 |
Town of Gorham
August 4, 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 NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
CLARK NEILY BARBARA C. SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
Members Absent:
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Clerk called the roll, noting that Richard Shiers was absent.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 7, 2003.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to accept the Planning Board minutes of July 7, 2003 as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent). [7:03 p.m.]
2. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for approval for a subdivision amendment to divide Lot 9 into two lots, A and B. Zoned Industrial; Map 12/Lot 33.009.
Steve Sterns of Pinkham & Greer appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated that the applicant has a buyer, Peter Wentworth, for Lot 9A, and that Lot 9B will remain with the applicant.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, saying that that this is the seventh subdivision amendment for the Industrial Park, that this particular lot is larger than the market needs at this time, and that the request meets the zoning requirements of the Town. She says the application makes note of the applicable covenants and is in order for approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily pointed out the typographic error in the agenda memo wherein both lots are referred to as “Lot 9A,” and confirmed that Lot 9B is being sold to Peter Wentworth.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the Seventh Amended Gorham Industrial Park Subdivision Plan to allow Grondin Properties, LLC, to divide Lot 9 into Lot 9A and Lot 9B with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent). [7:06]
3. SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for site plan approval for a 5,000 sf industrial building on land identified as Lot 9B on the proposed amended subdivision plan for Gorham Industrial Park. Zoned Industrial; Map 12/Lot 33.009.
Steve Sterns, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented the application. He described the business to be conducted in the proposed building as an embroidery business. He said that the sewer will be pumped up to a manhole, the building is just under the requirements for a sprinkled building and the Fire Chief has said that sprinkling is not necessary so long as the building is not enlarged, but there will be a stub left to the property line in the event the building is ever expanded in the future. He said that the applicant would prefer to keep the proposed driveway as originally shown because the review engineerof traffic. He also said that the applicant would prefer to keep the driveway width at 20 feet instead of the suggested 24 feet.
Ms. Fossum made the staff comments, and said that the BH2M and SYTDesign review engineers suggested the 24-foot width for the driveway so as not to limit future re-use of the building, and that generally it is good practice to line up driveways. Ms. Fossum said that Portland Water District has reviewed the plans and indicated that the proposed location for the waste water pump station inside the building, while not PWDwith the drainage easement for review and approval. She said that this Lot, as are other lots in the Industrial Park, is subject to Park covenants which are not enforceable by the Town; however, the applicant was advised to secure sign-offs or waivers from other lot owners in the Town, which has been done. Ms. Fossum said that the Town Attorney has recommended that it would be advisable to have an attorney prepare a recordable instrument showing the signatures of the other lot owners who consented and to have that document recorded in the Registry of Deeds. She said that Plan Note 18 language of “The developer of this lot has obtained a sign off from the park owners to reduce the side and rear setbacks to 30 feet in accordance with Town standards” should be revised by striking the phrase “… in accordance with Town standards,” inasmuch as it is in accordance with the Park covenants and not the Town
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Tom Ellsworth, President of the Gorham Economic Development Corporation, spoke in support of the application.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce asked about the nature of the wastewater to be pumped; Mr. Wentworth replied that the screen-printing process involves biodegradable materials. Mr. Grant asked if Mr. Wentworth had a problem with the 30-foot drainage easement to the Town; Mr. Wentworth replied that he had no problem and that he intended to have his attorney incorporate into the deed the information about the sign-offs from other lot holders in the Park. Mr. Grant asked if anyone on the Board disagreed with the applicant
Susan Robie MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant NESA
4. SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for a site plan approval for a 20,000 SF expansion of the Mitchell Center building Zoned Urban Residential; Map 40/Lots 16 [together w/15,17 &18].
