 |
Town of Gorham
March 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 Planner
CLARK NEILY NATALIE L. BURNS, ESQUIRE, Town Attorney
THOMAS HUGHES
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
Members Absent:
MICHAEL PARKER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Director called the roll, noting that Michael Parker was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 3, 2003
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2003, Planning Board meeting as printed and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Shiers) and 1 absence (Mr. Parker).
Harold Grant recused himself from discussion on Agenda Item 2 and requested that the Vice Chairman, Douglas Boyce, take his place.
GRAVEL PIT PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval for a new 23.5-acre gravel pit off Fort Hill Road and Mighty Street on land of Lewry, Walker, and Grant. Zoned Rural / Shoreland Zoning; Map 83/Lots 13, 4 & 4.007.
Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Larry Grondin and Jon Whitten of Sebago Technics. Mr. Stinson reviewed the proposed project and its history, indicating that a boundary survey of the proposed mining area, a topographic survey, subsurface evaluation of materials on site, a hydrogeologic study, and a traffic study have all been performed. He pointed out the component parcels of the site, showing the proposed access off Route 114, stating that the MDOT driveway-opening permit will require that the existing Lewry driveway be replaced and closed once the haul road is complete. Mr. Stinson said that of the 23.5 acre proposed pit, about 10 acres will be the pit floor area. He said that a letter has been provided for the record from CMP indicating their
willingness to cooperate in mining around and extending poles in the CMP right of way traversing the property. He said that as a result of the hydrogeologic study performed, the pit floor has been set at elevation 196, which they believe to be a minimum of 5 feet above the seasonal high groundwater table, at the Boardoperating pit by removing any setback where mining occurs, and that 200
Mr. Shields presented the staff report, summarizing the pitno permanent fueling onsite, and there will be a DEP spill prevention kit kept on site at all times. Mr. Shields said that a conversation with DEP reveals that it does not require any solid concrete pads if there is no permanent fueling on site, and as long as there is a spill prevention kit on site DEP is satisfied. He said that the second item of consideration for pits 5 acres and over involves a traffic study, and referred to the report prepared by Jack Murphy, wherein the predicted truck traffic impact on existing traffic appeared to be minimal and no adverse impact to the roadway was found. He said that staff had a 3rd party review engineer look at the traffic study prepared by Mr. Murphy, and the conclusion was that the alternative being proposed for this site is acceptable, no problems were found, and basically the review engineer concurred with Mr. Murphymake on the three standards the applicant must demonstrate to grant the requested buffer reduction, the findings it must make on the Special Exception Approval Standards, and to the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Boyce commented about the independent peer review traffic report, received only tonight, which appear to be very thorough and does conclude that there is no need for an additional lane to be added to Route 114 either as a climbing lane or as a deceleration lane. However, Mr. Boyce expressed concern with one portion of the review, entitled “Collision Review,” which he read as follows:
The safety record for Route 114 from Mighty Street to Wescott Road should be checked to determine if there is a problem associated with either of these intersections or the roadway segment between them, particularly the steep grade. Should this review identify a collision problem, the conclusion of Items 3 and 4 above would need to be reconsidered.
Mr. Boyce described the items as the opinions on the climbing and deceleration lanes. He then read the conclusion of the letter from the peer reviewer about “pending receipt of collision summaries from the applicant” and asked if the applicant was aware of the letter and if it had assisted the peer reviewer. Mr. Stinson replied they had a copy of the letter and have not yet developed the information but will do so. Mr. Boyce said in his opinion final review of the project should be withheld until the peer reviewer had received the information it required.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Jeff Grant, 127 Mighty Street. Mr. Grant read a letter (attached hereto and incorporated by reference) to the Board from Jack Gordon, an abutter to the proposed pit, expressing Mr. Gordon
Phyllis Kent, 726 Fort Hill Road, a member of the 114 Corridor Committee, expressed her concern about the safety of adding another gravel pit entrance on Route 114, spoke about the proposed changes to be made by DOT on 114, and the fact that the proposed pit entrance comes into Route 114 in the center of a curve at the bottom of a hill. She discussed Might Street and Wescott Road
Will Lewry, “works for the Grondins there.” Spoke about driver inattention and excess speed accounting for rollovers and that Grondin trucks can stop in 500 feet.
