Town of Gorham
February 3, 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, Planning Assistant
CLARK NEILY BARBARA C. SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
THOMAS HUGHES
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
Members Absent:
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that Richard Shiers was absent.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 13, 2003
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2003, Planning Board meeting as printed and distributed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Parker asked to insure that the January 7, 2003, letter from Mr. Albert Frick be substituted for the January 24, 2003, letter incorrectly attached to the draft minutes.
Motion CARRIED to approve the January 13, 2003, Minutes with the correct attachment – 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent) [7:04 p.m.]
Harold Grant recused himself from discussion on Agenda Item 2 and requested that the Vice Chairman, Douglas Boyce, take his place.
Clark Neily recused himself from discussion on Agenda Item 2.
2. GRAVEL PIT – “JACKSON GRAVEL PIT” – R.J. GRONDIN & SONS, INC.
PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval for a 15-acre gravel pit off Fort Hill Road and North Street on land of Jackson. Zoned R-SZ; M63/L26.
Jon Whitten of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics and Larry Grondin of R.J. Grondin & Sons. Mr. Whitten reviewed the application, stating that the applicant will amend the plans to indicate that the pit floor will be at 222 or an elevation of 2 feet above the water table, and that their variance application to the DEP will be for a 2-foot separation between excavation and the ground water table. He said that the applicant has agreed that the present entrance to the pit area near the Jackson residence will be loamed and seeded but that the new entrance to the site will have to be constructed from the inside out, so the current entrance will have to be used until the new one is built. Therefore, Mr. Whitten requested that there be a
Condition of Approval that the applicant will close the existing entrance within 6 months of the construction of the new entrance. Mr. Whitten said that Condition 11 needs to be revised because the pit has always been and will remain internally drained and there are no plans to make it externally drained.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, pointing out that the gravel pit has been reduced from a 20.5-acre gravel pit to an approximate 15-acre gravel pit when the some of the buffers and the reclamation plan changed. Mr. Shields synopsized the proposal, saying that the total amount of material to be excavated has now decreased to approximately 530,000 yards, to be done in one phase instead of two or multiple phases. He said that the pit elevation will change on the plans to 222 from 223, as Mr. Whitten had mentioned, putting the pit floor elevation at 2 feet above ground water elevation, and that the applicant has asked for approval from the Board with a Condition of Approval pending receipt of the DEP permit for a 2 foot elevation instead of the 5 foot elevation above ground water normally required by DEP.
Mr. Shields said that he had rewritten Condition of Approval 11 to reflect that the pit will be internally drained. He said that the access road will be paved for 400 feet in order to control the grade to avoid washout. Mr. Shields confirmed with Mr. Whitten that no stumps will be brought into the site, and those removed from the site will be ground up for erosion control measures.
Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Whitten if there were monitoring wells on the site to determine seasonal ground water levels and if the access road will be closed when pit operations are finished. Mr. Whitten replied that access will be left to the site, that ultimately it will be Mr. Jackson’s decision to make, and that the DOT has given permission for one access. He then indicated that Mr. Jackson wanted the road removed. Mr. Whitten said that there were two monitoring wells on the southern side of the property, which were done in addition to the initial hydrogeology study, with an estimate of 220 being the ground water elevation, that there are no other monitoring wells, and that the two monitoring wells will survive the excavation as they are within the 200 foot buffer. At Mr. Parker’s request, Mr.
