 |
Town of Gorham
September 8, 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
THOMAS HUGHES AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
MICHAEL PARKER BARBARA C. SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
Member Absent:
Douglas Boyce, Vice Chair.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that Douglas Boyce, Vice Chairman, was absent.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 18, 2003.
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of August 18, 2003, as written and distributed.
Discussion: Mr. Neily asked if anyone has tried to change the name of the development presently called “Irish Meadows” (Item 5 of the August 18, 2003 proceedings) in light of the Fire ChiefMotion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [7:08 p.m.].
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Request for amendment to the stormwater management plan for the approved 5-lot industrial subdivision off Laurence Drive. Zoned Industrial; Map 12/Lot 26.
David Cairns, a nearby property owner, requested the opportunity to speak about this Consent Agenda item..
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to take the item off the Consent Agenda for discussion. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 nay (Richard Shiers) and 1 absence (Mr. Boyce). [7:10 p.m.]
Owens McCullough of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained that the Board
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Neal Weinstein, Esquire, attorney for Portland Cover LLC, said he understood initially that the Board was going to recommend that part of Bartlett Road be closed, that the entire purpose of the new road through the subdivision was to provide new access through the Industrial Park to eliminate the traffic problems due to poor sight lines on Bartlett Road, and the rationale for the TIF was because the applicant would be doing a favor to the Town by improving sight lines and correcting the bad traffic situation on Bartlett Road by creating the new road. He said he now understands that the Board intends to make no recommendation about Bartlett Road, that the Board will just allow ingress from Route 25 into Bartlett without having egress out from Bartlett to Route 25, which
would help tremendously and would give legitimacy to the applicantapplicant indicated it would try to keep access internal to the subdivision, and quoted: “Ms. Fossum was directed to prepare a condition of approval to that effect.” He said that the condition mysteriously never got on the subdivision plan even though the Board directed it. He said that according to the preliminary application, the applicant said that the original rationale for building this new road through the subdivision and having the Town pay for it was to close the exit from Bartlett Road on to Route 25 because the sight view was so bad and the intersection was so hazardous. Mr. Grant said that there was never anything with the Town helping to build the new road because Bartlett Road was not adequate; the reason the Town has approved a TIF to reimburse the applicant to build the road is because it is an expensive project to put the road for the few lots involved at this time, but the road will also service existing lots. Mr. Shiers
said he wanted to direct the Chairman's attention to a point of order wherein the agenda for the eveningthat with respect to the plan note that staff was directed to prepare, it is in fact on the final plan as plan note #15, it refers to internal access for the lots within the subdivision that have frontage on 25 and has nothing to do with Bartlett Road. She said that with respect to the notice issue, Mr. Cairns is not a direct abutter so under the Code there is no requirement to notify him; however, he did ask that he be placed on the abutter mailing list, which was done, but in this one instance through oversight he was not notified of the June 2, 2003 meeting. Mr. Weinstein quoted from the minutes of the March 17, 2003, Planning Board meeting, which state: “Mr. McCullough pointed out on the concept plan a proposed road bisecting the site which is not needed to develop the parcel but which the Grondins would like to build in order to create a new intersection with better sight distance than that on Bartlett Road. If the new road is constructed, the Grondins
would expect some sort of payback…” which Mr. Weinstein stated was the rationale for building the subdivision cross cut road. Mr. Grant asked Ms. Burns if the Board needed to continue hearing from Mr. Weinstein since the topic of Bartlett Road was not on the eveningpotential new road but also utilized the Bartlett Road intersection.