David Kent, 726 Fort Hill Road, complimented the developer on its good reputation, said he has no problem with the development of the pit, but emphasized his and his wife He said they also use hire trucks, about 50% twelve-yard trucks and 50% sixteen-yard trucks. Concurring with comments from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Grondin said speed can sacrificed for quantity of trips, and what is safer
Mr. Boyce suggested keeping the public hearing period open relative to receiving more information concerning traffic issues. Mr. Shiers said that the speakersreplied that screening is an ancillary process of crushing. Mr. Neily asked about the possibility of lowering speed limits on Route 114 and would that occur in the vicinity of this pit; Ms. Fossum replied that it has been said that as DOT re-designs certain sections of Route 114 in order to meet federal standards, the speed limit would have to be lowered, but she does not know precisely which segments of the road would be affected. Mr. Neily indicated his concern about the traffic, but said that if the expert review had not indicated that an extra lane is not justified, he would have felt that the extra lane would be desirable. Ms. Robie said she believes that the public should have the option to review the peer reviewerreported on his conversation with Peter Hedrich, the peer reviewer, .who indicated that the climbing lane should be considered when the following two criteria are met: “…slow vehicles and high traffic volumes are present,” but that he did not believe that the present traffic volumes are high unless this road had been labeled a mobility corridor. Mr. Shields said that Route 114 does have a lot of traffic, but by DOT standards it does not a “high” amount corridor, so Mr. Hedrichthey are “accidents,” with only one car involved, and that Mr. Hedrich would want to know about collisions going up the hill involving slow moving trucks being rear-ended. Mr. Shields also said that the Board can condition the approval of this application upon satisfactory results from the collision summary. Mr. Shiers asked if that section of 114, because of the high number of accidents, would be addressed by DOT; Mr. Shields replied that he did not know. Mr. Shiers said he hoped that a high-accident corner would be on DOTBoyce, saying she would like to see if the peer reviewer
While staff prepared the condition of approval, Mr. Shiers asked Mr. Stinson what the procedure is to measure for noise decibels. Mr. Stinson replied that there is no specific written protocol, but a subconsultant is hired to measure noise levels, which at this project would be at the backs of property lines, and which would be done on a “typical” day of operation, to include a crusher in operation, with the average noise level being of interest. The subconsultant would prepare a report, which would be submitted for the record. If noise levels were shown to be excessive, then the operation would have to be modified to correct that Mr. Boyce asked staff what is the TownOfficer, she is not aware that he routinely visits pits to measure sound, that an outside consulting engineer has been hired for the past two years to check the pits to see that erosion and control measures are in place, buffers are being maintained, and no expansions are occurring beyond the permit approvals, but the inspecting engineer is not doing sound testing. She said that complaints from abutters would go to the Code Officer, who would require the pit operator to provide proof that the pit is being operated within the Code. Mr. Boyce commended the applicant for its work on this application and staff for its work in reviewing the project. Ms. Robie asked that a plan note be added that no stumps will be buried on the property; Mr. Stinson replied that no stumps would be brought into the property and it was the applicantDEP rules which says that stumps generated on site can be buried. Mr. Stinson said that market conditions may preclude grinding all the stumps and they would like the flexibility to bury stumps as DEP permits in a one-acre sized stump dump on site, five feet above groundwater, probably placed in the slopes, covered, loamed and seeded. He said it is not feasible to grind the stumps and let the material sit on site, it is more practical and less of an impact environmentally to bury them. Mr. Shields said that staff had been under the impression that no stumps would be buried on the site but DEP does permit it. Mr. Boyce said that there may not be any regulation, which would deny the applicant the opportunity to bury stumps on site, so someone can add an amendment to a motion if they so choose at the time of approval.
Mr. Boyce then directed the Board
Susan Robie MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED that the Board accept the request for buffer reduction at the edge of the Baxter Property, as the applicant has demonstrated that noise generation, dust control and visual screening will be adequately addressed. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 recused (Mr. Grant), and 1 absence (Mr. Parker).
Insofar as the first of the Special Exception Approval Standards deals with traffic, Mr. Boyce asked staff for a new condition of approval regarding traffic. Ms. Burns suggested the following language:
That the applicant shall submit the safety information for Route 114 from Mighty Street to Wescott Road so that the Town
Mr. Boyce summarized for the public the impact of the new Condition of Approval, and then read the Special Exceptions Criteria as a group, with the proviso that Exception Approval Standard #1will be modified by new Condition of Approval #14.
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.
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.
3. The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants.
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.
5. The proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid wastes generated by the use.
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.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Board make a positive response to all six of the Special Exception Approval Standards read by the Vice-Chairman, with the specific condition added to Item 1 which was previously stated. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 recused (Mr. Grant), 1 absence (Mr. Parker).