Whitten explained what it means to “day light,” saying that the highest point of the pit on the southerly side of the site will be cut down and graded so that there will be a small peak before the grade goes down to the Douglas Brook and sloping down 5% into the pit, so that rainfall landing in the pit will stay in the pit. Mr. Whitten said there will be no berms left. Mr. Parker suggested re-wording Condition of Approval 11 to read, “That the pit shall remain internally drained;” Mr. Shields said that he had rewritten Condition 11.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Hughes asked if the 2-foot variance to be requested of DEP meant that the ground water level must be maintained at that level; Mr. Whitten replied that it is to maintain a 2 foot separation from the ground water, no matter what the ground water elevation is, and the common practice is, as working the pit comes down in elevation, to dig small test pits and measure as they go. Ms. Robie proposed that Condition of Approval 14 include the statement that no stumps will be buried on site. Mr. Boyce asked if the applicant would be agreeable to no material being hauled out of the pit until such time as the access road has been completed; Mr. Whitten said that was acceptable. A discussion ensued about removal of the access road, with Larry Grondin saying that removal of the access road would be the last thing
to be done and any material excavated out of there would be kept on site to help reclaim the pit and to build the 3 to 1 slopes. In response to a question from Ms. Robie, Mr. Boyce stated that the current access road will be used to gain access to the pit during the period of time the new access road is being constructed, and when the new access road is fully in place, then the current access will be taken out of service, which would be prior to removal of any material from the pit. Mr. Grondin concurred and commented that loaming and seeding of the area might have to wait for an appropriate planting season, perhaps with a waiting period of four months. Mr. Parker suggested the language “first available growing season after the access road is built;” Mr. Grondin agreed. Mr. Shields said that staff is just now finding out that the access road will be removed as the reclamation plan that has been reviewed shows an access road and the reclamation plan is the final product,
but with the road removed the reclamation plan is no longer appropriate. Mr. Shields also pointed out that if the access road is removed, the only entrance permitted by DEP is also removed. Mr. Boyce commented that the reclamation plan that has been submitted assumes the access road stays in place, but if the applicant is looking to remove it, the plan would have to be modified. Mr. Grondin said they would leave the plan as is and come back for an amendment in the future.
Mr. Boyce read the Special Exceptions Criteria and the Board determined as follows:
1. The proposed use will not create or aggravate hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks, both off-site and on-site, serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles on such roads. The Board concurred unanimously, 4 Ayes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused, and Mr. Shiers absent.
2. The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results. The Board concurred unanimously, 4 Ayes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused, and Mr. Shiers absent.
3. The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants. The Board concurred unanimously, 4 Ayes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused, and Mr. Shiers absent.
4. The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or unreasonably restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties. The Board concurred unanimously, 4 Ayes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused, and Mr. Shiers absent.
5. The proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid wastes generated by the use. The Board concurred unanimously, 4 Ayes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused, and Mr. Shiers absent.
6. The proposed use will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat, and, if located in the Shoreland Overlay District, will conserve (a) shoreland vegetation; (b) visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (c) actual points of access to waters; and (d) natural beauty. The Board concurred unanimously, 4 Ayes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused, and Mr. Shiers absent.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve R.J. Grondin and Son’s request for approval of the Jackson Pit, a 15+/- acre new gravel pit operation off Fort Hill Road with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Shields listed the Conditions of Approval that had changed:
Condition 3: “That the applicant obtain a variance from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to paragraph 490-E, Variance, Performance Standards for Excavation for Borrow, Clay, Topsoil or Silt, 38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 490-A-390-M to allow excavation to within 2’ of the seasonal groundwater table;”
Condition 11: “That 6 months prior to the transition from an internally drained pit operation to an externally drained pit operation, the applicant shall provide a revised drainage plan for review and approval by the Town Engineer “ be changed to read: “That the gravel pit will be permanently maintained as an internally drained gravel pit.”
Condition 14: “That a note shall be added to the plan stating that no stumps will hauled into the site” is changed to read “That a note shall be added to the plan stating that no stumps shall be hauled into the site and or buried on the site;” Ms. Robie asked that the wording read “That no stumps shall be buried on the site.” Mr. Boyce suggested, “That a note shall be added to the plan stating that stumps shall be neither hauled onto the site nor buried on the site;”
Condition 16 shall become Condition 17, with a new Condition 16 to read: “That the existing driveway entrance shall be closed and regraded prior to the removal of any material within the gravel pit.”
Mr. Grondin asked for a time period to regrade the driveway, such as 4 months. Ms. Robie suggested adding “and reclaimed within 4 months.” Mr. Boyce asked if the applicant wanted to close the existing entrance and defer regrading and reclaiming until an appropriate planting season, and suggested “That the existing driveway entrance shall be closed prior to removal of material within the gravel pit, and shall be reclaimed within 4 months of completion of the new access road.”
The applicant agreed with the proposed changes.
Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily recused). [7:50 p.m.]
Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily rejoined the Board.
Mr. Hughes recused himself from discussion of Agenda Item 3.
3. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “HEARTWOOD” – SOLD, INC.
Request for amendment of Condition #10 of the Conditions of Approval requiring the construction of a sidewalk along the westerly side of South Street, between Weeks Road and Quincy Drive. Zoned SR.
Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented two sidewalk options, but said that the applicant would prefer Option I, which provides for granite curbing, 8-foot esplanade and 5-foot bituminous sidewalk installed at the edge of pavement starting at Weeks Road and running approximately 700 feet to a point where the sidewalk would be installed behind the existing ditch line. Mr. Frank indicated that Les Berry, the Town’s Review Engineer, recommends Option 1. Mr. Frank said that Option 2 was presented as an alternative but is not recommended by Mr. Berry or by the Public Works Director. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Frank answered that the granite curbing would run about 700 feet from Weeks Road out of a total of some 1900 feet of sidewalk down to Quincy.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, confirming that Les Berry has reviewed the plans for the Town and has suggested that Option 1 is the most practicable option to be built. Ms. Fossum said that the developer has agreed to approach property owners to obtain easements required to pursue Option 1, as well as potential land acquisitions that may be considered. She said a performance guarantee has been put in place for Option 1, but the guarantee would have to be revised should another option be chosen. Ms. Fossum indicated that MDOT and the Portland Water District have been provided with the plans for review, although their comments have not yet been received. She said the Public Works Director has reviewed the plan and concurs with the Review Engineer that Option 1 is the better plan. She indicated that
the applicant hopes that the Board will reach a consensus about one option or the other and provide some direction tonight.
A discussion ensued about some of the details in the plans such as the need to establish the centerline and whether the granite curbing, esplanade and sidewalk can fit within the existing right of way; Mr. Frank said he thought it would, based upon existing monumentation. Ms. Robie asked where the compact line is on the map; Mr. Frank indicated he thought it was about halfway between Samantha Drive and where the curbing was proposed to end. Ms. Robie asked if there would be any provisions opposite Samantha Drive for people wishing to cross the street to use the sidewalk to be able to access the sidewalk other than climbing through a ditch. The Board and Mr. Frank discussed the bituminous construction material of the proposed sidewalk in Option 1 and how it would tie into the sidewalk to be installed by the
School District.
Ms. Duchaine, SoLD, Inc., said that the Board’s approval of one of the options was required so that engineering drawings and plans could be made in conjunction with input from the Town’s Review Engineer.
Mr. Grant read staff’s recommendation from the Agenda Memo:
“The applicant is looking for clear direction from the Board before she commits to the cost of full construction drawings and before she approaches property owners along the street o to discuss the necessary easements. If the Board reaches a consensus on Option 1 on Monday evening, then the applicant can proceed with the engineering of the final sidewalk plans, set up a meeting with the MDOT, PWD, Town and other parties; and develop the necessary developer’s agreement with the state.”
Mr. Grant then polled the Board to determine each member’s preference: Mr. Boyce indicated he concurred with Option 1; Mr. Parker concurred with Option 1 provided that it is feasible and can be done; Ms. Robie and Mr. Neily indicated their preference for Option 1 as well. Mr. Grant and Mr. Boyce discussed certain technical aspects of the plans showing the proposed granite curbing.
Ms. Fossum said that if there is consensus for Option 1, she did not see a special need for the applicant to come back before the Board unless there is difficulty in obtaining easements which cause some sort of change to Option 1. She said that if there is no change to the concept and the easements are obtained from abutters, there would be no purpose served in the applicant coming back.
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion that the Board grant an amendment to Condition of Approval #10 of the original Conditions of Approval attached to the Heartwood Subdivision and allow the applicant to construct the Option 1 sidewalk as shown on the plans dated January 29, 2003, per the sidewalk specifications in the Land Use and Development Code. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent, Mr. Hughes recused). [8:26 p.m.]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Hughes rejoined the Board.
4. SUBDIVISION PLAN – “THE PRESERVE” – WESLEY & GWENDOLYN KINNEY
Request for final approval of a 22-lot subdivision with 1 public road and 2 private ways on 35.41 acres off Harding Road. Zoned SR-MH; M19/L7, M35/L20 & M39/L12.
Bruce Lewis appeared on behalf of the applicants, reviewing the changes which have occurred in the plans, such as the revision of the hydrogeologic study by Gillespie & Associates for 4 bedroom rather than 3 bedroom homes, a common lot line for Lots 6 and 7 has been changed so that Lot 6 has no frontage on the private way, several other minor changes have been made per staff comments, and some changes have been made to the grade and cross section of Midnight Way. Mr. Lewis said that the Portland Water District would like to have an 8-inch water line on Twilight Lane extension on the private way, but the applicant would prefer the option to run a 4-inch line even though he probably would put the 8-inch in. He said the 8 inch would go all the way to a hydrant at the end of the hammerhead, and the 4 inch
would go from there down Twilight Lane extension, a private way.