David Cairns, Portland Cover, referred to his letter of September 5, 2003, (attached hereto and made a part hereof) to the Board, and said that it upsets him that when he was notified of the preliminary meeting, he did show up, when he was notified of tonightis very obvious. Mr. Grant said that there may be someone coming into the Park with a potentially large volume of traffic and traffic studies done in the future may justify doing additional work on 25, and the applicant should keep an eye on such developments in the future. Mr. Cairns said he thought that there was some discussion relative to trip settings and that a traffic evaluation would take place, but nothing was put into the conditions of approval to regulate that possibility, and he is before the Board now to try to understand why the Board did not make a recommendation on it. Mr. Grant said that the Board has no documentation on this at this time to discuss the matter any further.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shields said that he and Ms. Fossum spoke with Les Berry, the Town
2. That prior to the conveyance of any lot within the subdivision or construction of any improvements, the applicant shall submit the final revised grading details for the Gorham Industrial Park for review and approval by the Town
3. That the subdivision developer shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements associated with the approved stormwater plan for the subdivision, including the detention basins and structures on lots 2 and 3.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board grant approval of Grondin Properties, LLCDiscussion: Mr. Parker asked the applicant if he were comfortable with the additional Conditions of Approval. Mr. McCullough replied that they are fine.
Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [7:26 p.m.]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment to Chap. VII, Sec. III to establish a recreational facilities and open space impact fee in conjunction with proposed amendments to Chap. III, Sec. III, C., eliminating the requirement to set aside improved recreational land within new subdivisions.
Ms. Fossum explained that the proposed amendments would establish an impact fee for recreational facilities and open space for the development of necessary recreational facilities and an impact fee for the eventual purchase of selected open space. She said that if the amendments are adopted, the current requirement for developers of subdivisions to preserve land for active recreational purposes or pay a fee in lieu of reserving such land would be eliminated. She introduced Mark Eyerman of Planning Decisions, who conducted the research and analysis which support the proposed ordinance. She said that the Board is required to hold a public hearing on any proposed zoning amendments, if the Board is satisfied with the amendments, it would recommend adoption of them to the Council, and. the Council, after
holding a public hearing, would make the ultimate decision on whether or not to adopt the amendments.
Mark Eyerman, Planning Decisions, Inc., said that the State specifically authorizes municipalities to enact impact fees to offset the costs for providing newer, expanded capital facilities needed to meet new demands created by residential development. He said it is a one time charge that the developer or person creating the need for expanded or new capital facility pays to the town, and the money must go into a separate dedicated fund and be used only for that purpose. He said that State law requires that there be a ”sunset” provision” that if the town does not use the money for the specified purpose, it must give it back to the people who paid for it. Mr. Eyerman explained the proposed changes to the Chapter and the impact fee calculations, described the various fees, and said that the
fees which are proposed are essentially tied to maintaining the current per capita ratio of recreational facilities and open space as currently exists in the community as new development occurs. He discussed the four specific projects for which the impact fees will be used, and said that fees will also be used to acquire open space and to be used for the purchase of development rights from agricultural land. He said that the fees would apply to all new residential units, whether they are single family or part of a subdivision.
Concerning the possible revision to clarify the description of the improvements, Mr. Grant commented that it clarifies the description of improvements to allow the fees to be used for recreational and open space purposes, but it also allows the buying of development rights. Mr. Eyerman agreed. Mr. Grant said that it gives the Town Council more options, which is desirable; Ms. Robie and Mr. Neily concurred.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Parker suggested a change to the suggested last paragraph in the proposed Section III, A. Description of the Improvements, to add the word “land” and strike the parentheses in the second sentence and third sentence, so that the opening sentence would read: “The open space portion of the impact fee will be used to acquire land, conservation easements and/or development rights, …” Mr. Eyerman and the Board concurred with Mr. Parker
