 |
Town of Gorham
June 2, 2003
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Cafeteria, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, Chairman DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, Vice-Chair. AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
THOMAS HUGHES
CLARK NEILY
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Shields called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 19, 2003
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2003, Planning Board meeting. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. FINAL SUBDIVISION Grondin Properties, LLC requests final approval for a 6-lot industrial subdivision on 26 acres with frontage along Main Street/Route 25, Bartlett Road and Laurence Drive on land of Rines. Zoned Industrial & Roadside Commercial; Map 12/Lot 26.
Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of Grondin Properties, LLC, to request final approval from the Board, indicating only minor changes to the plan since preliminary approval had occurred, such as the road name to be called Gorham Industrial Parkway, subject to 911 approval, and the fire departmentshoulders, which he had indicated would be paved. However, he said that the Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous on the question of the shoulders, and discussions with staff and Gary Lorfano have concluded the decision of paved or gravel shoulders should be left up to the Board. He said the road they have designed is a 26-foot wide road with 5 or 6-foot gravel shoulders, a turn lane designed at the intersection with Route 25 so that it can ultimately serve as the new drive into the Industrial Park when Bartlett Road is closed. He said their preference would be not to pave the shoulders, which would make the road 36 feet of paved surface, as the Gorham Industrial Park road [Hutcherson Drive] is about 24 feet with 5 or 6 foot shoulders, and Laurence Drive, to which they would connect, ranges in width from 25 to 26 feet with 5 or 6 foot shoulders. He said their proposed roadway of 26 feet in width, two 13-foot travel lanes, would exceed the width of the current
Industrial Park Road and also is consistent or exceeds what Laurence Drive has. Mr. McCullough commented that the Ordinance talks about a road width of 24 feet with 6 foot gravel shoulders for Industrial Commercial, but they feel that the road they are offering, 26 feet in width, with 5 foot shoulders, is more intermediate and appropriate.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments. He said that the Fire Chief wanted a new hydrant placed halfway across the new road, and that he was not aware until recently of the conversations between Mr. Grondin and the Chief on the subject. He commented that the Planning Board has the discretion to waive any of the road standards or change the requirements, and that Mr. Lorfano has confirmed that most of the roads in the Industrial Park are a maximum of 25 feet except for some areas where there might be 26 feet of paving, but this will become the primary road in and out of the Park and has to be appropriate. Mr. Lorfano would prefer the applicantultimate decision and perhaps come to a compromise with the applicant on the standards. He also commented about staff
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Diana Libby, 59 Bartlett Road, asked for confirmation of her understanding that this plan would not close down Bartlett Road, because if it were, it would destroy the value of her industrial land on Bartlett Road. Mr. Grant replied that the Planning Board cannot authorize the closing of Bartlett Road, which would have to be done at Town Council level, and there is no proposal at this time to do that. Ms. Libby asked for clarification of what this project will do to the rest of Bartlett Road. Ms. Fossum replied that some discussion has occurred as to whether or not the new proposed road through the subdivision would become the main entrance to the entire Industrial Park that is currently developed, and if it did become the main entrance, the access would not technically cut off to Bartlett Road, it would
be relocated to the new subdivision road. She said that perhaps a section of Bartlett Road might be closed in the future where it currently now intersects with Route 25, inasmuch as the new road proposed would have better sight distance and could service the entire Industrial Park area. She reassured Ms. Libby that her lot would still be accessed by a road from Route 25 and that the marketability of industrial land on Bartlett would not be changed.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
The Chairman summarized the three issues which the Board needs to consider: (1) the possible Route 25 curb cuts for Lots 4 and 6; (2) the hydrant issue; and (3) the roadway width. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Shields if an applicant could do anything on Route 25 on the two lots without site plan approval before the Board. Mr. Shields replied that something could come in under minor site plan, where the Planning Board would not get a chance to see it, and the question needs to be reviewed in light of the overall scheme of traffic flow from the Industrial Park, that it needs to be made clear that automatic access to Route 25 is not a given, and that an applicant would need to show that another curb cut on to Route 25 is a safe proposal, the best proposal and the only alternative. Mr. McCullough replied to a
