 |
Town of Gorham
January 6, 2003
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, Chairman DEBORAH F. FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, Vice-Chair. AARON D. SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
CLARK NEILY BARBARA C. SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
THOMAS HUGHES
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 2, 2002
Richard Shiers MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2002 Planning Board meeting.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Neily and Mr. Parker each pointed out certain typographic errors to be corrected.
Motion CARRIED to approve the December 2, 2002 minutes as corrected
2. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for review and approval of transfer of ownership for a 17-lot conventional subdivision on 26.81 acres as approved for Inland Development Corp. Zoned R; M85/L17.500
There was no discussion on this item.
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the change in ownership of the approved Annie
3. AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN STANDARDS - INDUSTRIAL PARK IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
Ms. Fossum, Town Planner, presented the staff report, explaining that the Town Council and the Gorham Economic Development Corporation have been working for several years to improve signage to the Gorham Industrial Park, and that the proposed amendment would permit construction of a new sign on property owned by R.J. Grondin & Sons at the intersection of Bartlett Road and Route 25, as well as at other locations as the Park expands, and would also allow Industrial Park Directory signs at intersections within the Park as required in the future. She indicated that as the Code Officer had identified a concern with Maine state regulations regarding off premise signs, a conference with Mr. William Dale, Town Attorney, resulted in the following changes to the proposed language: (1) to delete the phrase “off the industrial Park
premises” and (2) to add the phrase “to the extent permitted by State law,“ so that the amendment would read as follows:
“BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Gorham, Maine, in Town Council assembled, that Chapter II, General Standards of Performance, Section III, Signs, of the Gorham Land Use and Development Code be amended as follows, with the insertion of a new sub section D. and the re-lettering of sections D. Portable Signs and E. General to E. and F. respectively:
D. INDUSTRIAL PARK IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
To the extent permitted by State law, Gorham Industrial Park Identification Signs may be located off the industrial Park premises at the entrances of the Industrial Park on Bartlett Road and at the entrance of any new public road that accesses the Gorham Industrial Park and must be approved by the Gorham Economic Development Corporation and the Gorham Town Council.
1. Granite signs identifying the Gorham Industrial Park and accompanying decorative wall shall not exceed 120 sf on any one side.
2. Gorham Industrial Park Directory signs may be located at intersections within the Industrial Park.
Dated: ___________________________”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily commented about past problems with adequate signage for the Industrial Park and expressed his pleasure that the Park will now be well identified for the public.
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Land Use and Development Code, Chapter II, Section III, Signs, as outlined by the Town Planner with the deletion of the phrase “off the Industrial Park premises” and the addition of the phrase “to the extent permitted by State law,” to allow the placement of Industrial Park Identification Signs at the Bartlett Road entrance to the Industrial Park and at future entrances to the Industrial Park and to allow Industrial Park Directory signs at intersections within the Industrial Park.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boyce pointed out the need to insert the word “signs” in Item 1 of the proposed language to appear after the words “decorative wall.” Staff agreed.
Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:08 p.m.]
4. SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment of an approved plan for a lot line change between St. Anne
Les Berry of BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of Meadowbrook West Condominiums, as well as being co-chair of St. Anne
Aaron Shields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff comments, saying that the proposal is an even land swap, so the density of Meadowbrook West does not change so long as the farmhouse is removed. He explained that parcel C had a “reserve area” for future septic replacements and a 40-foot utility easement as part of the original approved site plan for Meadowbrook, and since they are hooked up to public sewer through the 40-foot easement, the septic reserve area is no longer required. Mr. Shields said that the minimum requirements that were put on the plan of 20,000 square feet, 80 feet of frontage, 40 foot front, 20 foot side and maximum building height of 30 feet refer to the Office Residential District, but since this is an amendment to a site plan for residential subdivision, this needs to be changed to reflect
the residential space standards, which will have to be changed in the mylar that the Board will sign. Mr. Grant asked if the church is responsible for paying to have the farmhouse taken down; Mr. Berry agreed. Mr. Shields commented that Condition of Approval 3 requires that the farmhouse be removed within 6 months of the approval date. Mr. Shields stated that the land transaction will not take place until the building has been torn down and removed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC HEARING ENDED.