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion t o approve R.J. Grondin and SonDISCUSSION: In response to a query from Mr. Boyce, Mr. Stinson stated that Condition #14 was acceptable to the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 recused (Mr. Grant), 1 absence (Mr. Parker). [8:50 p.m.]
Stretch Break from 8:45 p.m. to 8:55 p.m.
Mr. Grant rejoined the Board.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to abide by the ten o
The Chairman explained to the public that the motion meant that the Board would not take up any new item after 10:00 p.m., and any agenda item not heard by that time would be put on the agenda for the March 17, 2003, Board meeting.
3. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment of Plan Note #8 on the approved Riverwood Subdivision Plan. Zoned Rural; Map 72/Lots 25.003, .002 & .001
In response to a query from the Chairman, Ms. Fossum explained that Item 3 and Item 4, while they both deal with the Riverwood Subdivision, should be considered separately by the Board because each item involves a different applicant: Item 3 involves a subdivision plan note amendment requested by S. B. Gorham, Inc., and Item 4 is a request for a subdivision amendment, as well as site plan approval for the Mountain Division Connector Trail, requested by the Town of Gorham and the Maine Department of Transportation.
Daniel Shaw, S.B. Gorham, Inc., emphasized there was no anticipation of changing any of the covenants, their request is simply to change Plan Note 8 to reflect the same change that was made for Partridge Lane and for the driveway of Lot 1 to cross the intermittent stream. Mr. Shaw outlined the history of the court case challenge to the Board
Ms. Fossum presented the staff report, confirming the S.B. Gorham
No fill or construction within 50 feet of the intermittent watercourse except driveway to Lot 1 and Partridge Lane.
She indicated that the applicant was proposing to change the Plan Note as follows:
No fill or construction within 50 feet of the intermittent watercourse except driveways, public trails, Partridge Lane, and/or any other streets utilizing properly sized culverts.
She said if the Plan Note is amended, it would permit the Board to continue on to review the trail and its construction details and to amend the Subdivision to allow the trail construction, and would also allow placement of a driveway to Lot 3 in a location crossing the intermittent stream, providing an option to that landowner for the placement of a driveway. Ms. Fossum noted the objections of the Reynolds, owners of Lot 1, raising several issues such as the Board not having the authority to unilaterally alter the Plan Note, the Code not making provisions for amendments, and the State statute not filling the void to make amendments to the subdivision plans. However, Ms. Fossum said it is the Townsubdivision plans have been approved in the past, the applicant has standing in that he is a property owner within the subdivision, and all property owners in the subdivision and abutters have been notified of the request being made. Ms. Fossum concurred with the statements of the Reynolds
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Craig Reynolds, owner of Lot 1, commented that he did not believe there was any issue involved in accessing Lot 3. He said that he and his wife oppose the project primarily as an issue of privacy, and want the 12 private acres they bought, serviced by their own private road. They do not want a trail, trailhead, the traffic that will be created through the subdivision, they do not want a trail 25 feet from their common area, and they do not want the subdivision plan altered, either plan notes or covenants or restrictions, by anyone. They live by the subdivision restrictions and covenants and believe others should as well.
Murrough Orestrictions, as they together create a scheme of conservation easements, the Board should be charged with an institutional memory to what happened in 1988, and the essential issue is whether or not a conservation issue has any standing with the Gorham Planning Board. Mr. O
Daniel Shaw stated that they do own the land, that all they are asking for is a change in the Plan Note so that DOT can cross their land with the trail, that this issue does not involve their pit, and that this is not an issue of personal gain.
Mr. O
Mr. Reynolds asked if the original intent of Plan Note 8 was to allow a commercial concern come into a private subdivision, run a trail through it, possibly connect the private road and make it public.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Shaw where a road has been constructed; Mr. Shaw replied that the road is not built in the subdivision, it is outside the subdivision and has been inspected and approved by the Town. Mr. Boyce asked if the road is intended to be extended toward Gambo Road under the approved plan for the pit and the park. Mr. Shaw concurred. Mr. Shaw demonstrated on a map where the road is located. Mr. Shiers asked what relevance the road has to the item under discussion. Mr. Boyce replied that as the Reynolds and their attorney had made reference to the road, he wanted to know where it was located, and that it appears to be lawfully constructed on the park site. Mr. Boyce asked what benefit would accrue from the proposed expanded language in Plan Note 8; Mr. Shaw replied that putting
in Lot 3support the project as everything he sees in the project would be of benefit to the citizens of Gorham.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the request by S. B. Gorham, Inc. to amend Plan Note 8 on the approved Riverwood Subdivision Plan to read: “No fill or construction within 50 feet of the intermittent water course except driveways, public trails, Partridge Lane, and/or any other streets utilizing properly sized culverts” with the attached conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes and 1 absence (Mr. Parker).
