 |
Town of Gorham
January 13, 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 A. SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
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.
Request to Suspend the Rules and Add an Item to the Agenda.
Ms. Fossum explained that Gilbert Homes was requesting that the Board suspend its rules and add an item to its Agenda to permit an amendment to the subdivision plan for Stonefield Phase I Subdivision in order to show an additional drainage easement on Lots 7 and 8 so that the proposed recommended street acceptance for Sleepy Hollow Drive, as approved by the Board in October of 2002, can go forward to the Town Council. Ms. Fossum indicated that all property owners in the Stonefield Phase I Subdivision have been notified, and the only property owner to be affected by the easement, other than the developer, has indicated he is agreeable to the easement with certain stipulations.
Mr. Parker asked if this action is a clean one and is ready to go, Ms. Fossum replied that it is.
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to suspend the Planning Board Rules in order to add a new item between Items 4 and 5. This item would be a request for approval of an amendment to the Stonefield Phase I Subdivision Plan. Motion CARRIED 7 ayes [7:04 p.m.]
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 6, 2003
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2003, Gorham Planning Board meeting as printed and distributed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Grant suggested certain changes to a sentence on page 12 of the draft minutes.
Motion CARRIED to approve the January 6, 2003 minutes as changed 7 ayes. [7:06 p.m.]
Harold Grant recused himself from discussion on Items 2 and 3 of the Agenda and requested that the Vice Chairman, Douglas Boyce, take his place. Clark Neily recused himself from discussion on Agenda Item 2.
2. GRAVEL PIT Discussion on a proposed 20.5-acre gravel pit off Fort Hill Road and North Street on land of Jackson. Zoned R; M63/L26.
Jon Whitten of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant, introduced Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics, Larry Grondin of R.J. Grondin & Sons, Jack Murphy who did the traffic study for the project, and the Jacksons, and gave an overview description of the project, explaining that the pit has not been operating for a number of years and has never been reclaimed to the current standards of the ordinance. He described the property, saying that the operation was never registered with the Town and therefore is not seen as a grandfathered, active pit. He said that the operation would include developing a 20.5 acre gravel pit with a floor area of about 14.5 acres in size, that entrance to the site would be off Route 114, with an access road into the previously excavated area, and that excavation of the
remaining sand and gravel materials would be down to an elevation of approximately 223 feet, representing about a 2-foot separation from the ground water table that was found by Sweet Associates through existing ponded areas on the site and 2 monitoring wells on the higher side of the site in undisturbed areas. He said that the proposal included filling in the pit floor to an elevation 2 feet above the groundwater elevation, that the current ordinance requires a 5 foot separation between the ground water table and pit floor elevation, but does allow the applicant to apply for a variance, and that the applicant is requesting final approval with a condition of approval requiring them to obtain the variance. Mr. Whitten stated that the excavation would be in two phases: the first phase would be no larger than 15 acres without reclamation, reclamation would be made with 3 to 1 side slopes, and soil benches 6 feet wide were proposed to break up the slope to prevent
uninterrupted water flow. He said topsoil would be kept on the site, and reclamation plans are for 4 inches of loam and grass seed. Mr. Whitten expressed concern with the suggestion that the applicant plant trees as part of its reclamation process inasmuch as Mr. Jackson has indicated that he will return the land to tree growth land, and R.J. Grondin does not want to be involved with that activity. He said that recent soils investigations indicate that the applicant will be taking less material than first proposed, probably to the 240 line, and the drawings will be edited to reflect that on the next submittal. Mr. Whitten said that the applicant will maintain 100 feet of undisturbed natural buffer along Route 114, 200 feet back from the North Street abutters, 200 feet from the property owned by the horse farm, as well as 200 feet from the Neily and Parsons properties, so no waivers are being suggested and no reciprocal deeds will be required. He said
the applicant does have an agreement with Mr. Jackson to go 10 feet from his house lot. Mr. Whitten also stated that there will be no permanent fuel storage on the site, there will be approximately 50 average daily trips, or about 20 dump trucks, there will be no water run to the site, no power or sewer. Mr. Whitten said that visual inspection was done of the property to locate wells, that Mr. Jacksonmeeting.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, summarizing the applicantthe pit. Instead of filling the pit to bring it to 5 feet above the seasonal groundwater table level, which would require a huge amount of fill, the applicant is proposing to come within 2 feet of the groundwater level, but Mr. Shields emphasized that this was not at the request of the Town. Mr. Whitten concurred that the Town had not asked the applicant to do that. Mr. Shields indicated that under the ordinance, obtaining a DEP permit could be a condition of approval, and that while the Townwork with DOT to match designs. Mr. Shields commented that the applicant has submitted a satisfactory reclamation plan, and Mr. Jackson plans to re-plant trees after the reclamation in order to be eligible to take the tax credit for the tree growth management program, and the Grondins do not want to be tied into tree planting as part of their plan. Mr. Shields said that so far as the well locations are concerned, Mr. Whitten has provided a satisfactory answer about public water supply and the church probably would not the 25 people per day for 60 days to qualify.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Debbie Arcaro, 37 North Street, runs a day care and is concerned about traffic, and wants to know if the trucks will use North Street instead of 114.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Larry Grondin replied that it is highly unlikely that trucks will use North Street, that even if they went to Standish they would go up 114 and over to Route 35, and most of the other traffic will go south on 114.