Susan Robie MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant Gorham Condominium Association
5. SITE PLAN Request for approval for a new 45,000 SF recreational sports dome and 3,600 SF sports center off 215 Narragansett Street. Zoned ND; M39/L4
Les Berry of BH2M Engineers appeared on behalf of the applicant Stephen Martin, who was also present. Mr. Berry said that all of the parking (122 spaces) will now be paved, the applicant will meet with the Police Chief for special events permitting, Mr. Martin has done a great deal of work counting traffic at the Howard Sports facility, Mr. Martin has agreed to a Condition of Approval that the facility has to be sprinkled, and they are requesting a waiver of the traffic study.
Mr. Shields presented the staff report, stating that in order to deal with the concerns about traffic and parking for this unique use, it was decided that the applicant should do some traffic counts and comparisons as the best way to come up with accurate numbers. The report indicates that during the two busiest times, a Friday night and a Sunday, based on traffic, the number of participants in the building, and the number of events occurring, the total amount of parked cars never came close to the parking proposed in Phase 1 of the Sports Center. Mr. Shields said that the sports center where the counts took place is much larger than the proposed Sports Center and contains many more venues, so with the counts and the additional information provided about proposed future usage, staff feels comfortable that 122 parking spaces is a
good number, particularly as the spaces will now be paved. The applicant is asking for a waiver of the Traffic Study due to the number of parking spaces being provided, and the Board can waive that requirement, with 5 of the 7 Board members approving the waiver. He said that a meeting was held with the Police Chief to discuss any high-use events, typically during summer and fall weekend events, and any mass gathering event of 250 people or more would require the applicant to apply for a Mass Gathering Permit to insure that traffic and parking will be safe for the site. In addition, if the applicant exceeds the parking spaces that are currently paved, Mr. Shields said that he will have to meet with the Police Chief to allow the Police Chief to discuss that with him, and if it happens more than periodically, he will be forced to pave the future parking shown on the plan. Mr. Shields stated that the fire protection is still an issue, but the applicant has
agreed to a Condition of Approval on that issue in order to proceed with the project if he receives the Board
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
Jeff Bolduc, 13 Morrill Avenue, asked if the Sports Center would exit in the same area as the Narragansett School. Mr. Grant explained that the location of the proposed Sports Center would be out Route 202, out near MoodyPUBLIC HEARING ENDED.
Mr. Shiers discussed the Statebeen there from the beginning. Mr. Martin responded to Mr. Shiersit require a certain entrance permit; the answer was no, that DOT bases its entrance permits on normal usage, which would not be 100 vehicles trips per hour on a regular basis. Ms. Fossum said that the methodology used by the applicant is the only appropriate way a local situation, which is not covered by the national standards, can be looked at. Mr. Neily expressed concern about high numbers of vehicle exiting into Route 202 during rush hour, especially during the evening, and said if it were a bigger operation with more financing, he would look for a drop-off lane to help ameliorate that traffic conflict. Mr. Boyce said that he was comfortable waiving the requirement for a traffic study, that he doubted the facility would generate the amount of traffic generated by the High School athletic complex, and that a traffic study would not point up a need for any mitigation to accommodate this project. A discussion of the speed limit on Route 202 established that
it became 50 mph after the proposed project, and the speed limit is the same for the High School access as it would be for the Sports Complex. Mr. Parker commented that the traffic from Moody Fields would probably be comparable to what the proposed facility would generate, that the Moody Fields traffic has not presented a problem, and he too would feel comfortable waiving the traffic study.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant the applicant
Mr. Grant explained that the Fire Chief was unable to attend the Board meeting due to illness; he asked the applicant if he agreed to Condition of Approval No. 8, dealing with the Fire Chiefindicated concern about storm water management as there was no culvert under the drive; Mr. Berry explained the plan still has to go to DEP for a stormwater permit, but it is anticipated that as there is no outlet, water has to percolate now into the ground, so the ditches would be extended so that water will percolate into the ground through 2 infiltration ponds. In response to Mr. Grant, Mr. Shields indicated that staff feels the application is ready for approval.