question from Mr. Shiers stating that the section of Route 25 in question is within the Townunless otherwise approved by the Planning Board, which would keep access internal to the subdivision wherever possible. Ms. Fossum was directed to prepare a condition of approval to that effect. Mr. Grant commented that he did not believe undue burdens such as signalization should be placed on the applicant at this time and that any further improvements to the intersection with Route 25 can be considered at a later time. The Board then discussed the fire hydrant issue, and Mr. Grondin assured the Board that he will meet with the Fire Chief and achieve a amenable solution to the issue. Mr. Grondin asked the Board to draw up a revised Condition of Approval to deal with the hydrant issue. The Board concurred, and Ms. Fossum suggested a change to the Condition to read, “That the applicant shall meet the following requirements as outlined in the Fire Chiefproposed new road, that it was not really necessary for his subdivision but that he believed it was the best solution for an improvement in traffic flow and had it designed for the benefit of the Town, and asked that the paved shoulders be waived in light of Grondin “going the extra distance” with the road. He also commented that a wider road width would result in a funneling of traffic, which he considered to be unwise. Mr. Grondin recommended a 26-foot paving width with 5-foot gravel shoulders. Mr. Shiers said he concurred with Mr. Grondin about the width of the road, that the fire hydrant issue can be left to Mr. Grondin and the Fire Chief for resolution, and said he is prepared to move forward with the project as submitted. Mr. Grant confirmed with Mr. McCullough that there would be three 12-foot lanes at the intersection of the new road with Route 25, and that it would extend into the development for 100 feet at that width and then taper for
another 100 feet down to 26 feet wide. Mr. McCullough said the design was to MDOT standards. Mr. Boyce asked about the drainage of the roadway, Mr. McCullough replied that it was designed to have sheet flow into a ditch system. Ms. Fossum confirmed that there would be 26 feet of paved roadway with 5-foot gravel shoulders, with the road base built to full construction 36-foot width at the entrance for a distance of 100 feet and a 100-foot taper to 26 feet. The Board concurred. Mr. Shields confirmed that there would be a plan note for the access for the two lots and the Condition of Approval about the hydrant would be changed to reflect the applicant working out the hydrant
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant final approval of Grondin Properties, LLC
3. SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
ODAT Realty Holdings, Inc. requests approval of a site plan for a 21,275 sf industrial building on 5.33 acres on 20 Sanford Drive in the Gorham Industrial Park. Zoned Industrial; Map 12/Lot 33.016.
Danielle Betts, civil engineer with Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced the owners of ODAT Machine and the general contractor. She said that she and the reviewing engineer have reached an agreement on all the engineering issues, and the applicant agrees with the Fire Chiefdrainage that will go toward New Portland Road heads west to the Lot 10 detention pond and will not impact abutters. She also said that a sign has been added to the plan that all trucks coming into the main entrance shall make a left turn in order to promote one-way circulation around the building. She described the 30-foot buffer on the east side of the property and the trees planted in the buffer by Grondin in the 80s, and said a plan note has been added that there will be no tree removal permitted as part of their approval and any future disturbance will require Planning Board approval. She said they have enlarged the cleared area at the entrance, where grading, loaming and seeding will be done as requested by the downstream abutter.
Mr. Shields made the staff comments, saying that staff and the review engineer, Les Berry, have reviewed the plans and the applicant has made all the necessary changes, the engineering is in place and adequate, and the necessary easements have been secured to provide drainage and adequate piping on their property. Mr. Shields said that the white pines in the buffer area were planted by a previous applicant of a subdivision in 1988, the applicant has shown the trees on the plan, and on staff
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Diana Libby, 59 Bartlett Road, abutter on the east side, asked the applicant if the trees in the buffer were planted 12 feet apart as they were supposed to have been and if not, will other trees be planted or will the current trees suffice, and who will maintain the buffer. Ms. Betts replied that the trees were planted in a random fashion and are scattered fairly well throughout the buffer, in some cases they are 8 to 10 feet apart, and in other cases 15 to 25 feet apart, at one end the end tree is 40 feet from the property line. She said that in the last 15 years there has been a certain amount of emergent growth of smaller trees filling in the buffer. She said the buffer is part of ODATundisturbed buffer strip will be maintained along the eastern boundary of lots 16, 17, and 19 to screen adjoining residential areas,” and that the MDEP buffer requirements could be added to the plans.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant ODAT Realty Holdings, Inc.