Ms. Burns read the following Findings of Fact based upon information provided both through the applicant and staff and at the meeting this evening:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Findings of Fact:
1. The applicant for the subdivision amendment is S.B. Gorham, Inc.
2. The applicant seeks an amendment to an existing plan note on the approved Riverwood subdivision plan.
3. The applicant seeks to amend Note 8 on the Riverwood subdivision plan.
4. S.B. Gorham, Inc. has submitted proof of ownership of Lot 3.
5. This amendment does not include an application for the design of the construction of the trail connector to the Mountain Division Trail located outside of Riverwood subdivision. The trail connector is the subject of a separate application to be reviewed by the Planning Board.
6. Riverwood subdivision is a 3-lot subdivision.
Conclusions: The application is for review of an amendment to the Riverwood subdivision plan, as previously amended: The request for amendment is to change existing Note 8 on the Plan to allow fill and construction within 50 feet of the intermittent water course on the property for public trails, driveways, and streets using properly sized culverts. Plan Note 8 currently allows fill and construction within 50 feet of the intermittent watercourse for Partridge Lane and for a driveway to one of the three lots.
The Board determines that S.B. Gorham, Inc. has demonstrated sufficient right, title or interest in Lot 3 of the Riverwood subdivision to pursue this application.
A. Subdivision:
Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4404, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. No undue water or air pollution. The proposed amendment does not by itself result in undue water or air pollution. Actual construction or fill within 50 feet of the intermittent watercourse will occur as part of projects that require Town approval. The applicant for those projects will be required to comply with this standard.
2. Sufficient water supply. This amendment will not utilize water or impact the previously approved plan concerning water supply to the subdivision.
3. Municipal water supply: This amendment does not impact the municipal water supply.
4. Erosion. This amendment changes Plan Note 8 but does not include approval for any specific construction or fill project. Any such project will require approval by the Town and must demonstrate appropriate erosion control measures to prevent unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the land5. Traffic. The proposed amendment will not change the traffic in the subdivision.
6. Sewage disposal. The proposed amendment does not impact the previously approved sewage disposal design for the subdivision.
7. Municipal solid waste disposal. The amendment will not generate a need for municipal waste disposal and will not impact the previously approved plan8. Aesthetic, cultural and natural values. The Board found in its prior approval of an amendment creating the trail that the trail did not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, significant wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the Town or rare and irreplaceable natural areas or any public rights for physical or visual access to the shoreline. Amendment of Plan Note 8 does not by itself have an undue adverse effect on any of these items. Specific projects involving work permitted under Plan Note 8 will have to demonstrate compliance with this standard.
9. Conformity with local ordinances and plans. The proposed revision to Plan Note 8 is in accordance with local ordinances and plans.
10. Financial and technical capacity. The amendment to the Plan Note does not have a financial or technical impact. However, any work proposed under this amendment to Plan Note 8 will be subject to Town review.
11. Surface water. The proposed trail and the other stream crossings that would be permitted under the amendment Plan Note are not located within 250 feet of any of the defined surface water bodies. However, even if it were determined that any individual projects were located within 250 feet of the river, those projects would be subject to review under this standard.
12. Ground water. Construction and fill may be accomplished in a manner that will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water. The Board will review the trail construction plan to determine that it is done in such a manner that it will not adversely affect ground water. Other projects permitted under Plan Note 8 will also require Town review.
13. Flood areas. Work permitted under the amended Plan Note will not involve the construction of principal structures in a 100-year flood elevation. The proposed crossings are not located in a 100-year flood elevation.
14. Freshwater wetlands. All wetlands in the subdivision are included on the original subdivision plan.
15. River, stream or brook. All rivers, streams and brooks within or abutting the proposed subdivision are shown on the subdivision plan.
16. Storm water. The stormwater impacts of the proposed trail will be reviewed as part of the review of the construction application pending before the Board. The other projects permitted under the Plan Note amendment will also be reviewed by the Town to determine that it will not impact the existing storm water management plan. A storm water management plan for the entire subdivision was approved as part of the original subdivision review.