Mr. Shields replied to a query from Mr. Grant that the PWD always encourages developers to oversize their lines for future development, that their letter recognizes that the developer was proposing a 4 inch down the private way, but that if there was any future possibility of more development into land owned by the Trails, the 4 inch line would have to be upgraded to an 8 inch line. He said this was a standard practice by PWD to suggest going to an 8-inch line, but it is not a requirement. Mr. Shields also said that there is only a $2 to $3 difference per foot to go to the 8-inch line, so it is not a huge cost. Mr. Hughes commented that it would probably be less expensive to put the 8-inch line in now rather than waiting until some future date. Mr. Parker said he saw no point in requiring the applicant to
put the 8 inch line in since access for future development is to the east and this is a dead end water line; Mr. Boyce said he also saw no need to burden the applicant. Ms. Robie concurred. Mr. Grant commented that mandatory new standards for water and sewer may be put into place in the near future, which could impact similar scenarios.
Mr. Shields commented that the plans need some minor modifications, and the building envelopes for Lots 1, 2 and 3 need to be changed, and the Public Works Director would like to see a plan note on Lot 6 that the driveway shall be restricted from coming off the end of the hammerhead turnaround. He said also that the street name “Twilight Lane Extension” needs to be changed.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Parker asked if there was any consideration for extending the end of Twilight Lane toward the Trail or Crosby properties for future development. Mr. Lewis replied that he was not aware of any. Mr. Grant asked about the number of lots being served by Twilight Lane Extension; Mr. Lewis said there were 6 lots being served and that Twilight Lane Extension is proposed to be built to the standard for six lots. Mr. Grant commented that the retained land could not be subdivided without upgrading the road; Mr. Shields said that the Conditions of Approval would require the applicant to return before the Board if the retained land is to be divided.
Susan Robie MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant Wesley and Gwendolyn Kinney’s request for approval of a 22-lot subdivision and private way with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes. [8:45 p.m.]
Stretch Break from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE – “WOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION” - CHASE CUSTOM HOMES & FINANCE, INC.
Discuss a proposal for a 6-lot residential subdivision and 1,500’ private way on 16 acres off Wood Road on the former Murphy property. Zoned Rural; Map 54/L12.
Jeff Perry, a landscape architect with Sebago Technics, made the presentation on behalf of the applicant of a proposed 6-lot residential subdivision and 1500-foot private way on a 16-acre site, with the road coming down the north side of the property and the lots taking their frontage off the south side of the road. Mr. Perry pointed out one wetland area associated near the front of the property on Wood Road. He said that the houses are proposed to be sprinkled and the road will be a private gravel road. He asked that the Board schedule a site walk.
Mr. Parker commented that the hammerhead turnaround is backward; since plows plow to the right, the hammerhead needs to go to the right. Mr. Boyce asked what could be done to assure that development of an adjacent property abutting a private way could access the private way. Mr. Shields said that the road is proposed to be built to serve 6 lots and that would be all it could serve. If it were a public way, the lots on the other side would gain access and frontage on a public way and essentially could come in for a building permit. But as this is a private way, they have no rights unless Mr. Chase gives them the right to front on it; however, under those circumstances, the road would have to be brought up to standard for the 7 to 10 lots to give frontage to any abutters. Ms. Fossum said another method would
be for the abutters to acquire it the way Inland Development acquired the rights to rebuild Hackmatack Way. In response to a question from Mr. Boyce, Mr. Shields said that this private way would impose a front yard setback but it also allows that person to qualify for a variance from the Zoning Board to build a garage within the 50-foot setback. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Perry what was adjacent to the applicant’s property; the reply was large lots with single-family homes. Mr. Perry pointed to what he thought might be a private way; Mr. Shields said there was no private way there, it is a strip of land with some land out back.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Barbara Martin, 77 Wood Road, commented that her neighbors did not understand that public comment would be welcome tonight because it was not noted on the agenda as a public hearing. Mr. Grant replied that while it was not noted as a public hearing, Board policy was to permit anyone to speak who wanted to on any agenda item. Ms. Martin asked that the Board invite the residents of Wood Road to make their opinions known. Mr. Grant suggested that the neighbors check with the Planning Department to find out when the site walk is scheduled so that they can participate in that. Ms. Martin expressed her own opinion that she would not like to see 6 more houses built on Wood Road due to traffic problems and limited sight distance.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Hughes asked staff why the strip of land is not a private way; Mr. Shields replied even if it does not meet the street intersection distance it still could come before the Board as the only way to access the land out back. Mr. Grant said that it had never come before a Planning Board to get the status of a private way under Town street standards. Mrs. Martin returned to the podium and explained that the 50-foot easement to the back acreage belonged originally to Steve Watts, who used the strip to access the back area, which he had developed as a landing field for small airplanes. She said it is gated and is not used for access that she is aware of, nor does she know who the owner is. Mr. Parker, for the benefit of the audience present to learn about Planning Board procedures, explained the process
involved with a pre-application conference, public participation at a site walk, preliminary approval, public hearing and final approval, with a site walk and two public hearings when the public is officially invited to participate. Mr. Grant indicated that staff would be asked to set up a site walk. [9:14 p.m.]