Susan Robie MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant Gorham Sport Center, LLC
6. FINAL SUBDIVISION Request for final approval of a proposed 8-lot subdivision and private way on 18.78 acres of f Fort Hill Road. Zoned R; M65/L3
Thomas Greer of Pinkham and Greer appeared on behalf of the applicant and reported that since the last meeting before the Board, certain plan notes had been changed as requested by staff, one more minor note change needs to be made as Central Maine Power has requested a change to one of the transformer location easements.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, stating that access to the common open space will be provided to the public, including the right to several parking spaces at the end of the private way, an access easement has been drafted and found acceptable by the Town Attorney, and that the two limitations are that it is limited to 3 parking spaces at the end of the road and no access after twilight hours. He said that the applicant is still offering to pay the recreational fees as well in order to satisfy the requirements. Mr. Shields said that the legal documents are almost completely in good order with only a few clerical changes required.
Mr. Grant asked if the old house on lot 1 is a single-family house and was there a plan note saying that the homes had to be single family. Mr. Greer replied that it was a single-family home. Mr. Grant said he believed there should be a plan note; Mr. Shields referred to Note 6 on the plan, “Proposed use: single family.” Mr. Parker expressed his enthusiasm about the public access to the open space and asked if the requirement that the Homeowners Association maintain the parking and open space would not become a financial burden. Mr. Greer responded that the parking spaces should be easy to maintain, there might be an occasional trash pickup required, some type of fairly low impact trail network might be established around it, and that there would be more sweat equity than cost associated with the
maintenance. Mr. Shiers asked if the private way would be built to private way specifications or to public specifications. Mr. Greer replied that it is a paved private way, and while he would have to check, but he believed the actual pavement depth different from the normal standard. In response to Mr. Shiers, Mr. Greer that it was intended to always be a private way. In response to Mr. Grant, Mr. Greer said that the private way was designed as a ten-lot private way. Mr. Greer responded to a question from Mr. Neily that a neighboring home sold in the high $200,000about 150 feet higher than any other piece of land in Gorham. Mr. Greer replied that staff had asked that that be correlated to USGS coordinates, which will be put on the plan.
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to grant John T. Hawkes_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION “WOODSIDE CONDOS” Discuss a proposal for a 7-unit condominium development on 2.49 acres at 38 Water Street. Zoned UR; M101/L 20
Les Berry, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant, John S. Hawrylo, who was also present. In response to a query from Mr. Grant, Mr. Berry stated that the project was for condos. Mr. Berry explained that the design for the project is dated August, 2000, and was only recently reactivated for submission at about the same time that the DEP changed the resource protection laws from a 25-foot setback from the normal high water line to a 75-foot setback. Rather than depend on DEP to be “easy” about the setback, it was decided to re-work the plan to push the project back into the lot a bit more and create the required 75-foot setback from the stream. Mr. Berry said that further work would be done with the plan, and they would like a site walk scheduled.
Mr. Shields gave the staff report, stating that most of his comments would have dealt with the DEP issue, which is now moot, the project will have to meet multi-family performance standards, and the applicant will need to work with the Public Works Director, who has some concern about the access drive.
Mr. Grant commented that when the site was first examined, there would probably have been a sidewalk required, that there is a part of one nearer Main Street, and this should be looked at during the sitewalk. Mr. Grant said that the Code specified that a sidewalk hookup should be made if a portion of one already exists. Mr. Berry said he would bring to the sitewalk a map showing the old sidewalk.
Mr. Grant indicated that a sitewalk would be scheduled. [8:15 p.m.]
Ten Minute Stretch Break to 8:25 p.m.