David Early, USM Executive Director of Facilities Management, appeared on behalf of USM, along with the architect of record from Harriman Associates, Greg Ninow, John Iennaco, the consultant from DeLuca-Hoffman, and Joe LaVerriere. The architect gave a brief overview of the project, describing the proposed additions to the existing footprint and materials intended for use in the construction. He commented that the 20,000 square foot addition will be on two levels, with the lower level matching the existing lower level of the building, and the new second level, the entry level, will match with the existing second level of the building. He said that the lower level will contain some laboratories for mechanical engineering, some electrical engineering spaces, and a stress testing area, while the upper level
will contain faculty offices, some classrooms, and the new lobby coming into the building. He also commented that the existing 37,000 square feet will be renovated to bring it up to life safety standards, both ADA standards, sprinkling the building, and providing new ventilation and air conditioning. He said the existing road in front and curbing will remain, and the sidewalk will be extended, with access to the site being off the sidewalk, into a small plaza, upstairs and into the building, or up a handicapped ramp. He also discussed the proposed landscaping elements, and said that it was hoped that by using recycled and environmentally safe materials as possible, the building could be certified through the U.S. Green Building Council. John Iennaco of DeLuca-Hoffman, civil engineers for the project, commented that the addition will be constructed in a existing parking lot of 34 spaces, but according to the on-going parking study, there is still a 90-space
surplus. He said that the existing curb cuts entering the existing parking lot will be sealed off, resulting in one continuous sidewalk along the front of the building, with sidewalk extending down to the Husky Drive parking lot. Mr. Iennaco said that the existing water and sewer utility lines will remain in use; in addition, due to the elevation of the new building, there will be a second sanitary sewer extending out of the north side of the building, running down behind the adjacent ice arena building and connect into the existing sewer system for the campus. He said that basically the same drainage patterns will remain.
Mr. Parker asked Mr. Iennaco to demonstrate the traffic pattern, which Mr. Iennaco said will essentially will be one-way around the back. Ms. Robie asked for confirmation that the existing curb cuts will be filled in; Mr. Iennaco replied that the two entrances presently in place will be closed off, the curbing to be filled in will be granite to match the existing curbing, and there will be no esplanade. In response to a question from Mr. Neily, Mr. Early confirmed that there are about 90 extra parking spaces on campus and explained the method being used regarding parking fees. Mr. Early said they intend to continue their parking supply and demand analysis for another 5 years and will share the reports with the Planning Staff, and suggested that the University could work with the Town in monitoring and
labeling the parking on School Street. In response to Mr. Parker, Mr. Early replied that there are no reserved parking spaces on campus. Ms. Robie commented that there should be a stop sign at the corner of Husky Drive and State Street; Mr. Early replied that there is one in place and the campus police will be asked to monitor the intersection.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, noting that the Town has agreed to issue a letter of capacity to the University concerning the sewer and pump station. He reminded the Board that it must vote on the Special Exception Criteria as this application is a special exception in this zone.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant read the Special Exception Criteria as follows:
Finding 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;
Finding 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;
Finding 3. The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;
Finding 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;
Finding 5. The proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid wastes generated by the use;
Finding 6. The proposed use will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat, and, if located in a shoreland zone, 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.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the proposed Special Exception Use to construct a two story 20,000 SF addition to an existing building located on Husky Drive, Zone Urban Residential, under the Special Exception standards of Chapter I in the Land Use and Development Code. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent). [7:45 p.m.]
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant the University of Southern Maine
5. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval for site plan amendment for a proposed extension to the project
Dave St. Clair, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant, John Pompeo with O
Mr. Shields presented the staff report, saying that in 2001 the applicant received approval to construct a dry storage building, with the site improvements including constructing an access driveway out on to New Portland Road, a small stormwater detention area for the collection of runoff, and the removal of a large hill containing ledge of approximately 42,000 cubic yards of material. Mr. Shields said that the removal of the hill is the only way to achieve a level site so that it can be used. He said that in 2001 the applicant had a potential agreement with an outside source who was willing to remove the hill by blasting the ledge out and processing the material on site, and then remove it. The Board agreed with the applicant that the material could be processed on site, but placed a two-year time frame
on the approval, Condition of Approval #11. This time frame was unusual as site plan approvals normally do not have an expiration period. In the two years since initial approval, applicantspecific dates for completion.” Mr. Shields commented about some of the concerns expressed by Board members about granting the applicant a more flexible schedule due to the recent and proposed developments surrounding the property, and suggested that further discussion occur about the impact of onsite crushing and processing of material.