17. Spaghetti-lots prohibited. The application for amendment to the Plan Note to permit additional limited stream crossings will not impact the current configuration of lots in the subdivision.
18. Lake phosphorus concentration. The existing subdivision is not located adjacent or near a great pond.
19. Impact on adjoining municipality. The existing subdivision does not cross municipal boundaries.
B. Additional review issues:
1. Plan Note 8: This proposed amendment will change Plan Note 8 to add two more exceptions to the prohibition on construction or fill within 50 feet of the intermittent stream. This Plan Note placed a greater restriction than is required under the Townrequired level of review by the Department of Environmental Protection.
2. Restrictive Covenant 3 requires a 20-foot continuous buffer strip, kept in its natural state, except for prudent forest management, where any two lots abut and along the easement area, common open space area, and roadway. The approval of the amendment to Plan Note 8 does not impact this Covenant. The plan for the construction of the trail will require review under this Covenant.
3. Restrictive Covenant 11 requires that the Common Open Space and Easement areas remain in a natural state, without excavation or harvesting of timber. The approval of the amendment to Note 8 does not impact this Covenant. The plan for the construction of the trail will require review under this Covenant.
The Board had no questions or modifications to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion that the Board adopt the findings of fact developed by the Town
4. SUBDIVISION PLAN/SITE PLAN Request for subdivision amendment and site plan approval to allow construction of a recreational trail across Lot 3 in the Riverwood Subdivision on land of S. B. -Gorham, Inc. Zoned Rural; Map 72/Lots 25.003.
Mr. Boyce stated that as the time was approaching 10:00 p.m., no new items would be taken up for consideration after the completion of Item 4. Mr. Grant concurred.
Walt Stinson, of Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the Town of Gorham and the Maine Department of Transportation, and discussed the evolution of the design of the Mountain Division Trail, saying that that he was asked to take the design as it crossed Lot 3 and the intermittent stream and make it conform to the Townwill be 10 feet wide with a course of crushed gravel or perhaps stone, topped with about 8 inches of a finer material to make it suitable and adequate for walking or jogging, and the total trail will be about 500 feet as it crosses the Riverwood subdivision. Mr. Boyce asked if there would be anything constructed to prevent certain sized motorized vehicles from using the trail. Mr. Stinson said that one option would be the use of bollards to prevent certain sized vehicles from going between them, that they should be fairly substantial and set in concrete.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Murrough OPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Ms. Fossum stated that DOTthe 10-foot width is in order to permit access to an emergency vehicle, that this would be a multi-modal trail, but the small connector between the Mountain Division across Riverwood subdivision to the future Shaw Park would not have to be accessible for emergency vehicles. Mr. Boyce asked if it is known whether the Town parkland is going to be fenced throughout its perimeter; Ms. Fossum replied that it is not known at this time but that the recreation department is working to produce a more definite plan for the Shaw Park.
At the Chairman
1. Pollution: The proposed subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this determination it shall at least consider (a) the elevation of the land above sea level and its relation to the flood plaints; (b) the nature of the soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; (c) the slope of the land and its effect on effluence; (d) the availability of streams for the disposal of effluence; and (e) the applicable state and local health and water resource rules and regulations.
4. Erosion. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the land
8. Aesthetic, cultural and natural values. The proposed subdivision will not have a undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic site, significant wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Inland Fisheries or the municipality or rare and irreplaceable natural areas or any public rights with the physical or visual access to the shoreline.
12. Groundwater. The proposed subdivision will not alone or in conjunction with existing activities adversely affect the quality or quantity of groundwater.
16. Stormwater. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate stormwater management.
As to other criteria the Board must consider, Mr. Grant read Covenant #3, which requires as follows:
The twenty-foot continuous buffer strip shown on the plan be kept in its natural state except for prudent forest management, where any two lots abut, and along the easement area, common open space, and roadway. This restriction shall not include the area cleared for driveway to the dwelling house.