Ms. Robie said that the site location map indicated that there was a school next to the church, the Whitney School, and there might be a public water supply. Mr. Whitten replied that there was no school; it was a house now. Ms. Robie confirmed that there was no day care associated with the church. She asked for confirmation that there would be no permanent fueling; Mr. Whitten replied that there would be no fuel storage on site, and refueling would be done by a fuel truck owned by R.J. Grondin, and that DEP required spill prevention kits, and did not believe that DEP required that refueling be done on an impervious surface. However, he said he would look into it. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Shields what his opinion was on approving the application with a condition of approval about the DEP waiver,
saying it seemed reasonable to him especially as it would eliminate the need for Grondin to have to return. Mr. Shields said his thought is that Steve Bushey has asked for the permit to be in place before approval as DEP could ask for an impervious concrete pad in the refueling area since they would not be 5 feet above the water table, and the applicant would have to come back before the Board to be amended per such a change. Ms. Fossum said that there may be several minor changes by DEP, such as the operations manual, and that from a follow-up perspective of the monitoring of the pit following the Planning BoardHughes asked how long the DEP approval process would take. Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics explained that the DEP process has changed from the early 90middle of the site, which would afford substantial noise buffering for the abutters in the form of the 200 buffer and drop in elevation. The pit would have to be operated and monitored under the DEP and Town regulations regarding decibel levels. Mr. Shiers said he was comfortable with moving forward with the application with a condition of approval about the DEP permitting, and commented that at the site walk Mr. Jackson indicated he wanted to plant the trees, so it should not be included in the applicantWhitten acknowledged the concern, and said that signage will be posted on either side of the hill about trucks entering and exiting the site, and the applicant feels that the good sight distance will provide an adequate safety feature. Mr. Whitten said that the access road is proposed to be 22 feet, with either 20 or 25 feet radii coming on to existing pavement, and they are not proposing improvements to 114. Mr. Boyce commented that Mr. ShiersDEP variance process to follow; Ms. Fossum said staff would work with the applicant and schedule the application for formal public hearing once the applicant has made any final revisions and resubmitted the application. [7:50 p.m.]
Mr. Neily rejoined the Board
3. GRAVEL PIT Discussion on a proposed 23.5-acre gravel pit off Fort Hill Road and Mighty Street on land of Lewry, Grant and Walker. Zoned R & SR/SZ; M83/L13, 7 & 4.
Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the location of the pit. He said it consists of approximately 83 acres in 3 parcels, of which 45 acres are owned by Harold Grant, 26.5 acres are owned by the Walkers, and 12.6 acres are owned by Willard Lewry. He said the pit would be approximately 23 acres, mined in two phases, with phase one, about 17 acres, starting east of the CMP easement running north to south through the parcel, and phase two removing material within the CMP easement and working west to the limits of the area proposed, but at no time will more than 15 acres be open in either phase. He said access to the site will be from Route 114, north of the Lewry driveway, which will be abandoned, running in a northeasterly direction along the Lewry property
line. Mr. Stinson said Mr. Lewry does not own land on Mighty Street, and they had been advised by other landowners that access through their properties to Mighty Street is not an option. He said a traffic study has been performed by Jack Murphy and a MDOT driveway-opening permit has been received. Mr. Stinson said a hydrogeology study has been performed by Richard Sweet, with the borings done encountering bedrock at elevation 192, with no groundwater being encountered. Mr. Sweet said that as he got closer to bedrock the soils samples showed a mottled condition, which could imply some seasonal groundwater at least seasonally. Mr. Stinson said the applicant is willing to set a monitoring well as the operation goes forth in order so that the bottom stays at least 5 feet above the seasonal high groundwater table. He said that most of the well locations are shown and those that are not will be put on subsequent submittals. He said that 200-foot
buffers have been provided along the property lines except for 10-foot buffers from the abutting landowners, who have written agreements with the applicant, and the applicant is asking to reduce the buffer at the Baxter parcel to 100 feet. Mr. Stinson showed visual diagrams illustrating the view of the pit from the Baxter property. He said that the applicant will meet the noise standards, which will be met by the pit being below the ground surface. He said that the plans have been modified to bring the pit limit within the tree line along Mighty Street, with a stand of trees left as a visual buffer.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, summarizing the pit description and the proposed operation phases, with periodic crushing, no blasting, and a time expectancy of 12 years. Mr. Shields spoke about the Sweet report of groundwater, saying that there was no exact conclusion, that there may be a sloping groundwater table, elevations were estimated, and recommendations have been made to observe the monitoring well throughout the following year or perhaps longer. Mr. Shields referred to Steve BusheyTownthat safeguards need to be in place so that a prospective buyer of the home is aware of the excavation limit. He said that about 25 feet of vegetation and tall growth trees will remain on the Mighty Street southeasterly corner as the applicant has kept the pit extent out of the open CMP right of way. Mr. Shields discussed the proposed access roadway, saying that the permit applicant was Willard Lewry and the DOT could not ask him to produce an alternate location within his boundary limits and cannot look at access to other landowners, which Mr. Stinson had indicated would not be possible. Mr. Shields said that the Planning Board has the ability to look at the bigger picture with the other land owners and let the applicant know whether or not the Board wants them to look further at any other locations, and that staff would recommend that a third-party review engineer be engaged to look at this location to determine its safety and suitability.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Jim Yager, Fort Hill Road, at the intersection of Mighty Street and Fort Hill Road from his house, said he attended the Route 114 Corridor Commission meeting and that there is serious concern about this road accessing directly onto 114 within the 114 Corridor and large slow vehicles entering 114 at this point. Mr. Yager suggested the Board should consult with the Commission before finalizing any opinion about the pit access road. Mr. Yager asked if the Baxters agree with the setback; Mr. Shields replied that staff has not heard from the Baxters, but this is not a permission-required reduction in buffer, it is permission by the Planning Board and the applicant must meet certain performance standards in order to get the reduction.
Morgan Baxter, 181 Mighty Street, indicated that he is vehemently opposed to the pit being any less than 200 feet from his property.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Hughes asked for confirmation of the location of the Baxter property and if the line of trees will remain, Mr. Stinson affirmed that the trees will stay. Mr. Boyce commented that in order to obtain the buffer reduction, the applicant must meet certain Code requirements, which he quoted, dealing with noise decibel control, dust control, and visual screening through plantings or a berm, and that he had not heard all these points addressed in a manner which would satisfy him, particularly the decibel level measurements which he believed should be in writing. Mr. Shiers recommended that in light of the Sweet report more monitoring wells should be placed on site; Mr. Stinson asked if Mr. Shiers wanted to see the wells before work started in the pit and or while work was ongoing. Mr. Shiers replied he was
comfortable with the wells going in while work was ongoing based on the proposed plan of operation of the pit; Mr. Stinson said that would be acceptable. Mr. Boyce said he would like to see recommendations from the hydrogeologist for pisometer locations and timing of installations, particularly in the spring. Mr. Hughes spoke about the different projects and proposed developments in the Fort Hill/Route 114 area that are under consideration and their individual impact on traffic, which probably can be handled, but when viewed as a whole can have a very significant negative impact. He said that the Board needs to take a very hard look at the overall view, particularly with regard to traffic, and that the major issue with the current proposal is getting traffic in and out. Mr. Boyce concurred. Mr. Neily indicated he is not against the project, and asked to see a map showing Wescott Road, Mighty Street, and the proposed access road into this project.