Mr. Neily asked the Town Attorney for confirmation that as the proposed Condition is now written, if the applicant does not begin substantial construction, more than two years could lapse before removal of the material would need to be completed. Ms. Burns confirmed Mr. Neilysite, and said the request for an extension so that from the time they start to the time they finish is two years. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Pompeo when he planned on starting; Mr. Pompeo replied that he does not have an answer to that right now.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant commented said the Board was generous in 2001 to permit crushing on site; however, in the two years that have passed there has been more development around the site, that there would be no way now to control the crushing noise, that blasting could be done on site, but he could not support crushing on site now. Ms. Robie concurred with Mr. Granta nuisance to neighboring sites. Mr. Pompeo commented that realistically there is about 20,000 yards of fill material and 20,000 yards of rock and that a portable crusher could handle 1400 or 1500 yards a day. Mr. Grant commented that work on the site could result in a “mini quarry” operation, which he could not support. He also said that Mr. Pompeo might have problems accomplishing the required pre-blast survey. Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant said that he did not believe there was any objection to blasting being done on site and that the majority of adverse Board member comments had to do with crushing the material on site. Mr. Parker said part of his concern is that the applicant seemingly is not concerned about the growth taking place around the site, which was the reason for the two-year limitation, and that the applicant is not part way through and needs an extension to finish, and the applicant does
not seem to be any closer to starting that he was two years ago. Mr. Parker said the Board is looking for a concrete starting time. Mr. Pompeo replied that he has not started the job because he wants to start it and finish it all at once within the additional two-year extension and that he is waiting for the right project to come along. Mr. Grant polled the Board as to no crushing being allowed on site: Mr. Boyce, Ms. Robie, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Grant and Mr. Neily concurred that there should be no crushing allowed; Mr. Parker did not concur. Mr. Grant commented that it appeared that the applicant wanted to use the ledge material on the site, whereas someone else would want to use the site itself. There then followed a discussion among the Board and Mr. Pompeo about when the two-year period would begin to run, when work would begin within a new two-year window, should there be an open-ended time frame, could the applicant bring the Board a proposed
time schedule once he is ready to begin work at the site, how much time Mr. Pompeo would have to complete the work once it had begun, what would happen if he could not finish the work within the two year period, and what would occur should Mr. Pompeo not perform the work at all during the two year extension. Mr. Parker said he would want another opportunity to vote on another extension should nothing be done during the next two years; Ms. Robie commented that ordinance changes may occur in the next two years that could adversely impact another time extension. The Board discussed with the Planning Director what protection will be afforded to the Town through a performance guarantee prior to commencement of any earth moving on the site should the applicant fails to complete the project within a certain time frame. Ms. Fossum said that if an extension is not granted as of September, this projectagain with a new site plan application with its associated costs. The Town Attorney answered a question from Mr. Parker by saying that a site plan cannot be extended once it has lapsed, as at that point it has no further legal effect, so it either must be extended now or it lapses and the applicant returns with a new application. In response to a comment expressed by Mr. Boyce that the work on site be done in accordance with Code requirements, Ms. Fossum said that, other than Condition #11, all the plans approved in the past and the conditions that were placed on them will remain in effect.
Mr. Grant suggested a stretch break of ten minutes.
Stretch Break from 8:40 to 8:50 p.m.
Mr. Pompeo said he could not give a definite date of starting the work, but said that when he did start, the work would be done within 12 months. Ms. Robie asked if a condition could be included in a proposed motion that there would be no further extensions of this site plan if no work has occurred at the end of this two-year extension. The Town Attorney replied that the Board can add a condition setting a definite expiration date, although someone could come in at a later date and ask for an amendment to the site plan approval that removes that condition. Mr. Grant commented that the project cannot be viewed as a quarry or a mining operation inasmuch as it meets none of the Code requirements for such projects.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the applicant shall receive an amendment requiring that the project be started and completed within two years from todayDiscussion: Mr. Grant asked staff if the applicant would be required to bond the project at the pre-construction meeting; Ms. Fossum agreed. Mr. Grant commented that the bond would have to be substantial in order to reclaim the site.
Motion Carried, 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent). [9:01 p.m.]
6. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for approval for a subdivision amendment for lot line changes in the Thomas Dodge Subdivision. Zoned Rural; Map 37/Lots 13, 13,002 & 13.003.