He continued, stating that the Court in its decision of December 20, 2001, indicated that “this issue would appear to be de minimus, at best, and the Town and MDOT propose minimal disturbance of the buffer and the owner of Lot 3, who would be most affected by any cutting, even limited, has granted its permission. In response to a question by Mr. Neily, Ms. Burns stated that it was in the Boardforest management.” It was also noted that Covenant #11 prohibits off-road vehicles, including ATVs, motorized winter vehicles and off road motorbikes. Mr. Shiers asked if the easement was still to be 20 feet west of the common space boundary line; Ms. Fossum replied that the trail takes a small turn as it reaches the main trail of the Mountain Division and extends into a small corner of the 20 foot buffer on the northerly end of the trail near the railroad bed. Mr. Grant noted that the Board had already addressed Plan Note 8, and the applicant proposes to obtain the required NRPA permit as any other developer would. Ms. Fossum noted that the criteria regarding Shoreland Zoning is not appropriate, as the trail does not fall within the Shoreland Overlay District. Ms. Robie asked if the bollardscondition, so it would be appropriate to add a condition to the plan. She also recommended that the placement of the bollards be done in accordance with the design guideline typically used by DOT engineers when they construct trails. Mr. Boyce suggested that the devices used to prevent snowmobile traffic on the Gambo Bridge could be used in this instance. Mr. Boyce asked what measures should be employed to protect the common open space from outside uses; Ms. Fossum replied that there would be signage that would identify the private property on either side and asked if the Board had any feelings about snow fencing. Ms. Burns read a proposed new Condition of Approval #8 as follows:
The applicant shall be required to install bollards at the trail connector
Ms. Burns read the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Riverwood Trail Construction
Findings of Fact:
1. The owner of the property where the proposed trail will be located is S.B. Gorham, Inc.
2. The applicant for the trail construction is the Town of Gorham, joined by the Maine Department of Transportation. The trail has been designed by Summit Engineering of South Burlington, VT, which is working under a contract with MDOT. The site plan and amendment to the subdivision plan have been prepared by Sebago Technics, Inc. of Westbrook, which is working under a contract with the Town. The owner of the property has authorized the applicants to proceed and will grant an easement to the Town.
3. The trail is proposed to run across Lot 3 of the Riverwood subdivision. It will connect to the Mountain Division Trail that runs along the Presumpscot River. The Mountain Division Trail is not located in the Riverwood subdivision and is located northerly of Lot 3. The trail connector will connect the Mountain Division Trail to a proposed public park that will be located on land owned by S.B. Gorham, Inc. and located southerly of Lot 3. .
4. The use of the trail will be limited so that motorized vehicles, including ATVs, will be prohibited.
5. The trail will cross an intermittent stream though the use of a culvert.
6. The applicant has submitted information concerning the construction methods for the trail. This information includes an erosion and sedimentation control plan including berms, hay bales, and other control measures. The trail material will be crushed gravel or stone with a binder material. The constructed trail will be ten feet in width, located within a 25-foot easement and will be approximately 500 feet in length across Lot 3 of Riverwood subdivision. The proposed trail connector is approximately 25 feet west of the Riverwood Subdivision Common Area and it will cross a 50-foot wide pedestrian easement held by the lot owners within the subdivision. It also will cross a 20-foot buffer on the southerly property line of
Lot 3.
7. The applicant has provided evidence of its right, title or interest in the trail area.
8. While the creation of the trail has already been approved, this review is of the construction aspects of the trail and it includes a proposed crossing of the intermittent stream through the use of a culvert.
9. The Planning Board has conducted a site walk of the trail area.
10. The applicant will install signage for the trail connector concerning limitations on use and prohibitions on access to adjoining private property. Some type of bollard or other restraint will be placed at the connection with the Mountain Division Trail and with the adjoining parkland so that motorized vehicles cannot access the trail connector across Lot 3.
Conclusions:
A. Subdivision requirements.
1. No undue water or air pollution. The construction of the plan has been designed in a manner that will utilize erosion control measures to prevent undue impacts on water. It is not anticipated that there will be any air impacts resulting from the construction or use of the trail.
2. Sufficient water supply. The trail will not utilize water or impact the previously approved plan concerning water supply to the subdivision.
3. Municipal water supply: The trail does not impact the municipal water supply.
4. Erosion. The applicant has submitted an erosion and sedimentation control plan that shows that the construction of the trail will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the land5. Traffic. The construction of the trail will not change the traffic design approved for the subdivision.
6. Sewage disposal. The construction of the trail does not impact the previously approved sewage disposal design for the subdivision.
7. Municipal solid waste disposal. The construction of the trail will not generate a need for municipal waste disposal and will not impact the previously approved plan8. Aesthetic, cultural and natural values. The Board found in its prior approval of an amendment creating the trail that the trail did not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, significant wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the Town or rare and irreplaceable natural areas or any public rights for physical or visual access to the shoreline. The Board will require as a condition of approval that the applicant confer with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether the construction is in an area of archaeological and other historic resources and with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to determine whether
any significant wildlife area or habitats for endangered or threatened biological species will be impacted by the trail construction.