Mr. Grant reopened the discussion on Item No. 7, Woodside Condos, in order to allow public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Dan Willett stated that his comments applied not only to this item but the next two as well as they deal with the infrastructure necessary to support the developments in question, particularly public water, which he believes is stressed in the Village. Mr. Willett quoted from a Portland Water District letter of December 20, 2002, to Owens McCullough of Sebago Technics, Inc., as follows:
“As you know, the pumping capacity of both the water and sewer systems serving Gorham Village and the Fort Hill Road area specifically are stressed to seasonal peak capacity. We have had some concern recently that continued development in Gorham Village will require the District to institute water conservation policies at certain peak flow periods.”
Mr. Willett expressed his hope that before these projects receive final approval by the Board, resolution of the water concerns is achieved.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
8. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION Discuss a proposal for a 27-unit multi-family development on 7.5 acres at 42 Morrill Avenue. Zoned UR; M106/L19 and M25/L6
The developer, Greg McCormack, stated that the proposal is for 27 single family attached houses, condominiums, for which an association would be formed. It was hoped that a “village within a village” could be created, targeted at empty nesters, retirees, and older people. He said he believed that the project would have an $8 million valuation, yielding approximately $100,000 in tax revenue to the Town of Gorham. Mr. McCormack conceded that there would be additional traffic on Morrill Avenue as a result of the development. Mr. McCormack then introduced his partner, Amy Mulkerin, who passed out sample elevations of homes they hope will sell for $200,000 to $300,000 apiece. Mr. McCormack said he lives in Gorham and hopes to make a positive contribution to the Town with the project. He said they
need the density of the project in order to provide the revenue to do a good job, that they intend to use as many local skilled craftsmen as possible, such as purchasing the primary building materials from Phinney Lumber, that the roads will be constructed to Town specifications so they will be offered to the Town for acceptance upon completion. He said they will available to answer any questions or concerns about the project. He then introduced Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics to present the details of the project.
Mr. Stinson presented an overview of the project, pointing out its relationship to Morrill Avenue and the High School access road, the location of abutters and proposed buffers, and stating that the size of the parcel is 7.5 acres, wooded, with 27 units proposed in 5 buildings, having garages and decks. He said the site borders the Village Woods Subdivision and has a drainage easement with Village Woods drainage system, with two stormwater management ponds, one on each side of the site, but are looking at other options as well. Mr. Stinson asked that a sitewalk be scheduled.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Al and Elaine Liberio, 119 South Street: Mr. Liberio read into the record the following letter addressed to the Planning Director:
“Dear Ms. Fossum:
I received the announcement for the next Gorham Planning Board Meeting. Thank you for sending it to us. I would like to address item #8 on the agenda.
I believe the proposal for a 27-unit multi-family development on this area of land of only 7.5 acres would be a major detriment to the Town of Gorham. I am one of the abutters and have lived here since 1990. This proposed apartment complex would put a tremendous strain on anyone living in the apartments, every neighbor that abuts the property, every side street and most assuredly South Street. Anytime this many people are living in a small cramped area, tensions mount easily and crime inevitably rises. Statistics show that there would be more burglaries, drugs and assaults as well as increased trash and litter. We are looking at approximately 100 people living in an area of 7.5 acres with only one major road access onto Morrill Avenue, which is already too small to accommodate the
existing traffic. There will most likely be an average of two vehicles per household as well, not to mention frequent visiting folks with their vehicles. I believe this is a recipe for disaster. The additional cars pouring out onto Morrill Ave. directly across from the school will cause more congestion and increase the possibility for accidents and injury to the school children. . Commuters already take Access Road to Morrill Ave. as a by pass from Route 25 to South St. I even remember reading an article in the Gorham Times requesting people not to do this due to the safety of the school children. Is it wise to add all the additional traffic from an apartment complex to the same street?
I am also concerned about the negative affect on our property values. My wife is a mortgage underwriter and she has explained that commercial use of neighboring property does negatively affect marketability and the value of the surrounding residential homes. An apartment complex is a commercial use and property values would go down in the surrounding neighborhood.
One other consideration is the drainage problem that would arise from building this complex. In the springtime and during heavy rains much of the woods floods as it used to be a swampy area. In order to build these apartments the foundation area would need to be built up. The surrounding property would then be at a lower grade. Where would all that water go that had previously drained into the woods? It would flow into the yards and basements of the neighboring homes. Our home in particular would be affected, as our property is located in a back lot behind the other homes on South St. We already have some flooding problems in the spring and during heavy rains. The apartment complex would just increase the problem.