Mr. Stinson pointed out the salient points on the aerial photo. Mr. Neily concurred with staffaround the end of the Baxter property, Mr. Stinson replied that there was not, and that in their next submittal they would detail the sight line better. Mr. Parker felt that a berm would satisfy the Code requirements for the 100-foot reduction and he would like to see it done. Mr. Boyce commented that affirmative statements were needed from the applicant addressing the points in the ordinance, one of which had to do with decibel measurements, which may not be answered by placement of a berm. Mr. Hughes agreed with the berm placement, particularly as a visual aid. Mr. Parker said he understood Mr. Stinson to say that the decibel requirement is easily met by the configuration of where the sound is coming from, a berm would add to that protection, but that particular standard is not generally a problem when sound is generated at the bottom of the pit. Mr. Stinson said they had sound data from other pits, which they would submit to the Board; Ms. Robie
said the data may be accurate for the site where it was taken but it still needs to be measured within this specific pit area. Mr. Stinson agreed that sound is site specific and this pit can be tested while it is operating to see if it meets the standards. Ms. Robie said the easier route, although not the required route, is if the homeowner and the gravel pit operator can agree. Mr. Stinson asked what the next step is, if the public hearing would need to wait until the third-party review is done; Mr. Boyce replied that he believed that is the way to proceed. Ms. Robie asked if Mr. Stinson had enough information from the Board about monitoring of the ground water; Mr. Stinson said they would go back to Mr. Sweet for his recommendations about locations and scheduling and submit that information to the Board. Ms. Robie asked if the wells would be put in before or during excavation; Mr. Boyce said he thought it would be desirable for the applicant to
install 3 or more groundwater wells prior to excavation for periodic measurements to determine seasonal fluctuations and the hydrologic gradient across the site. [8:50 p.m.]
Stretch Break from 8:50 to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Grant rejoined the Board.
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for preliminary plan approval of a 17-lot subdivision on 34 acres off County Road on land n/f of Bruni. Zoned R/RS; M4/L6.
Walter Stinson, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the project, saying that the boundary survey, topographic survey, and wetlands, soils and drainage studies have all been performed, with the comments of the Townfuture. He said that the roadway will be built to rural access standards with underground electricity, with a total of 17 lots, and one lot will be served by a 50-foot right of way, basically a driveway. He said that the design maintains the landscaped area in the center of the cul de sac. Mr. Stinson said two issues have recently surfaced, the first being that they have chosen the option of a fire pond for fire protection, which they believe meets the minimum standards, with dry hydrant and an access down the west side of the pond, but that the Fire Chief and the Public Works Director do not believe the fire pond is acceptable. The second issue involves density and the Rural Land Management calculations, which have been called into question by an individual. Mr. Stinson said he had reviewed their work and had submitted their latest calculations and would be happy to explain their approach to performing the Rural Land Management calculations and go
through the details for the Board.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, describing the project and items for discussion. He said that now all the roads in the subdivision will be constructed to the rural access roads standards, the private way will end at a hammerhead, the lots range in size from 60,000 to 120,000 square feet and contain a variable terrain of steep slopes down to the river, fields, woods and some flood plain. Mr. Shields said that the applicant will extend the paved portion of private way extending off the cul de sac as far as possible to the property line, about ten feet from the property line. He commented that the developer has provided a lot layout and grading plan on lot 14, where the fire pond is proposed to be located, which is extremely tight with its permitted building envelope, with wetlands on one side,
and the road frontage and pond on other sides. Mr. Shields talked about the fire pond, saying that in order to reach the elevation needed for the lift requirements for the dry hydrant, the applicant has to build an access driveway about 175 feet from the public way, but a problem then arises about the access road being capable of handling Fire Department apparatus “in all seasons and weather conditions,” which the Public Works Department cannot assure would be the case. Mr. Shields said that residential sprinkler systems within each home would resolve the problem of fire protection. Mr. Shields said that staff performed the best level of review possible on the applicanteverything could be done except the topography, and if any slopes greater than 20% were found, they would have to be deducted as part of their soils, but if none were found, staff would accept an intensity level that excluded the topography. He said that if it changed the point system, that would become an issue, but a density of 80,000 square feet still came up, and therefore staff was satisfied.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Monique Myers, 2 Bridle Path Way, brought up the Boardthe traffic circle, and that any further action beyond this would have to be taken by the Town Council. Mr. Hughes agreed with Mr. Grant, saying he did not believe it would be good for either neighborhood, and if the homes were sprinkled instead of using a fire pond, the need for fire vehicles to travel a private way would be lessened.