The applicant, Stephen Adams, explained to the Board that the 25-acre lot which originally had inadequate frontage is being added to the lot on which he lives, Lot 2. He said that a right of way is being added to provide access off Adams Drive for the larger lot, and there is another right of way being added as well.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, giving a history of the application and confirming that in accordance with staff
In response to a question from Mr. Grant, the Town Attorney confirmed that the application is proper. She said that most of the conversations dealing with the matter involved the 25-acre parcel, which did not meet certain zoning requirements and could not be a free standing lot. Ms. Burns said that the submission received by the Board addresses that issue, so that the lot no longer appears to be free standing and cannot be separately sold without coming back to the Board. She commented that the other lots received frontage variances from the Board of Appeals, the variances did become final because they were not appealed within 45 days, and it would appear that staff
Mr. Boyce asked how many lots there now are and how are they numbered; Ms. Fossum replied that there are two lots, 1B and Lot 2. Ms. Burns commented that Lot 2 includes what was formerly the freestanding 25-acre parcel. Mr. Adams said that 1B is 7 and ¾ acres. Mr. Parker asked if either lot was subdividable because they are part of a subdivision;. Ms. Burns replied that if lots were to be split off, it would require an amendment to the prior subdivision approval and would also require that the new lots be in compliance with the current zoning requirements. Mr. Boyce asked how the variances granted by the Board of Appeals affect either of the two lots; Ms. Burns said she believed that these lots are the ones that got the frontage variances, so that 1B and Lot 2 do not have to meet the
existing zoning requirements, but the variances would not carry over if any additional lots were ever split off. Ms. Burns said anything split off would have to be a conforming lot, there would be no right to create a new lot that did not meet frontage requirements unless a new variance was received from the Board of Appeals. Ms. Burns confirmed to Mr. Boyce that any further subdivision of either of these lots would require a private way or some other frontage producing event to occur or a further variance. Mr. Boyce asked if either of these two lots is currently developed; Mr. Adams replied that 1B and Lot 2 are both developed, he lives in the only house on Lot 2, and 1B has two residences on it, for which two separate variances were provided.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Mark Mitchell, 8 Cider Mill Road, asked if it would be possible to look at the new plan submitted earlier in the day. Mr. Grant commented that it was unfortunate and unfair to the abutters to have a revised plan for such a complicated issue be presented so late in the process. Mr. Parker said if it is simply a correction of typos, he has no problem with the timing, but if it involves substantive changes that is a different matter. Ms. Fossum said that the new submission has a change to Plan Note 8 to indicate that Lot 2, not 1B, and the 25-acre parcel will be joined, and that arrows have been added to join the two parcels. Mr. Parker pointed out that the second Condition of Approval for this item is inappropriate and should be deleted. After review of the revised plan, Mr. Mitchell spoke of
the current legal problems involved with the ownership of Cider Mill Lane and expressed concern that access could potentially be given over Cider Mill Lane to the back land, further complicating those legal problems. Mr. Grant asked the Town Attorney if the issue raised by Mr. Mitchell was something the Board needed to consider now. Ms. Burns replied that it is a legitimate question as to whether someone could do it in the future, and it cannot be answered now with the information before us. She said that the answer that could be given is that no additional lots would be able to be created without additional Planning Board review, at which time the question of Cider Mill Lane would need to be answered, and if it were proposed as a means of access and/or the frontage for the lot, the person making that proposal would have to demonstrate sufficient right, title or interest to the Board. She said that simply showing it on the plan as a 50-foot wide reserved
easement would not be sufficient. Mr. Adams said that Cider Mill Lane is not part of what he is trying to do. Ms. Fossum pointed out the 50-foot right of way reserved across Lot 1B which could provide access in the future.
Darin McGovern, potential buyer of Mr. Adams
Don Barr, 16 Cider Mill Lane, suggested that the application is more than a lot line change and the Board should add a Condition of Approval prohibiting access through Cider Mill Lane.
Cathy Beety, 20 Cider Mill Lane, said that Cider Mill Lane is not up to Code and the property owners on Cider Mill want to protect themselves because there will be two separate owners of two separate lots who may wish to subdivide.