I believe these are sufficient reasons to reject this plan as soon as possible. Gorham has been a lovely place to live for a very long time. We all want it to continue that way.
Thank you for your time and consideration. My wife and I will be attending the meeting on January 6.
Sincerely Yours,
Al Liberio”
Mrs. Liberio then asked the following questions: (1) how does this 27 unit condo project fit in with the UR zoning; Ms. Fossum replied that based on what has been reviewed so far, it is consistent with the zoning requirements in the district; (2) are there variances required for this project, and what are they; Ms. Fossum replied that there are no variances required and it is not yet known if the developer will request any waivers; (3) concerning fire safety, are there turnarounds for fire trucks; Mr. Shields replied that the project would have to be completely sprinkled and the design also has the turnarounds necessary to meet the Townbedroom or an office on the second floor; (5) has the police department been consulted regarding the project; Ms. Fossum replied with a description of the process by which the plans are submitted for review to the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Code Enforcement Officer, and Tax Assessor, all of whom receive revisions to the plans throughout the process, and any comments received from the department heads are passed on to the Planning Board and to the developer, that an outside review engineer will be hired when the formal plans are submitted, that this is a pre-application conference and the plans are not detailed, the developer is here to make a brief presentation to the Board, give a general overview, ask for a sitewalk which the Board will decide when to hold, abutters are notified of the date of the sitewalk and all members of the public and abutters are welcome to join the sitewalk, the abutters are notified each time the application is on the agenda;
(6) will there be a traffic study done; Mr. Shields answered saying it was still to be determined once they submit their preliminary plans; (7) what is the Boardrunoff and meters it out at a pre-determined rate such that the rate of runoff does not exceed that of the runoff in its undeveloped condition.
Susan Reynolds, 52 Morrill Avenue, requested that the sitewalk be done during this time of year, when the road is very narrow and dangerous for children, and that it be done during the early morning when children are being dropped off for school and people are leaving for work.
Arnold Banner, Running Springs Road, commented about the property owned by Mr. Hale immediately to the south of the proposed development and the close proximity of Running Springs Road immediately to the south of that. He expressed his concern about such a high-density development completely surrounded by single-family houses on one half to one-acre lots, about the access road showing as an easement to the Hale property, and about the potential precedent for development of the Hale property.
Melanie Rubins, 14 Sunrise Lane, spoke about drainage problems on her property and on the properties of neighbors, and suggested that the Board hold its sitewalk on a rainy day to see how water floods these properties and the erosion caused in heavy rains. She also spoke of three homes in the neighborhood for sale in the $300,000 range, which have been on the market for 6 months and questioned the marketability of the proposed development.
Mike Chabot, 17 Morrill Avenue, commented about the committee appointed by the Town Council to study the traffic issues on Morrill Avenue and suggested that it would be advisable to see what the committee has to say before getting too far into the project a t hand; he also spoke of his concerns about the wildlife in the wooded area that would be impacted.
Elaine Liberio, 119 S. Street, asked that the Board not think about the money but instead about the quality of life of the people in the neighborhood.
Leo Marquis, 6 Douglas Street, spoke about the quality of life in Gorham and at what point do we stop and consider the people affected.
Mark Clements, 10 Morrill Avenue, spoke of his concern about the amount of development that has occurred in the Village area, the traffic problems on Morrill Avenue, condition of the road, potential danger to children, lack of sidewalks, the beauty of the neighborhood, the density of the project, and impact on water, sewer and trash pickup.
Sandra Bailey, 46 Morrill Avenue, spoke about the traffic problems and how well things will be looked into as the site plan does not have her name listed as owner of her property.
Lee Cyr, 3 Oak Wood Drive, spoke of stormwater management concerns and what will happen with the future access.