6. SITE PLAN – “LAKE REGION FURNITURE” – 673 MAIN STREET – CROCKETT BROS., CORP.
Discuss a proposal for a 6,660 SF retail expansion and a 3,324 SF warehouse expansion for Lake Region Furniture at 673 Main Street. Zoned RC; M12/Lot 27.
Les Berry, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of Lake Region Furniture, and advised the Board that the applicants had obtained a setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the rear of the project and expansion of the existing facility. He said that the Board of Appeals addressed several issues, including sewage, and there was a question whether the leach bed was undersized, so there was a condition of approval requiring investigation of the leach bed and report back to the Code Enforcement Officer. He said that he found out that the existing leach bed was designed in 1980, presumably installed in the same year, is for 65 gallons per days, which is about one-fifth the size it should be, even though it does work. He said that a conclusion was reached that when the leach pit failed, it should be
replaced with a public sewer connection, which connection is about 1000 feet up Bartlett Road at the intersection with Hutcherson Drive. He said that they have designed a pressure sewer system, which is a grinder pump and a 2-inch polyethylene pipe going up through the force main, as shown on the plans. Mr. Berry also expressed a hope that it might be possible to connect with Grondin’s proposed industrial park area behind Lake Region Furniture. He said they have met with Grondin, who will have a gravity sewer very close to the rear of Lake Region’s property. Mr. Berry said, however, that a discussion with the Code Enforcement Officer has revealed that Gorham has a long-standing policy with leach beds that they may stay in place so long as the use doesn’t change or until they fail. In other words, if they fail or the use changes or increases, then it must change to public sewer. Therefore, the applicants are asking the Board to approve the system as it is shown as
a public sewer connection, but if Grondin’s gravity system is put in place before Lake Region begins its project, they can apply for a de minimus change to a gravity system from a pump system. Mr. Berry discussed the applicants’ request for a waiver of the parking space requirement of 120 parking spaces to 52 spaces, saying that should Lake Region leave the site and the parking is deemed inadequate for another retail use, a condition of approval would require that the retail use could not change without coming back to the Board for approval. Mr. Berry said that 21 spaces could be added should they be required. Mr. Berry then discussed internal truck circulation, using templates of various truck sizes on the site plan to demonstrate how these different trucks can enter and exit the site. He also said that the plans now have an entrance and exit onto Bartlett Road, which will permit delivery vehicles to enter the site from Bartlett and exit through the site onto Main
Street and will minimize the amount of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the parking and loading areas. He said that this site is within the Town’s urban compact zone and falls under the purview of the Public Works Director. Mr. Berry asked for final approval of the plan.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that staff has not reviewed this project for final approval. Ms. Fossum said that a public hearing needs to be advertised and as it was not noticed as a public hearing on tonight’s Agenda, the Board cannot take final action tonight. Mr. Shields said that the traffic numbers generated by Lake Region for the site fall within the ITE guidelines for trip generation, and the Board must make the decision on waiving the parking requirements. He said that the applicants have available space for 21 more parking spaces at a later time. He also indicated that the engineers should meet with staff to discuss circulation issues. Mr. Shields said that the applicants have secured Zoning Board approval for a variance for the expansion of the building, so that no longer
needs to be a condition of approval.
