling this facility could be helpful. She also said that staff has asked the applicant for a written proposal outlining the every day kinds of activities, and then
add the activities expected on weekends, based on seasonality. She said that interior plans for the dome are lacking regarding capacity of the one large field or the two smaller fields. Mr. Boyce asked if there was a code-driven occupancy limit; Mr. Martin replied that the number of occupants would be based on fire and safety codes, probably no more than 300. Mr. Boyce also asked about the proximity of the by-pass corridor to the site driveway; Mr. Martin referred to Shawn Moodyrequired spaces and needs direction from the Board to determine that number. Mr. Martin said he would like to pave all the spaces, which would include both grass and gravel areas, but it is a question of financial and esthetic concerns. Mr. Parker said the Board cannot decide on a waiver of the traffic study and challenge the number of parking spaces until it knows the applicant
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Paul Willis, Gorham, commented that this is a good, attractive low impact business and hoped that the traffic, parking and safety issues could be worked out.
Owens McCullough, 49 Ritz Farm Road, spoke in support of project as board member of GYSA and hoped that traffic and safety issues could be worked out.
Mark Stellmack, 5 William Henry Drive, spoke in support of project and recommended waiving traffic study.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Hughes referred to the Boardinput from a meeting at staff level with the Police and Fire Chiefs, as Mr. Neily had suggested earlier. Mr. Shiers said that more detailed information is needed before parking requirements can be established. Mr. Neily said he has no concerns about the parking; Mr. Boyce concurred, saying that he would like to have staff work out the documentation with the applicant to support a recommendation. Ms. Fossum said that a traffic study is required as the applicant is proposing more than 50 parking spaces, but this requirement can be waived by the Board at the next meeting following submission of additional information; Mr. Boyce said he would be comfortable doing that at the next meeting.
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to move this item to the next meeting of the Planning Board, depending on review by staff as requested. Motion CARRIED 5 ayes
Michael Parker MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to waive the “10:00 o
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Request for preliminary approval on a proposed new 8-lot subdivision on 18.78 acres off Fort Hill Road. Zoned R; Map 65/Lot 3.
Tom Greer of Pinkham & Greer appeared on behalf of the applicant, stating that all of the homes will be located as a cluster development, which the Board needs to determine is the best form of development for this site. He said that the applicant does not believe that there is a need to provide a future right-of-way for future expansion because North Brook cuts the project off and by extending the road defeats the purpose of being in a cluster, and the amount of land which could be developed on either side is limited by existing homes. Mr. Greer said that if the Board is willing to waive the recreational impact fees, the applicant would provide the Town with an access easement to the public open space and would also provide some parking spaces at the end of the road, or the applicant will leave public
access to the open space controlled by the home owners
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that, as required, the applicant has provided a conventional subdivision plan, showing the subdivision and road extended into the common open space; that the RLMS calculations have been completed and the proposed 8 lots are acceptable; that the proposed cluster subdivision has a reduced road frontage; and that a fire pond has been removed and the homes will be sprinkled. Mr. Shields said that the Board must find whether the cluster plan is the better form of development for the subdivision, the issue of road continuation, and the question of reserved recreational land.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shiers asked if the applicant gives the homeowners a year
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board approve of the cluster plan as the best form of development for this subdivision. Motion CARRIED 5 yeas
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board approve of not having a road continuation because of the fact that the land is cut off by the North Bank of Little River Brook. Motion CARRIED 5 ayes
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board grant approval of John T. HawkesDISCUSSION: Mr. Parker said that since there had been a mention of turning the recreational land over to someone other than the homeowners, he called the attention of the Board to the section of the Code that states it must remain the joint property of the property owners on the development and they are responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the open space, and that the Code did not allow for it to be turned over to the Town. Mr. Greer said they were proposing to provide the Town with an easement so that the fee ownership would remain with the homeownersMotion CARRIED 5 ayes
6. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discuss a proposal for a 7000 SF fitness center to occupy two acres of a 6.09-acre parcel at 601 Main Street on property owned by TNT Quickstop LLC. Zoned RC; Map 32/L14.
Timothy Flannery appeared on behalf of the applicant and reported that a traffic study had been done, showing that the greatest number of vehicles would be approximately 25 per hour at peak.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, stating that as a result of the comments received at the site walk, the applicant has chosen the plan being presently presented with the entrance at the crest of the hill and a shared access drive with TNT Quickstop next door. Mr. Shields said that the applicant needs clear direction on the following items: will the applicant have to submit the Traffic Study required by having 50 parking spaces; the question of shared access drive and the question of any improvements needed on Route 25, and the required 50 Mr. Neily asked if MDOT had been consulted about this plan; Mr. Shield said this is not one which is regulated by MDOT unless they exceed 100 vehicle trips per hour, which than may warrant a third lane.
Mr. Parker expressed concern about traffic flow and asked about the triggering for the need of a third lane. Ms. Fossum explained that the Town did an access study in 1999 indicating the need for a third lane in that section of Route 25, and because the Dunkincorrect. Ms. Fossum said that if the Board determines that the applicant does not need not to do the traffic study, she feels that staff should utilize the services of a traffic peer engineer reviewer. Mr. Hughes said he would be in favor of the applicant completing an application for a waiver of the traffic study. Mr. Flannery said that Jack Murphy has done a traffic study, and he believed the question at the last meeting was a peer review to look at Mr. Murphybetween the fitness center and the Quickstop. Mr. Flannery said if he is not going to be required to put in a 3rd lane, he will move forward with the engineering plans. Mr. Parker said he would like to see how traffic will enter and exit. Mr. Boyce said he did not believe this plan integrated the best engineering of the site with the roadway and the adjoining properties. Mr. Neily expressed concern about the number of businesses involved in 900 feet of frontage without an appropriate turning lane being created. Mr. Shields said the question is does our engineer design his site for him, or does he decide on a final site plan and start the peer review process from there. Ms. Fossum suggested that the concept plan and traffic information provided by Mr. Murphy could be reviewed by staff with the Townfully-engineered site plan. Mr. Hughes said he thought all the developer wants to know is if the Board will require him to construct the third lane and the other details could be worked out. Mr. Neily discussed the need for an impact fee to construct the third lane; Ms. Fossum said there were some figures that were about 4 years old that could be factored and she would pass the suggestion along [to the Town Council].
Mr. Boyce stated that shared access was a non-issue for him, noting that cross access agreements are written every day that establish the rights of either party to utilize and to maintain, shared access regardless of ownership, but would need the appropriate trained eye to advise the Board. Mr. Neily stated that although the Main Street Master Plan would not affect this project, it does address shared accesses, noting they are not something now being asked of applicants. He agreed with Mr. Boyce that shared access would be a reasonable approach to the problem. Mr. Flannery stated that although he appreciates and respects that, all options are on the table except a 3rd lane. As a case in point, Mr. Boyce noted the new Sewell/Citco gas station on Route 114 and Payne Road, near the old Happy Wheels, as being
an excellent use of the town
7. ADJOURNMENT
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn; MOTION CARRIED 3 ayes - 2 nays (Douglas Boyce and Richard Shiers against) (Harold Grant and Susan Robie absent). [11:20 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
November 18, 2002
R:\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN111802.doc
| |