Lori Roth, 13 Sunrise Lane, spoke of the need for more information from the developer and how abutters can be better informed. Mr. Shields replied that at some point in the future the developer will submit a preliminary package to the Board, which will be about 90% of a complete package for final approval. The proposal will be put on the Board
Carolyn Bowers, 34 Morrill Avenue, said she believed the buffers shown were not sufficient and the development is going to be very densely populated in a very small area. She also spoke about traffic concerns. She asked what can be done to stop the development. Mr. Grant replied that the project will be evaluated against the criteria, taking into account the comments made by the public and the concerns expressed about such things as stormwater management. He said that this is an allowed use, so something will happen on the property, whether it is this proposal or not. Ms. Bowers asked how a moratorium can be brought about on development in the Village. Mr. Grant replied that the Town Council has discussed this recently and at this time they have not yet decided what course of action to take.
Lisa Bolduc, 13 Morrill Avenue, spoke about the traffic problems, loss of wildlife habitat, impact on quality of life of people on Morrill Avenue, problems which could be caused by such high-density development, theft by high school students.
Gail Lawrence, 14 Morrill Avenue, said she made a conscious decision to buy her property and expected the traffic, but does not believe the street is the right place for row houses.
Mary Ellen Valentine, 19 Morrill Avenue, expressed her concerns about the traffic, that she cannot walk now on Morrill Avenue because of the traffic and the fumes.
Michael Lortie, 18 Morrill Avenue, spoke about the density of the development, safety issues, and traffic.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shields made the staff report, commenting about the review by the Town Council on the Morrill Avenue traffic issues; the stormwater management issue which will be driven by engineering, whether it is on site or taken out to the municipal system; the question of whether sidewalks will be required by the Board; and the requirement that the multi-family performance standards be met.
Mr. Parker asked Mr. Stinson if any consideration has been given to an alternate exit from the project; Mr. Stinson replied that the only access is shown on the plan. Mr. Neily commented about the concern expressed in the Portland Water District letter, “As you know, the pumping capacity of both the water and sewer systems serving Gorham Village and the Fort Hill Road area specifically are stressed to seasonal peak capacity. We have had some concern recently that continued development in Gorham Village will require the District to institute water conservation policies at certain peak flow periods.” Mr. Neily said this is something that has to be considered with perhaps impact fees assessed against the cost of new facilities. He also expressed concern that the outdoor facilities at the High School be
protected, and asked if this is the right thing in the right place. Mr. Boyce asked to see on a map during the sitewalk a depiction of the nearest homes in the South Woods development and road network there to understand the relationship of the project to the neighborhood. Mr. Grant suggested that perhaps an aerial photograph could be provided; Mr. Stinson said he would provide one for the sitewalk. Mr. Boyce also said it would be of interest to the Board to see what changes the Town Council might be doing; Ms. Fossum said that at their meeting on Tuesday night, the Council will define the actual charge of the committee that is to look at Morrill Avenue. Ms. Robie commented that some of the Morrill Avenue residents spoke of the growth in the Village, and if that is a major concern, then they should be attending the meetings of the Town Council, because the Planning Boardthe Board, and the Planning Board has no authority to not approve projects that meet the ordinance. Mr. Parker suggested that since there are water and sewer problems confronting three projects before the Board, someone from the Portland Water District should be invited to address these issues. Ms. Fossum said the District can provide written information, and she would ask Jay Hewitt if he would be willing to attend a workshop. Ms. Fossum said that one of the first times the District expressed concern about water capacity in the Village was as a result of the Middle Schoolperhaps the potential for reduced fire fighting flows as the elevation goes higher, but the bottom line for the District is that in terms of basic domestic needs, the District can serve most of the development that we are seeing. Mr. Grant commented that at a meeting of the Ordinance Committee on Wednesday, the first order of business is future extensions of water and sewer, and within the next two or three months some decisions will be made.
Mr. Grant said a sitewalk will be scheduled.
9. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION / CONDOS Discuss a proposal for a 62-unit condominium development on 80 acres off Fort Hill Road. Zoned UR/SR; M46/L11.001
Bob Georgitis, project manager for Kasprzak Condominiums, Inc. and Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics, project engineer, appeared to discuss a revised design/concept plan for the project resulting from additional site surveys and meetings with staff and Les Berry, who will be the Townroad standards, but these standards create a very linear design, almost a subdivision look. Therefore, in order to create more of a neighborhood look, a revised concept plan for the proposed road layout has been drawn up to create driveways and/or access drives, with the main access drives within the subdivision to the standards for public streets in width, grade, etc., which will also meet the requirements for public safety vehicles. Mr. McCullough said that the revised option allows more flexibility in the design of the project and provides for some parking. Mr. McCullough discussed the minimum separation requirement between certain intersections for roads built to public standards which if applied would not permit achieving a neighborhood design. However, the revised option still provides for looped access through the site and would ultimately be connected to further development at the rear of the site.
Ms. Fossum presented the staffmany of the things that the ordinance encourages in developments of this type. She said that the developer is seeking confirmation from the Board because some developers in recent years have proposed public streets in condominium projects, which is more the exception rather than the rule, and this developer is choosing not to offer the roads to the Town but is designing them to meet public safety standards. Ms. Fossum said that the two main roads will be built to public road standards even though they will not be offered to the Town, and the interior roads which serve the neighborhoods will accommodate the turning radius of any of the Town
Mr. Shiers asked what happened to the concept plan for million dollar condominiums of 4 units, New England style of design. Mr. Georgitis said that the average sale price would be about $250,000, so that the 4-unit buildings would have been $1 million, not the individual units. He said that basically the buildings have been cut in half in the revised concept because of the expense involved in meeting the Townmore land. In response to Mr. Grant, Mr. Georgitis said that a rough estimate for sprinkling per building had been reported to him in the range of $50 to $60,000. He said that the 4 unit building is considered by the State Fire Marshallsaid he also prefers the revised concept and asked for clarification about what roads, if any, would be turned over to the Town or would need to be maintained by the condominium association. Mr. Georgitis replied that the main access would be built to Town standards with a right of way for future development but it would be maintained by the association and it has the option to ask for the road to be accepted. Mr. Grant said he would like to see the width of the travel lanes for the interior roads, building materials standards for gravel, etc, bituminous thickness, whether there will be curbing, sidewalks, parking, etc. Mr. Georgitis said they are not proposing to build a substandard road, and that it is in their interest to build a road that will not require maintenance for 10 to 15 years, that they have built roads such as these with the full depth of gravel, full pavement width, and in some cases they have asked to vary the width standard under certain
circumstances from 24 to 22, but the streets will have everything that is normally seen in a public street. Mr. Parker asked what the status is of the Route 202 exit that the Council had specifically requested the Board to consider. Mr. Grant commented that looking at the numbers, he did not believe a 202 exit was practical. He also said that this project faces problems, which could be showstoppers such as the Portland Water Districtsewer issues are key to the project, and he would like to see an estimated unit count of the total project to determine how big an impact the development would have to estimate overall requirements such as how large a pump station would be required for the entire project and what a fair assessment on the developer of the total cost might be. Mr. Neily suggested that others who might come on line should share in the cost of a new pump station. Mr. Georgitis said that much research has been done but there the sewer issue is still unresolved. He said they are working with the District on the sewer issue toward temporary and long term solutions, doing an evaluation of the existing pump station to see what upgrades might be made to accommodate the first phase of the development, but the Town and the District and other developers will probably be participating in a new pump station in the future, but that cost is unknown as no plans have been done, which is of concern
because they need to identify as many of their costs as possible before they decide whether or not to go forward with the project. He said that the District is looking at the Tannery Brook watershed, and the Town Council has on its agenda an ordinance amendment to create a Fort Hill service area for sewer, but he knows of no specific studies or cost estimates investigated in terms of doing a gravity sewer from Fort Hill Road to Route 202 and a new pump station. Ms. Fossum said that the sewer service area study is very preliminary and no engineering design work has been done yet.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Phil Kimball, 193 Fort Hill Road, apologizing for a hard-of-hearing problem, asked for an explanation of why the 44-unit design is now a 62 unit design, and asked what attempts have been made to provide an exit on to Route 202. He spoke of his concern about safety and speed on Route 114, the trucks and other vehicles that use the road, and his belief that the upgrade of 114 by the State will not improve the safety of the road. He stressed the Councilresponded in writing on this issue to the Board, with a copy to the Council.