9. Conformity with local ordinances and plans. The Board finds that the proposed trail construction is in accordance with local ordinances and is consistent with the Town10. Financial and technical capacity. It is anticipated that Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc. will undertake the construction of the trail. Shaw Brothers has constructed many projects in the Town and has demonstrated that it has the technical capacity to construct the trail. The Maine Department of Transportation will finance the trail.
11. Surface water. The plan proposes the use of berms, hay bales and other appropriate erosion control measures to protect surface water during the construction of the trail connector. The installation of the culvert will be subject to review under the Natural Resources Protection Act, which will ensure further protection of surface water.
12. Ground water. The construction of the trail will be accomplished in a manner that will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water. The plan proposes the use of berms, hay bales and other appropriate erosion control measures to protect ground water during the construction of the trail connector. The installation of the culvert will be subject to review under the Natural Resources Protection Act, which will ensure further protection of ground water.
13. Flood areas. The construction of the trail will not involve the construction of principal structures in a 100-year flood elevation. The trail is not located in a flood prone area.
14. Freshwater wetlands. All wetlands in the subdivision are included on the original subdivision plan.
15. River, stream or brook. All rivers, streams and brooks within or abutting the proposed subdivision are shown on the subdivision plan.
16. Storm water. A storm water management plan for the entire subdivision was approved as part of the original subdivision review. The construction of the trail will not change the original storm water plan. During construction, the applicant will utilize erosion control measures to ensure that stormwater runoff does not cause soil erosion.
17. Spaghetti-lots prohibited. The construction of the trail will not impact the current configuration of lots in the subdivision.
18. Lake phosphorus concentration. The existing subdivision is not located adjacent or near a great pond.
19. Impact on adjoining municipality. The existing subdivision does not cross municipal boundaries.
B. Additional review issues:
1. Plan Note 8: Plan Note 8 has been amended to permit the proposed stream crossing included in this application. The original Plan Note placed a greater restriction than is required under the Townthe proposed stream crossing must receive the required level of review by the Department of Environmental Protection. The alternative to installation of a culvert would be construction and installation of a boardwalk or bridge, either of which is cost-prohibitive and could have a greater impact on the intermittent water body than the installation of a culvert. The intermittent stream is narrow enough that a person can step over it at the point where the culvert is proposed.
2. Restrictive Covenant 3 requires a 20-foot continuous buffer strip, kept in its natural state, except for prudent forest management, where any two lots abut and along the easement area, common open space area, and roadway. The plan for construction of the trail shows that it will cross the easement area subject to this regulation. The trail plan has been designed in a manner that will minimize the cutting of large trees and will minimize any other cutting in this limited area where the new trail crosses the easement area. The Board finds that this Covenant must be read with Covenant 11, which allows the cutting of bushes and trees for footpaths and other specified uses. Based upon both of these, the Board determines that
cutting of vegetation should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct the new trail. The Board finds that the plan meets that standard. The owner of the property impacted by the cutting has indicated that it does not object to the proposed cutting and is supportive of the trail.
3. Restrictive covenant 11 requires that the Common Open Space and Easement areas remain in a natural state, without excavation or harvesting of timber. The proposed trail will cross the Easement area on Lot 3 but will not enter or cross the Common Open Space area of the subdivision. This covenant allows the cutting of bushes and trees for footpaths, fire lanes and permitted recreational uses. It also prohibits the use of motorized vehicles in, on or through the Easement area. This prohibition includes ATVarea of the crossing when it conducted its site walk in December. In addition, the applicant indicated that bollards would be installed to prevent motorized vehicles from using the trail connector. Based upon these items, the Board determines that the plan complies with this Covenant.
C. Site Plan. The plan for construction of the trail is also subject to review under Chapter IV, Section IX of the Land Use and Development Code.
1. Utilization of the site. No buildings are proposed as part of this application. The trail has been designed to minimize its impact upon the environmental features of the site. There is a proposed crossing of the intermittent stream. This crossing will occur through the use of a culvert. The applicant has submitted information on the installation of the culvert, including information about the erosion control methods that will be utilized during construction. The trail itself will be constructed of gravel with a binder course. The applicant has also demonstrated that erosion measures will be utilized during the construction of the trail.