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION / PRIVATE WAY John T. Hawkes requests preliminary subdivision plan approval for a 6-lot subdivision and 1,100
Thomas Greer of Pinkham & Greer appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained some of the issues involved, one being that they are requesting a waiver of the 90 degree angle requirement in the private way street design standards in order to intersect the proposed private way with Files Road at a 78 degree angle to achieve adequate site distance and separation from the drive on the opposite side of Files Road, and to allow the road to bend to the right to avoid wetland and the Branch Brook. Mr. Greer also said that the applicant does not believe a future extension of the roadway to abutting land is warranted.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that neither staff nor SYTDesign, review engineers for the project, have a problem with the 78-degree angle of the proposed private way, and that the 90-degree requirement for private ways is more stringent than the standard for public streets. He said that the more they straighten out the intersection, the closer they would get into the floodplain, and he believes that the 78-degree angle is the best possible solution. Mr. Shields said that the flood plains elevations have been done with an approved FEMA method, and while the shoreland zoning map may show a shoreland zone, extensive research has revealed that the area has basically grown up and no longer falls within the shoreland zoning. He said that DEP has concurred with the engineers, which is
why the shoreland zone is not applied to the plans. Mr. Shields said that the applicant is required to provide access to adjoining undeveloped land unless the Board determines that it is not appropriate for the development.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Dick Pratt, Files Road abutter, said that he does not want the private way access to adjacent land to abut his property. Mr. Clark said if the Board decides there should be access, it would only come up to Mr. PrattPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant remarked that he believed that it would not be practical to attempt access to abutting land due to topographic conditions of the site. The Board discussed various possible locations for future roadway extensions to abutting properties. Mr. Neily pointed out the neighboring properties, which already have access to Files Road, commented about the wetlands in other directions, and said he saw no necessity for having a right of way to adjoining land; Mr. Hughes concurred. Mr. Grant commented that there seem to be several complicating issues, such as the fact that the entrance is an easement over property belonging to someone else not part of the subdivision, and it seemed unlikely that the homeowners would want their private way to become a public road into an abutterinquired about an apparently landlocked parcel of land and asked if access would be required to that piece. Mr. Shields identified the parcel as the Phinney parcel and commented that the aerial photograph shows that most of the wetlands sit back in that area. Mr. Parker asked how Mr. Phinney accessed his land; Mr. Grant replied that he may have an easement or it may be landlocked. Mr. Parker said he did not believe the parcel should have an extension, he asked only out of curiosity.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that there is no need for a future extension of the roadway because of the topography, streams and wetlands on the parcel. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant a waiver for allowing a 78-degree intersection with Files Road. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.
Susan Robie MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary approval of John T. Hawkes
Stretch Break from 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/ PRIVATE WAY Beaumier Dev. Corp. requests preliminary approval of a 6-lot residential subdivision with a 1,070-foot private way “Faith Drive” on 19.94 acres off 84 Deering Road. Zoned Rural/Manufactured Housing-Shoreland Zoning; Map 14/Lot 6.3.
Calvin Beaumier discussed the issue of buffering at the entrance of the private way off Deering Road that was brought up at the site walk by an abutter and described a photo rendition of a proposed buffer with plantings 8 to 10 feet apart which the abutter has approved in writing.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the headlights issue appears to be resolved with the abutter, as Mr. Beaumier had stated, but once again the question of access to adjoining land needs to be resolved by the Board. He also commented that this is an amended subdivision plan, so all the appropriate notes before final approval will be applied to the plan to reflect any amendments that have occurred throughout the history of the parcel.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Parker said he did not think this is an appropriate place to have an extension of the right of way to adjoining property because of its topography.