Mr. Shiers commented that while he applauds the objective of the ordinance as something the Town needs, he is troubled with the method chosen to get there. He said that when taking peoplefacilities. He also wondered when this impact fee would end. Mr. Neily commended Mr. Eyerman for his work on the proposed amendment, and commented that the income received from impact fees must go to a dedicated purpose for which the fees have been assigned, that he has been troubled over the disappearance over the years of major pieces of farmland to development, that any step that can be taken to keep some of the green space is a very wise one, the citizens of Gorham would probably heartily endorse any such step, and that this is an excellent way to proceed. Mr. Grant explained to the public that this amendment to the Land Use and Development Code was forwarded to the Planning Board by the Town Council for the Boardlogical way to proceed, the methodology will ultimately determine its fairness, and he endorses the proposed amendment. He said he believes that one of its main purposes is to level out the tax basis, and it is logical that new residents moving in should pay the impact fee for additional recreational and open space as they are the ones who have created the need. He commented, however, that had he and his wife moved this year into a new development at their current age of 65, paying a middle school impact fee would have been somewhat farfetched as they do not plan on any children in the near future. Mr. Parker said that one of the Planning Boardfavors it entirely and complimented Mr. Eyerman on his efforts. Mr. Parker responded to Mr. Shiersfacilities and open space to keep up with the population growth. He said that if the second option is taken, then the question becomes who pays, and there are two principal ways of paying: either everybody pays higher property taxes, or those people pay who are creating the need for the additional facilities. He said impact fees attempt to transfer the cost burden to the development activities that are creating the need for the additional facilities. Ms. Robie also thanked Mr. Eyerman for his work on the ordinance, and said she is glad to see the inclusion of development rights, which she feels is a tool that the Town could use to greater advantage to preserve open space and farmland. Ms. Fossum said the Town Attorney has suggested that everywhere the impact fee methodology is referenced in the ordinance, the words “impact fee methodology dated June 16, 2003,” be added, and that Section 3. Amend Chapter III, Section III.C.,
page 4 of 6 in the proposed amendment, should be amended by deleting the language relating to the recreational set-aside and changing the language under 4 stating “The requirements of this paragraph…” instead of “The requirements of this section.” Mr. Hughes said he believed that if a developer has to pay a recreational impact fee he would pass the cost on to the purchaser of the property, would it show at closing that the buyer is paying the money as an impact fee, or does that stay with the developer, is it deductible as a tax and if the fee is not used under the sunset provision, who get its back? Mr. Eyerman replied that it is a fee, not a tax, and not deductible as a tax payment; builders generally roll it into the overall cost; and he believed that the fee is returned to the record owner at the time it is returned. Mr. Grant said that this fee will apply to every building permit issued, whether
in a subdivision or not.
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter VII, Section III, to establish a recreational facilities and open space impact fee with the proposed revisions clarifying that the fees collected can also be used to acquire easements and purchase of development rights, as recommended by the Town Attorney in her review and discussed during the meeting, and in conjunction with the proposed amendments to Chapter III, Section III, C., eliminating the requirement to set aside improved recreational land within new subdivisions or pay a fee in lieu of setting aside recreational land within the subdivision. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 1 nay (Mr. Shiers) and 1 absence (Mr. Boyce). [8:01 p.m.]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment to Chapter II, inserting a new Sec. IX entitled The Provision of Public Water Supply, which identifies when public water must be used or extended to serve new development.
Ms. Fossum said the amendment would establish a mechanism for requiring the extension of public water to serve new development and was developed with the assistance of Mark Eyerman of Planning Decisions. Mr. Eyerman confirmed that the version to be considered is the one dated August 21, 2003.