Laura Sosnowski, said she did not live on Cider Mill Lane, and asked if there were development on Lot 2, would the Board have to approve access. Ms. Fossum replied that it would have to come back as an application for whatever form of development was being proposed. Ms. Siznowski asked if Cider Mill Lane was under discussion now; Ms. Fossum replied that it was not. Mr. Grant commented that these issues are not for the Board to decide on tonight.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Ms. Robie asked about general note 2 on the plan. Ms. Fossum replied that it was an original plan note on the plan approved back in the 80s for the Land of Thomas Dodge, and in 1994 the Board amended the subdivision plan and allowed the separation of Lot 1A from Lot 1B. She said she has questioned the way in which the notes are presented, and has been told by the surveyor Matt Ek of Sebago Technics that based on surveying criteria and standards, this is the way the plan notes should be written. She said that initially Mr. Ek presented a plan that had no reference to the 1994 Board amendment but this plan now includes that information as historical background. Mr. Boyce asked the Town Attorney if she concurred with Mr. Ekthere should be some physical denotation of what lots will exist at the end of the process with a plan that represents the product of the Board29.27 acres. Mr. Grant said he did not want to deal with the application on a piecemeal basis and that he wants to see a corrected Mylar with all the applicable notes clarified. Mr. Boyce concurred, saying that the corrected Mylar should be available to the public and the notes should be clarified. Mr. Adams said he thought the Board was being unreasonable and that there is nothing wrong with the plan notes. Mr. Parker said he felt it would not be possible to achieve a smooth, understandable form. Mr. Grant said he would feel more comfortable if the Town Attorney expresses herself as satisfied and Ms. Fossum is also satisfied with the details of the plan notes and the corrections to the Mylar. Mark Mitchell asked if the two subdivisions have to be on the Mylar, and if they do, perhaps they could be identified more clearly. Ms. Burns replied that the two subdivisions have to be on the Mylar because of their relationship to each other.
Ms. Fossum suggested that a title attorney should look at the matter and that the application should be postponed until a consultation can occur.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to postpone the application until staff feels it is ready for the applicant to come back.
Discussion: Mr. Grant explained to the applicant that the Board is simply trying to do its job to the best extent possible.
Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 nay (Michael Parker), (Mr. Shiers absent). [10:00 p.m.]
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the Board observe its 10:00 oDiscussion: Ms. Fossum stated that a second meeting in August would be required even if the remaining items were discussed tonight, and there would be a full agenda for the second meeting.
Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent). [10:02 p.m.]
7. SUBDIVISON PLAN Request for final approval for a 5-lot residential subdivision with a 970-foot gravel private way “Country Field Way” on l2.44 acres Zoned Rural/Shoreland Zoning; Map 54/Lots 9.004 & 9.006.
NOT HEARD
8. SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for final approval for a 14-lot residential subdivision with 2 roads on 29.44 acres on the Robert Gordon property. Zoned R; Map 45/Lot 23; Map 47/Lot 39.
NOT HEARD
9. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Request for preliminary approval for a 12-lot residential subdivision with 1 road on 8.84 acres. Zoned UR-OR; Map 30/Lot 7.
NOT HEARD
10. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / PRIVATE WAY - “PAULIN DRIVE” Pre-application discussion for a proposed 600
NOT HEARD
11. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Shiers absent). [10:09 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
August 4, 2003
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBMN04FY\PBMN080403.doc
2. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
Approved Conditions of Approval
That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the 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 and Zoning may approve;
That all previous conditions of approval attached to Gorham Industrial Park Subdivision shall remain in effect;
That the applicant shall provide property line information in auto-cad format and return this to file to the Town Tax Assessor; and
That these conditions of approval and the Final Plan shall be recorded at the Cumberland Country 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 comply with the following requests made by the Portland Water District in the review memo dated 7/24/03 and signed by Jay Hewett:
a. the applicant shall provide Portland Water District with access to the pumping station for wastewater sampling purposes in accordance with the Gorham Sewer Ordinance and the design of the pumping station for wastewater sampling is such that sampling is possible without risk to personnel; and
b. that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Code Enforcement Officer shall be provided with evidence that the District has been provided with the final design plans for the proposed pumping equipment and wet well structure and that it has reviewed and approved those plans;
4. That the applicant shall satisfy the following requirements of the Fire Department as outlined in the Fire Chief1. That the building shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code 2000 edition;
2. That a complete set of building construction plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department at the time the building permit is received;
3. That if the building is sprinkled:
a. the sprinkler system shall meet all applicable sections of the Towns Sprinkler Ordinance;
b. the sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshalc. the building construction plans must be sent, reviewed and permitted by the State Fire Marshal; and
d. sprinkler test papers must be received and approved before the issuing of a certificate of occupancy;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. That the site improvements shall be completed as shown on the approved plans prior to the applicant
9. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board4. SITE PLAN - “MITCHELL CENTER”
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 Chiefs requirements as outlined in his letter dated July 31, 2003;
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 Tax Assessor prior to the start of construction;
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 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
5. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
Approved Conditions of Approval:
1. That this approval is limited to specific amendments proposed and is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicants and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Director of Planning may approve; and
2. All other applicable conditions of approval attached to the original site plan approval shall remain fully in effect; and
3. That these conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