Mr. Parker asked for confirmation of what appeared to be an island in the easement; Mr. Berry replied that it was an existing raised sidewalk. Mr. Boyce commented that it lies outside the actual limits of the easement because it is part of the DOT right of way. Mr. Berry said that the easement inside Lake Region’s property is completely flat and paved. Mr. Hughes asked if there were two leach fields; Mr. Berry replied that the leach field for Portland Cover is separate and is on Lake Region’s property. Mr. Berry confirmed Mr. Boyce’s understanding that the Code Officer has indicated that they must hook up to public sewer once expansion occurs, that the existing leach bed can stay in service only as long as there is no change in use to the leach bed, so if the expansion occurred and there
was a new employee, that would trigger the requirement for the public sewer connection, whether it be the existing one or another one coming as a result of Grondin’s proposal. Mr. Berry said that Lake Region must hook up when they expand, that they cannot build and use the existing leach field, that any change of use which increased water use and sewage would trigger the need to hook up to public sewer. Mr. Boyce asked if the proposed 2-inch force main would require an easement from the Town for its placement within the right of way; Mr. Berry replied that a private individual cannot own a pipe in a public right of way, so it would be a Town sewer. If Grondin’s project is completed, Lake Region could hook into their gravity feed system. Mr. Shields said that a letter from the Sewer Superintendent approving the design and capacity would be required as part of the final package. Ms. Fossum responded to comments from Mr. Boyce that staff would verify that Portland Cover
would be afforded the opportunity to interconnect at their option into a new force main with their own pumping system. Mr. Berry said that once the force main is out in the street, it is a public sewer, and other pressure sewer systems can connect so long as the pumps are compatible.
Ms. Fossum advised the Board that certain documents relating primarily to the shared entrance for Lake Region and Portland Cover had been received earlier in the afternoon from David Cairns and asked if they should be distributed to the Board; Mr. Grant replied that he believed the documents should be distributed at a later time when Board members would have a better opportunity to review them. Board members concurred.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Neal Weinstein, Esquire, attorney for Portland Cover LLC, commented about the lack of required parking spaces, lack of a sewer plan, lack of scaled plans, traffic impact of large trucks crossing lanes, potential numbers of trucks entering and exiting the site, parking in setbacks when Lake Region is suing Portland Cover to prevent exactly the same kind of parking, and plans not to scale. He said that the applicants did not receive the necessary variance from the ZBA to expand into the setback areas; the only thing they received was permission for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Mr. Weinstein complimented Lake Region on the proposed improvements, saying they were attractive and would be a definite improvement over the present facility. Mr. Grant asked staff to research
the technical issue of expansion into the setback.
David Cairns, Portland Cover LLC, commented that the applicant should follow the Town’s rules, they have yet to receive scaled plan drawings, they have not received the plans for the last submission, there are plans which are not stamped by the architect, and that the Public Works Director’s advice should be sought about the project. Mr. Berry said that parking in the setback is grandfathered, there was only 1 sheet of the plans that was not to scale, plans won’t be stamped that are not final, and they have been in contact with the Public Works Director. Mr. Shields commented that it is quite common to get plans that are not for construction purposes and not ready for final approval, and when the plans come back for final approval, with all the changes made to them, they need to be to
scale, stamped by an engineer or a seal affixed by an architect. Mr. Shields said that Mr. Cairns has the right to ask staff for a scaled set of plans for his own engineer to look at, and staff will ask the applicant to provide a scaled set of plans affixed with a seal, but some engineers will not affix a seal until the plans are ready for final approval. Mr. Grant said that Mr. Cairns’ concerns will be looked into.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Some discussion was held about stormwater management; Mr. Shields said that has been reviewed, that some things still need to be addressed, such as lighting, but these are the major ones. Mr. Parker asked staff to make sure that Portland Cover has the time it needs and that there is a cut off time so that there are no last-minute inputs. Mr. Neily said that he has no problem with the reduced parking, turning radii or traffic circulation in the site but does believe study should be given to connecting to public sewer; Ms. Robie said she felt the proposed parking was adequate; Mr. Hughes concurred and commented that the applicant has an alternative plan if he needs more parking; Mr. Parker said he believed the parking was adequate and did not believe that the same level of parking was required for a
furniture store as for other retail operations; Mr. Grant agreed, saying he has never seen the parking anywhere near full and that he has no problem with vehicle circulation or the parking; Mr. Boyce said he had no problem with the parking, discussed various truck sizes, and stated that he can support the application in its current form. Mr. Parker asked why there would not be one way in and one way out; Mr. Berry said they want cars to be able to use either entrance or exit. [10:29 p.m.]
7. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes [Mr. Shiers absent]. [10:30 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
February 3, 2003
R:\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN020303 draft1.doc
2. GRAVEL PIT – “JACKSON GRAVEL PIT” – R.J. GRONDIN & SONS, INC.
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 minimums changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project prior to the commencement of any earth moving activities within the pit area;
3. That the applicant obtain a variance from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to paragraph 490-E, Variance, Performance Standards for Excavation for Borrow, Clay, Topsoil or Silt, 38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 490-A-390-M to allow excavation to within 2’ of the seasonal groundwater table;
4. That the reclaimed areas shall be guaranteed for a period of eighteen (18) months following the substantial completion of reclamation, during which time the performance guarantee shall remain in full force and effect;
5. Upon default of any obligations to reclaim a pit under this Approval, the Town may, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard by the Board of Appeals, cause the pit operator's reclamation plan to be implemented pursuant to the performance guarantee;
6. 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, 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;
7. That the FINAL OPERATIONS STATEMENT shall be made part of the Conditions of Approval and may be entirely enforceable if the operation of the pit is at any time non-compliant;
8. 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 or the latest edition;
9. That sufficient topsoil shall be retained on site to comply with the approved reclamation plan;
10. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Tax Assessor prior to any earth moving activities on the site;
11. That the gravel pit will be permanently as an internally drained gravel pit;
12. That the applicant shall establish a performance guarantee in the from of a bond, letter of credit, or such other financial instrument as deemed satisfactory by the Town Manager covering the cost of the reclamation plan;
13. That the Town shall be notified of any proposed changes in ownership of the pit or change in pit operator and that the Planning Board shall review and approve such change in ownership or operator to determine whether the proposed new owner/operator has sufficient financial and technical capacity to comply with all applicable ordinance requirements and the conditions of this approval;
14. That a note shall be added to the plan stating that stumps shall be neither hauled onto the site nor buried on the site;
15. That the reciprocal deeds for the reduced buffer between the adjacent Jackson parcel and the gravel pit parcel shall be prepared for review and approved by the Town Attorney and recorded prior to commencement of any earth moving activities within the pit area;
16. That the existing driveway entrance shall be closed prior to removal of material within the gravel pit, and shall be reclaimed within 4 months of completion of the new access road; and
17. That these conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board approval and a dated copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planner within fifteen (15) days of the date of recording.
4. SUBDIVISION PLAN – “THE PRESERVE” – WESLEY & GWENDOLYN KINNEY 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 applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this subdivision and private ways;
3. That the private ways shall be maintained for emergency vehicles year-round;
4. That the private ways 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;
5. That 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 ways have not been built to public way standards, the Town Council will not accept them as public ways;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. That prior to occupancy each house within the subdivision shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round;
9. That within 30 days of approval or prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Planner;
10. That all construction and site alterations shall be done in accordance with the erosion prevention provisions outline in the “Maine Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices,” Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District, Department of Environmental Protection, dated March 1991;
11. That 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.
12. That any future division of any lot within the subdivision or of the retained land shall require the approval of the Town of Gorham Planning Board. Such division shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Town of Gorham Land Use and Development in effect at the time of the proposed division;
13. That the applicant shall create a homeowners association or other legal entity acceptable to the Town and shall submit the association documents or declaration creating the association or other legal entity in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney. The documents or declaration shall specify the rights and responsibilities of each lot owner with respect to the maintenance, repair, and plowing of all streets within the subdivision, and shall state that the homeowners association and/or the lot owners shall be responsible for all costs related to the
street. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the approved documents in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of the date of approval of the subdivision by the Planning Board; and
14. That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs (both private way and public street signs) to be placed in locations approved by the Director of Public Works and installed at the time of issuance of the first building permit within the subdivision;
15. That all driveways shall be constructed with a paved apron consisting of 4” of bituminous concrete commencing at the existing edge of street where it intersects with the driveway for a length of 20 feet. Materials used for driveway culverts shall be approved by the Town Engineer and installation shall meet the requirements of the driveway permit;
16. 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
17. That the conditions of approval, the proposed covenants and deed restrictions, Private Way Plan and the Final Subdivision Plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board’s endorsement of the final plan, and dated copies of the recorded Decision Document, covenants and deed restrictions, Private Way Plan and Final Subdivision Plan shall be returned to the Town prior to the issuance of any building permits or commencement of any improvements within the subdivision.
| 