Mark Eyerman spoke of the dilemma confronted by the Planning Board of when or if the public water supply should be extended to serve either residential or non residential development. He said the proposed amendment is an attempt to provide the Planning Board with a workable tool for determining when it reviews development proposals as to whether public water should or should not be provided to the project. He described the different
criteria proposed in the ordinance and methodology to determine if requiring the extension of public water is an unreasonable burden.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant commented that in the past when the Board considered a proposed development that had public water close by, there was no formula in place to determine when the developer had to tie into public water. He said this amendment would allow the Board to make decisions based on the numbers, to include fire protection as well. Ms. Robie said that the change in the ordinance gives the Board the opportunity to put on the table for consideration the issue of adjacent land and its future need for water. Mr. Parker said that during the workshop discussions on the ordinance, he was most troubled by the issue of upstream undeveloped adjoining land, across or past which a developer might have to run water lines at his expense, because if that undeveloped land is later developed as a subdivision, there is no
payback through the Portland Water District for the developer of the intermediate land to tap into the water main the way an individual household can tap in. Mr. Grant said that is the policy of the Portland Water District and the Board can
Susan Robie MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter II inserting a new Section IX entitled The Provision of Public Water Supply, which identifies when public water must be used or extended to serve new development, with the Planning BoardDiscussion: Mr. Grant asked staff if this is the correct motion; Ms. Fossum suggested adding the language “as presented in the August 21, 2003, draft.” Mr. Hughes agreed that Ms. Robie could amend her motion and add the suggested language. The motion thus is:
Susan Robie MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter II inserting a new Section IX entitled The Provision of Public Water Supply, which identifies when public water must be used or extended to serve new development, with the Planning Board____________________________________________________________________________________
5. AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chapter II, Sec. V., requiring the developer
Ms. Fossum explained that developers have always been responsible for seeing that their project are developed in accordance with the approved plans and in compliance with Town Codes. The Town in the past number of years has used review engineers to provide some inspection oversight but not to certify the actual improvements made. The proposed ordinance amendments will require that the developer for purposes of insurance liability, and this recommendation should be incorporated into any motion made. She said the change would apply to site plans, site plan improvements, road construction, and private way construction.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter II, Section V, Subsection E, 4); Subsection H, 6); and Subsection I, 4) of the Gorham Land Use and Development Code requiring the developer
Ms. Burns commented that the motion preceding this one for Item 4 referred to a proposed amendment to Chapter IX, and that there were two related amendments, one of which is an amendment to Chapter II, Section V, G, 9 and the other is an amendment to Chapter IV, Section IX, H. Ms. Burns recommended that the Board move to reconsider its prior vote to amend the motion to adopt all of the proposed amendments and not just the new language for Section IX. Mr. Grant suggested a break.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Stretch Break from 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Grant announced that the Board would entertain a motion to reconsider its Motion for Item 4.
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to reconsider the vote that was taken on Item 4 to allow further amendments that are being offered. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent) [8:41 p.m.]
Ms. Fossum explained that there are two other recommendations involving two other sections of the ordinance that are basically housekeeping changes, and the motion previously made did not reference those two specific sections. The Town Attorney said that the revised motion will incorporate the original motion on which the Board voted with some additional language and would be as follows: “Move to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter II, inserting a new Section IX, entitled The Provision of Public Water Supply, which identifies when public water must be used or extended to serve new development, together with related amendments to Chapter II, Section V.G.9 and Chapter IV, Section 9.H, all as set forth in the 8/21/03 draft with the Planning Boardchanges.”
Michael Parker MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter II, inserting a new Section IX, entitled The Provision of Public Water Supply, which identifies when public water must be used or extended to serve new development, together with related amendments to Chapter II, Section V.G.9 and Chapter IV, Section 9.H, all as set forth in the 8/21/03 draft with the Planning Board_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE - DEFINITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chapter I, Sec. V, adding definitions for Country Club and Golf Course.
Ms. Fossum explained that the Code allows the development of country clubs and golf courses in the Rural District; however, the ordinances do not actually define “country club” and “golf course.” The Council has asked staff to prepare definitions which if accepted will be added to Chapter I, Section V, of the Code.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter I, Section V, of the Gorham Land Use and Development Code to add the definitions for Country Club and Golf Course. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [8:46 p.m.]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
Request for site plan amendment for parking expansion at 10 Wentworth Drive. Zoned Contract Zone III
Nancy St. Clair of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Mike Yandell of Gorham Savings Bank. She described the proposed site plan amendment for parking expansion to provide an additional 29 spaces, or a total of 78, creating an additional 11,030 square feet of paved area to avoid spillover parking onto Wentworth Drive during peak parking times when the conference rooms in the building are used for meetings or training sessions. No changes are proposed to the use of the building and the hours of operation will remain unchanged.