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion that the Board waive the requirement for an extension of right of way to adjacent property.
Discussion: At the request of the Chairman, Ms. Robie withdrew her second so that Mr. Parker could stipulate a reason for waiving the requirement for an extension of right of way.
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion that the Board waive the requirement for an extension of right of way to adjacent property because of the topography of the parcel. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.
Mr. Beaumier confirmed to Mr. Grant that the private way proposed would be gravel. Mr. Shiers said he was not an advocate of the proposed gravity feed outdrain from the basements of the houses, with fill up around them, and the positioning of leach fields and septics tanks on front lawns, and asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Beaumier said the only lots that do not have a positive drain are the two lots on the right, which will sit 3 feet in the ground with 3 feet of fill to get them positive drain. Mr. Shiers asked if there was any alternative to locating the leach fields on those two lots other than on the front lawn. Mr. Beaumier replied that there was not, and the road had been moved over to the right to bring those two lots into soils more suitable for septic systems. He said they hope
to design the leach fields so that they are unnoticeable.
Susan Robie MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary approval of Beaumier Development Corp.
6. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Stephen D. Adams requests amendment of the subdivision plans for the Land of Thomas Dodge for 3 lot line changes for lots 1B, 2 and 3. Zoned Rural; Map 37/Lots 13, 13.002 and 13.003.
Stephen Adams told the Board he wants to move the lot lines between three lots that he owns in order to enlarge one of the lots to sell it and satisfy the desires of the prospective buyer. He said he is creating no new lots, is not building any new roads, is not building any new buildings, and simply wishes to change the dimensions of the existing lots. He said that a question has arisen about access and the use of Cider Mill Lane but that is not under discussion this evening with regard to his wish to change the lot lines.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments. She said the changes proposed by Mr. Adams to parcel 2 are basically corrective changes, as well as to lot 1B. She said she has a different opinion than Mr. Adams about the 25-acre lot, a lot created in the past ten years or so, that does not have legal frontage and is therefore an illegal lot which can be corrected by either being appended to one of the other two lots shown on the plan or by the applicant presenting a private way application that would provide road frontage for it. She referred the Board to the history provided in the agenda memo, and stated that the bottom line is that the 25 acre lot was created and sold to an abutter, but the abutter cannot now separate it off without legal frontage on either a public road or a Planning Board approved private
way. In addition to the frontage issue for the 25 acre parcel, referred to by the applicant as lot 3, Ms. Fossum said that this plan does not recognize amendments that were approved by the Gorham Planning Board in 1994, so there is no plan for the Board to sign. She said that some of the plan notes and the restrictions contained in Plan Notes 2 and 3 were removed by a previous Planning Board in 1994 and therefore do not belong on this plan, and the title of “First Amended Subdivision Plan for the Land of Thomas W. Dodge” is incorrect as it is the second amended subdivision plan. These are fairly simple changes for an engineering firm to make, but the Board does not have a revised plan before it this evening, and she suggested that the Board may need the applicant to provide additional information. She said that in addition, Adams Drive was never fully constructed and parcel 2 and parcel 1B show frontage along a hammerhead, which was never
constructed properly, so the applicant went before the Board of Appeals in November and was granted variances from the required frontage to serve those two lots.