Alden Thayer, 9 Bridle Path Way, said he agrees with Ms. Myers' comments, and commented about the adverse impact of traffic on their quality of life and on safety should the two developments be linked.
John Doxsey, 1 Halter Lane, spoke about the lack of support within the Bridle Path Subdivision for linking the two neighborhoods, that the Planning Board has the opportunity to establish how the new neighborhood might look, that the hammerhead/private way leading to the edge of the property is foolish and should be moved so it only provides access to the properties at the end of the hammerhead. He also discussed Town snow plowing procedures off Burnham Road.
Mr. Albert Frick, 95 County Road, summarized the assertions contained in his letter to the Town Planner of January 7, 2003, (attached hereto and made a part hereof) concerning perceived discrepancies in Sebago Technics
Clayton Loubier, Jr., 119 County Road, asked where the entrances were coming out and what they were going to do on Route 22.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Walter Stinson said that the plan lines up the cul de sac with Bridle Path, as the developer was asked to do, but from the developer's standpoint, he is not advocating a connection one way or another. So far as the driveway entrance is concerned, it is beyond Mr. Loubier
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to waive the 10:00 o
During the course of his explanation of the calculations, Mr. Stinson, referring to the issue of wetland deduction, which he felt was the major issue in Mr. Frick's comments, quoted the definition of a first water wetland from the Ordnance: “Marsh, bog, and similar areas other than forested wetlands which are of 10 or more contiguous acres or if less than 10 contiguous acres and adjacent to a surface water body, excluding any river, stream or brook, such that in an actual state the combined area is in excess of ten acres.” He said that as they interpreted that definition, all of the wetlands on that site were exempt, but in doing their calculations they did not exclude all of the wetlands. He then showed the area they believe should be deducted under that category, which totals 3.98 acres,
based on a flood plain line along the Little River that is larger than the published data.
Mr. Parker asked Mr. Frick if he would reconsider any of his argument, based on Mr. Stinsonissues, and referred to the availability of a third-party reviewer who could look at the calculations and make an objective decision based on the impartiality of the soils science. Mr. Hughes asked if he was representing himself or his company; Mr. Frick said he is his company and this is a professional opinion to the soils. Mr. Neily asked if an independent third-party reviewer would have to go by the analyses and findings already in writing because he could not check the soils right now; Mr. Frick concurred and said an independent reviewer would consider the face value of the report itself. Mr. Stinson commented that one of the face value issues involves the wetland deducts, which stems in his opinion directly from what the definition in the Ordinance of a fresh water wetland. Ms. Fossum pointed out that the definitions of wetlands and fresh water wetlands are applicable to the Shoreland Zoning chapter, which were added to the Land Use Code in 1991 or
1992, well after the Rural Land Management System was adopted. She said that probably two different definitions were being worked with and that previously soils scientists have relied on the soils definition of a wetland as opposed to the definitions found in the Code for wetlands and fresh water wetlands in the Shoreland Zone. She said that the information received tonight is new to staff and it is the first time staff has heard the explanation of the basis for the applicantwas unpleasantly surprised after the site walk with the layout of the development as there is no open space set aside as discussed on the site walk. Mr. Stinson said there is adequate opportunity for open space along the river and apologized if he missed the intent of the Board and did not interpret it as having it be a definite in the plan. Mr. Grant asked the Board if the members want staff to pursue the soils and density issues further; Mr. Boyce said he would like to have staff secure the services of peer reviewers, including the possibility of a 3rd party reviewer, and bring the application back to the Board when staff is comfortable with it. Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Boyce; Ms. Robie, Mr. Neily and Mr. Hughes concurred as well. Ms. Fossum said that it would be a State geologist. Mr. Neily said he wants to see the homes sprinkled so the taxpayers of Gorham are not burdened with paying for opening up 175 feet to a hydrant in case of a