2. Access to the site. The application indicates that there will not be vehicular access to this trail. Motorized vehicles will be prohibited on the trail, including motorized recreational vehicles. Access to the site is by means of State Route 237.
3. Internal vehicular circulation: This standard is not applicable since motorized vehicles will be prohibited from this trail.
4. Pedestrian circulation. The trail will provide for pedestrian circulation and will connect to the neighboring Mountain Division Trial.
5. Storm water management. The application does not include any proposed structures. There is an existing storm water management plan in place for the Riverwood subdivision.
6. Erosion control: The trial design is intended to take advantage of the existing topography and natural features of the site. The plan minimizes the amount of filling and excavation to the greatest extent possible to install a pedestrian trail. The plan also proposes a minimal amount of cutting, limited to that which is necessary for the creation and maintenance of the pedestrian trail. The plan proposes the use of berms and hay bales to minimize erosion during the construction of the trail.
7. Water supply: The proposed trail will not utilize drinking water.
8. Sewage disposal: There will be no sanitary facilities associated with the trail on Lot 3.
9. Utilities: No utilities are proposed.
10. Natural features: The project has been designed so that the trail will not require extensive grading, filling, or cutting of vegetation. The installation of the culvert to cross the intermittent stream is proposed at a location where the stream is very narrow. The installation of the culvert will impact a smaller area than would the construction of a bridge or boardwalk to cross the stream. The Board conducted a site walk of the proposed trail in December and saw the area where the trail is proposed.
11. Groundwater Protection. The applicant will utilize erosion control measures to prevent soils washing into surface or groundwater during the construction of the trail. The trail will not include a drinking water well or a sewage disposal system.
12. Exterior Lighting: None proposed.
13. Waste Disposal. There will not be provisions for waste disposal on this trail.
14. Landscaping. The trail design will preserve to the greatest possible extent existing vegetation. Tree and vegetation cutting will be limited to the least amounts necessary to establish and maintain the trail for pedestrian users.
15. Shoreland Relationship. The trail will not impact water quality due to the erosion control measures set forth in the plan. The only water body that will be impacted by the trail is the intermittent stream on Lot 3. The crossing of this stream is also subject to review by the DEP under the NRPA.
16. Technical and financial capacity. The applicant will utilize MDOT funding. The trail will be constructed by Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc. The applicant has made a sufficient showing of technical and financial capacity.
17. Buffering. The trail plan will utilize existing buffering.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to adopt the Findings developed by the Town
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant the Town of Gorham and Main Department of Transportation request for subdivision amendment and site plan approval for a 25' trail easement across Lot 3 in the Riverwood Subdivision and a 10' recreational trail, with proposed conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed at the meeting. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes and 1 absence (Mr. Parker).
5., 6., 7.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the remaining three items on this evening
8. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes and 1 absence (Mr. Parker).
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
March 3, 2003
R:\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN030303DFFDraft.doc
2. GRAVEL PIT 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 minimums 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 prior to the commencement of any earth moving activities within the pit area;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
That sufficient topsoil shall be retained on site to comply with the approved reclamation plan;
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;
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;
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;
That the agreements for the reduced buffer between the adjacent parcel owners and R.J. Grondin and Son
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; and
That the applicant shall submit the safety information for Route 114 from Mighty Street to Wescott Road so that the Town3. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT 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 minimis changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That all previously approved conditions of approval attached to the Riverwood Subdivision shall remain in effect;
3. That this amendment is limited to the amendment of Plan Note 8 and does not include the approval of any specific construction activities; and
4. That the Decision Document shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty days (30) of approval and a copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planner.
4. SUBDIVISION PLAN/SITE PLAN
Approved
Conditions of Approval:
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the applications 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 shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether the proposed trail construction will impact any historic sites;
3. That the applicant shall consult with the Maine Department of Conservation Natural Areas Division and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to determine whether the proposed trail construction will impact significant wildlife habitat or any endangered or threatened species areas identified by either Department;
4. That prior to the commencement of construction of the trail, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;
5. That the applicant shall obtain the required DEP approvals under the Natural Resources Protection Act;
6. 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;
7. That prior to the commencement of construction of the trail, the applicant shall request a pre-construction meeting with the Town staff and the Town's inspecting engineer and will be responsible for the scheduling and coordination of all required inspections during the construction of the trail;
8. That the applicant shall be required to install bollards at the trail connector
9. That the subdivision plan shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan shall be returned to the Town Planner; and
10. That the approved Decision Document shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty days (30) of approval and a copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planner.
| |