Mr. Adams answered a query from Mr. Grant saying that he owns the private way. He further said that when he bought the 25-acre lot and parcel 1B they were separate parcels, deeded that way, and that they remain separate. He said that he is not trying to do anything with the larger lot today, and that in the future if he wants to sell that parcel he will try to resolve its frontage problem. He said his purpose tonight was to try to make parcel 1B larger for the prospective buyer in order to sell it. Ms. Fossum confirmed that parcel 1B, parcel 2 and the 25-acre lot are all part of a subdivision that was approved in 1977 (plan of Elmer Dodge), and in 1982 parcels 1B, 2 and 1A came in as a separate subdivision entitled “Subdivision of Land of Thomas Dodge.” Later, another group of
lots were approved under an applicant named Paul Dodge. All along, the lots that were subdivided in 1982, 1985, 1986, 1990 and 1994 all came out of the original 1977 subdivision of Elmer Dodge. The 25 acre lot that now has no frontage did have frontage under the 1977 Elmer Dodge plan on Flaggy Meadow Road, but the front portions of this lot have been sold off to various parties and the back land was sold to an abutter. Ms. Fossum said that over the course of the years in all of these conveyances, no one came in and went through subdivision amendment to show the lot line changes, which is how Mr. Adams has ended up in the position in which he finds himself. Ms. Fossum said Mr. Adams could correct the situation by joining the 25 acre parcel to parcel 2, and the reason the Board cannot approve the plan before them tonight for parcel 1B is that there is no plan appropriate for signature because the [previous] subdivision amendments that have been approved are
not tracked on the plan, and the plan shows a lot which does not conform to zoning and has no legal frontage. Mr. Adams said he does not want to merge the 25 acre lot with any other and is willing to provide frontage for that landlocked parcel in the future such as obtaining an easement from the prospective buyer of the lot he is trying to sell. Mr. Adams replied to Mr. Neily that he has no plans for development of the 25-acre lot but he does want to resolve the issue of access. Mr. Shiers asked what the applicant is using for road frontage. Mr. Adams replied that he was using Adams Drive, which is 1100 feet long, ending in a hammerhead which was never built. Mr. Shiers asked if the private way is an approved private way according to the Town of Gorhamnot wide enough to be a road, and therefore there is no road frontage for a qualifying house lot and that none of the lots are conforming. Ms. Fossum explained that Mr. Adams received variances from the Board of Appeals in November for 400 feet for the two principal structures on Parcel 1B and 200 feet for the principal structure on parcel 2 for the required frontage for both Lots 13.002 and 13.003. Ms. Fossum answered a query from Mr. Parker by saying that the Appeals Board granted the frontage on Adams Drive. Mr. Boyce commented that the plans are unclear in that they do not show the dwellings on the lots, and asked staff if the Board is in a position to require that a private way meeting current standards be developed to serve anything that might be approved in the way of a lot line change, notwithstanding the Appeals Board frontage variance. Mr. Grant asked staff if lot 1B is an approved lot, based on the Appeals Board variance, and if there were
no lot line changes, could the applicant sell this lot. Ms. Fossum replied that even if the lot lines were exactly as approved in 1982, it would still need subdivision amendment because there is a requirement in the law that any variance be shown on the face of the subdivision plan; the applicant needed a variance to create the frontage that he lacked; and there is a plan note 7 referring to the November 2002 variance, but there are three units on the parcel that never went through subdivision review. Mr. Boyce asked if the Board were taking action on a subdivision, why would there not need to be a conforming private way to serve the lots, regardless of the frontage issues. Ms. Fossum replied that she believed that the variance [granted in November 2002 by the Board of Appeals] removed that requirement. Mr. Grant suggested that Ms. Fossum ask that question of the Town Attorney. Mr. Boyce asked if Adams Drive was in accordance with private way standards
of the time. Ms. Fossum replied that she would have to research what the standards required at the time. Mr. Shields commented the question would include how many was it approved for, now it is giving frontage for 3 units on parcel 1B, one unit on parcel 2, and frontage on parcel 1A with an easement over it. Mr. Grant said that guidance needed to be provided to staff so that the Town Attorney can review all the issues. In response to Mr. Neily, Mr. Adams confirmed that Talbot land is an abutter off Flaggy Meadow; Mr. Neily said he would like a more complete map. Mr. Parker asked staff to clarify the outer boundaries of the original subdivision to indicate if parcel 3 was included; Ms. Fossum referred to Exhibit B, the 1977 subdivision plan of Elmer Dodge. Mr. Grant commented about the lots having different owners listed. Mr. Shiers questioned the authority of the Appeals Board to create non-conforming buildable lots by granting the 400-foot
and 200-foot variances, and that he believed a conforming private way needs to be constructed to serve as a frontage road.