fire. Ms. Robie, Mr. Parker and Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Neily. Mr. Grant said that the Board has no authority to tell the Fire Chief to issue or not issue a permit, that is his discretion, and the Chief is saying that the fire pond does not meet the Ordinance. Mr. Stinson said he discussed the issue with the applicant after review of the Fire Chief's letter and they believe that the plan is in conformance with the Code; Mr. Shields agreed that the technical design is in conformance with the Code. Mr. Stinson then said that the applicant is willing to sprinkle the houses. Ms. Fossum said that there are about 70 dry hydrants in the Town, most located adjacent to a public road where maintenance is very easy, and in the few instances where such access roads to dry hydrants have been permitted, they have been very problematic to the Town. Mr. Grant commented that fire ponds may not be permitted in the Town in the future and it is possible that
sprinkling may become mandatory. Mr. Boyce commented that perhaps the Code should be revised so that the applicants wongo by. Mr. Parker asked how far the road has to go to provide adequate access to lots 8 and 9; Mr. Stinson said it appears there is more than 200 feet of frontage, so it could be pulled back, but perhaps it would only be a minimum of 10 feet. Mr. Shields said based on the plans, the maximum amount the road could be reduced by is only 8 or 9 feet. Mr. Parker said that the road is there not to provide a quick connection to Bridle Path but is there to provide adequate road frontage for the lots. Mr. Grant suggested that the applicant should resolve the calculations issues and come back for preliminary and final approval; Mr. Parker said he would favor adding a sentence “subject to confirmation of Rural Land Management calculations,” and could vote for preliminary approval now with that caveat. Mr. Shiers, Mr. Hughes, Ms. Robie, Mr. Neily, Mr. Boyce concurred with Mr. Grantapproval.
Susan Robie MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to postpone preliminary approval of Hidden River Subdivision until all questions are answered and that both preliminary and final approval be considered the next time the applicant comes before the Board. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes [10:45 p.m.]
Item Added to Agenda:
Ms. Fossum stated that the item is a subdivision amendment for Gilbert Homes to allow for the creation of drainage maintenance easements on Lots 7 and 8 on the Stonefield Subdivision Plan.
Ms. Fossum stated that neither the applicant nor his engineer were available to attend tonight's meeting. She explained that in October of 2002 the Planning Board reviewed the street acceptance report for Sleepy Hollow Drive in the Stonefield Subdivision and recommended approval to the Town Council. She said the street acceptance report and Board recommendation have not been forwarded to the Council because there was a need to prepare drainage maintenance deeds, and the easiest method to do that is to amend the Subdivision Plan, as shown in the revised Plan where two easements have been added, one to Lot 7, still owned by Gilbert Homes, and one to Lot 8, owned by Marc and Mary Gallant. She said that the property owners in the Subdivision had been notified, and the Gallants are willing to grant the
easement, per an e-mail of January 13, 2003, to the Planner, setting forth certain stipulations.
Susan Robie MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the proposed amendment to the Stonefield Subdivision, Phase I, to allow for the creation of drainage maintenance easements on Lots 7 & 8 as shown on an Amended Final Plan dated January 10, 2003, subject to the applicant
5. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion
CARRIED, 7 ayes. [11:00 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
December 13, 2003
AMENDMENT TO STONEFIELD SUBDIVISION PLAN
Approved
Conditions of Approval
That this amendment is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the approved request for amendment and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the Applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Director of Planning and Zoning may approve;
That all other conditions and requirements attached to the Planning Board's original August 6, 2001 approval of Stonefield Subdivision, Phase I, shall remain in effect and enforceable;
That the applicant shall provide the appropriate easements deeds for Lots 7 and 8 for review and approval by the Town Attorney, prior to the Planning Board
That these conditions of approval and the Amended Plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