Constance Kimball, 193 Fort Hill Road, expressed her concerns about traffic and the safety of her grandchildren riding on buses.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED 7 ayes. [10:20 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
January 6, 2003
2. A. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT 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. All streets to be properly named and signed with Town approved Street Signs.
b. The eight-inch water main extends down Hackmatack Way to within 150 to 170 feet of Fort Hill Road. This water main should be extended the additional 150 feet to Fort Hill Road and a hydrant should be placed at the corner of Hackmatack and Fort Hill. This also would make the water system for this subdivision a looped system when the water main is extended down Fort Hill Road past Hackmatack Way.
c. 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.
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 final engineering details and plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
That prior to occupancy each house within the subdivision shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round; and
That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Tax Assessor;
That the Offer of Cession, Road Association Documents and proposed deeds shall be revised to satisfy any final review comments of the Town Attorney, prior to the release of the Final Plan Mylar; 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 Board4. SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
Approved
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is limited to specific amendments proposed and 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;
2. That all other applicable conditions of approval attached to the original subdivision / site plan approval shall remain fully in effect;
3. That the structure located on Parcel A & B be removed within 6 months of the approval date; and
4. That these conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board5. SITE PLAN
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 de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the owner or operator of the facility shall meet with the Police Chief to coordinate the provision of additional parking for any event that is anticipated to generate a demand for more parking spaces than are provided on the site;
3. That if the Police Chief determines that areas designated on this plan as future parking areas have been utilized for overflow parking on a regular basis, then the owner shall pursue site plan approval for conversion of the area to a parking lot that meets all applicable requirements of the Land Use and Development Code;
4. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;
5. That the applicant shall meet the following requirements, as outlined in the Fire Chiefa. The building will be completely sprinkled meeting all requirements of the Towns Sprinkler Ordinance.
b. The sprinkler plans shall be submitted to both the State Fire Marshalc. The sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Gorham Fire Department at least two weeks prior to the start of construction of the system.
d. The building shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code Chapter 8.
e. The building plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshalf. One fire hydrant will be required placed in the yard of the facility. Location to be determined by the Fire Department.
6. That all construction and site alterations shall be done in accordance with the “Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices,” Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District, Department of Environmental Protection, dated March, 1991;
7. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Tax Assessor;
8. That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated with the approved site plan, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting through the Planning Office, with the selected Review Engineer, Portland Water District, 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;
9. That the site improvements shall be completed as shown on the approved plans prior to request for either temporary or final occupancy permits for the building; or a performance guarantee, covering the remaining site improvements shall be established through the Planning Department;
10.That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
6. FINAL SUBDIVISION 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 subdivision and private way;
The private way shall be maintained for emergency vehicles year-round;
The private way shall be designed and constructed to conform to the standards for private ways as presented in the Land Use and Development Code, Town of Gorham, Section V, Subsection H, latest revision;
The Town of Gorham shall not be responsible for the maintenance, repair, plowing, or similar services for the private way shown on this plan, and if the private way has not been built to public way standards, the Town Council will not accept it as a public way;
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 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, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
That prior to occupancy each house within the subdivision shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round;
That prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for any of the lots served by the private way, the Town Engineer shall certify to the Code Enforcement Officer that the private way has been constructed in accordance with Chapter II, Section V, and the approved Private Way Plan;
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;
That the deck on the existing home be removed or brought into compliance with the appropriate setbacks from the private way prior to the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision;
That all homes within the subdivision will be sprinkled and the sprinkler plans must be submitted to the State Fire Marshal
That the legal documents shall be revised to satisfy any final review comments of the Town Attorney, prior to the release of the Final Plan Mylar; and
That the conditions of approval, the proposed covenants and deed restrictions, easements and the Final Plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