Darin McGovern, the potential buyer, expressed his opinion that the Board was making a simple request to move a lot line into something more complicated than it was, that the private way was grandfathered and was in pretty decent shape, and that the issue was being blown out of proportion. Mr. Grant explained that the rules were complex and needed to be followed. Mr. Boyce asked if the applicant had consulted with an attorney and if so, did that attorney believe the subdivision law was being properly addressed. Mr. Adams replied that he had not, that his road was adequate and it isnsaid if the applicant wishes to proceed, staff is directed to look into the issues that have been discussed and get the Town Attorney
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Mark Mitchell, 8 Cider Mill Lane, expressed his concern that the 25-acre lot might be attached at some time to Cider Mill Lane, that the lot is not landlocked as Mr. Adams owns the land leading to it, and if it does become landlocked by the sale of the lot he wishes to sell, it is by Mr. Adams
Don Barr, 16 Cider Mill Lane, said he believes that Adams Drive should be brought into private way standards conformity and Cider Mill Lane should not provide access to the 25-acre lot. He also suggested that Mr. Adams
Cathy Beety, 20 Cider Mill Lane, expressed her concern about what the 25-acre lot will be used for in the future, that the three neighbors on Cider Mill Lane maintain it themselves, that the 25-acre parcel should not derive access from Cider Mill Lane, that her property abuts Adams Drive, which she said is 10 to 15 feet wide and not in good repair, and Adams Drive cannot be widened without encroaching on her property on one side and another abutter on the other side.
Tom Talbot, 203 Flaggy Meadow Road, said he would support development within the right standards, complimented Ms. Fossum on her presentation of the facts involved with the history of the land, and noted there are numerous problems to be resolved. He commented that Mr. Adams
Mr. Adams commented that all the speakers touched on something that is not under discussion, he is not trying to access on to Cider Mill Lane, and he has no plans to develop the 25-acre parcel.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to postpone the item until staff feels the applicant is ready to return with a revised plan. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to waive the ten o
7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN David Kaplan, Sr. requests a pre-application site plan discussion for a proposed 7,220 SF industrial building on a 1.58 acre parcel of land identified as Lot 5A on the subdivision plan for Gorham Industrial Park. Zoned Industrial; Map 12/Lot 33.501.
Jon Whitten, Jr., of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant, and commented that one revision has been made since the Agenda was published in that the building is a 6450 SF building, not 7220 SF. He said the lot is a small wooded one, there will be 15 parking spaces, and service of electricity, water, sewer and gas will be from Sanford Drive. There will be one loading dock associated with the building to allow for inventory movement. He said the wetland area in the rear of the lot will be used for natural sheeting drainage and will not use any abutting land for drainage, and therefore they are not asking for any easements or waivers in this regard.
Mr. Shields said staff has no comments. Mr. Whitten said that Les Berry is currently reviewing the package.
Mr. Hughes asked if the applicant has a moving time frame. Mr. Whitten replied that a move is anticipated for the fall. Mr. Kaplan said they hope to be out of their Westbrook facility by the end of September and hoped the Board could expedite approval of the plan. Mr. Shiers asked if the Chairman would entertain a preliminary and final application combined. Mr. Grant replied that when staff says they are ready for site plan approval, it would be unusual if approval were not granted. Mr. Parker said that since the Board is interested in expediting industrial projects as best it can, is this an opportunity to farm out the review process to a planning consultant if staff is currently inundated. Ms. Fossum replied yes, if there were a planning consultant on board, but there is no consultant
on board, and staff will do its best to see that the project gets reviewed and if possible it will be brought back on the 16th if the Board decides on a second meeting this month.
8. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN UMS requests a pre-application discussion for a proposed 20,000 SF building expansion of the John Mitchell Center off Campus & Husky Drives at the USM-Gorham Campus. Zoned Urban Residential
David Early, Executive Director of Facilities at the University of Southern Maine, discussed the project, saying that the John Mitchell Center is a 36,000 SF facility that was built in 1965, and as part of the project, renovation of the facility is proposed, improving the life safety code for egress and sprinkling the building, as well as adding a 20,000 SF addition on the building. He pointed out the new area delineated on the plan, including a new sprinkler room and an additional means of egress on the second floor. He said the total cost of the project is $8 million, with $4 million having been approved by the voters in a state-wide bond referendum last June, $2 million in federal funds, and an additional $2 million in donations from industrial firms and individuals in the state. The total
construction budget is $5.6 million. He showed the Board how the accessibility of the building will be improved, the addition of ladies
Mr. Grant asked why not schedule the site walk earlier than July. Mr. Early replied that date was suggested in light of the workload of the Board.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, saying that staff has met with the applicant earlier, that this is a very positive addition to the University campus, and that she suggests that the Board try to schedule a site walk earlier than July, perhaps in the next week.
Mr. Parker said he would be interested in knowing what parking compensation is to be offered if the construction is to be in a parking lot, as parking is at a premium on campus. Mr. Early replied that they are looking at the numbers very carefully, with possibly 60 added seats to program space, and are working on a parking analysis to answer questions in detail during the site walk. He said the facility is close to a large parking lot recently built on Husky Drive which might satisfy the parking requirements. Mr. Neily said that USM should be congratulated on their progression into a very important and significant educational institution in the State of Maine, but at the same time the expansion has put a strain on the utilities serving the University, as well as others surrounding it. He said that
for example the University is by far the greatest user of the capacity of the sewer pump station, and in order for the Town to deal with others who need to share in that capacity and perhaps to enlarge that capacity, the University should considering looking at sharing in the cost of expanding such facilities. Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Neily and commented that there is another project that will impact the pump station, which is about at ultimate capacity now and will need upgrading, so this would be an ideal time to avoid placing the burden completely on one project when two could share in the upgrade. He suggested that the issue needs to be looked at with the Portland Water District and the other project. Mr. Early said he would concur and would hope to review the issue with the planning staff, Portland Water District and other appropriate officials.
Mr. Grant directed staff to schedule a site walk.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [10:10 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted
_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
June 2, 2003
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN060203Sec draft.doc
2. FINAL SUBDIVISION
Approved Conditions of Approval
That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;
That the applicant shall meet the following requirements as outlined in the Fire Chief
A. A new hydrant will need to be placed half way across on the new road. The exact location shall be approved by the Fire Chief at the time of installation. The cost and installation shall be the developer
That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated within the approved subdivision, the applicant shall arrange through the Planning Office a pre-construction meeting with the selected Review Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
That prior to any occupancy within the subdivision a structure shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round;
That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Fire Chief and Police Chief;
That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Planner;
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
That these conditions of approval and the Final Plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
3. SITE PLAN
Approved Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;
3. That the applicant shall satisfy all the Fire Chief
A. The building will be completely sprinkled, with the sprinkler system meeting all the applicable requirements of the Town of GorhamB. The sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the State Fire MarshalC. The room where the sprinkler riser is located shall have an outside door. The door shall be marked and labeled on the outside “SPRINKLER ROOM”. The main alarm panel shall be located in this room also.
D. The building shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code 2000 edition.
E. A complete set of building construction plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department at the time the building permit is issued. Building construction plans must also be sent to the State Fire MarshalF. A copy of all MSDS Sheets shall be supplied to the Fire Department.
4. 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;
5. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Planner prior to the pre-construction meeting;
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, Portland Water District, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director, to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
7. That the site improvements shall be completed as shown on the approved plans prior to request for either temporary or final occupancy permits for the building; or a performance guarantee, covering the remaining site improvements shall be established through the Planning Department;
8. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