Aaron Shields presented the staff comments and spoke about the temporary public parking and turnaround easements at the end of Wentworth Drive granted to the Town to access the 100 Acre Town parcel, which are due to expire in March of 2004. He said that the Board may want to consider renewal of the easements as a condition of approval. He also discussed the fact that the reviewer thinks that the underground utilities which exist in the vicinity of the project should be shown on the plans. He said that the engineers are satisfied with the stormwater analysis. Ms. St. Clair spoke about the two temporary easements, one of which allows snowplows and public works vehicles to use a portion of the driveway on the site as a turnaround at the end of Wentworth Drive, and the second easement is for temporary
parking at off peak hours for the public who wish to use the 100 Acre open space. She said there are specific provisions in those agreements, with the understanding that the Town would develop a plan to provide parking associated with that property somewhere off of Wentworth Drive itself at some other location. She said the Bank would be willing to negotiate with the Town in good faith and to get a better understanding of what the TownOperations Center. She said it is anticipated that the same construction contractor who administered the original site construction will also be handling the expansion of the parking spaces.
Mr. Parker asked who the applicant believed is responsible for getting the discussion started so that the need for the easement no longer exists. Ms. St. Clair said it was her understanding that the easements were granted to benefit the Town so that the Town would have the opportunity to develop their own plan for providing parking for the gift parcel. Mr. Yandell said he was present when the original easements were granted, and it was done to accommodate the Town and the intent was to allow the Town to provide parking for the 100 Acre parcel. He said as far as the temporary turnaround is concerned, they have no problem cooperating with the Town, and eventually they will develop Lot 2, which will impinge somewhat on the turnaround. Mr. Grant confirmed that Wentworth Road is a Town road, and driving
off the end of Wentworth would be entering the Town-owned 100 Acre parcel. Mr. Grant said that the Bank gave the Town 100 acres of land, free, and granted a temporary easement for public parking, and the Town has had 6 years to make their own parking facilities but have done nothing to do so, and he sees no interest in forcing the applicant to continue providing the easement. Mr. Yandell said that the Bank might not be opposed to providing that temporary turnaround easement or the temporary parking on an on-going basis. Mr. Yandell said it would be satisfactory to the Bank to talk to anyone in the Town designated by the Town Manager to work this matter out. Mr. Shiers asked if the applicant were proposing any lighting; Ms. St. Clair replied that there is one existing pole-mounted fixture which would need to be relocated approximately 30 feet to accommodate the new layout. Ms. Fossum replied that the response on the underground utilities satisfied
staff
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion granting Gorham Savings Bank_____________________________________________________________________________________
8. SITE PLAN / SPECIAL EXCEPTION PUBLIC HEARING
Request for site plan and special exception approval for a 14,300 sq. ft. worship facility on 11.91 acres at the corner of Cressey Road and Ossipee Trail; Zoned Urban Residential; Map 41/Lot 10.
Steve Doe, landscape architect with Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Reverend Linwood Arnold, and Messrs. Morton and Barr of the Building Committee. Mr. Doe discussed the history of the application, dating back to 2001, and said that the remaining issue of the MDOT traffic permit has now been secured. He discussed the proposed worship facility on the site, said that the facility will be served by a septic system which will be pumped to a location in the upper portion of the site, the building will be sprinkled and the water main will be extended to the entrance of their site from Flaggy Meadow Road, there will be a stormwater pond with an outlet traveling under the road to a 30-inch culvert underneath the road.
Mr. Shields made the staff comments, saying that the applicant is showing a parking area of 107 spaces, planning ahead as they have indicated a future expansion area they could go into, but they have the parking facilities that would cover that. He said that the review engineer has requested an additional condition of approval that the applicant submit a revised stormwater management plan reflecting the new storm drain layout and to documents the post development peak runoff rates. Mr. Shields said that the new condition of approval would read: “That the applicant shall submit a revised stormwater management plan reflecting the new storm drain layout and documenting that the post-development peak runoff rates will not exceed the pre-development rates and that the proposed project will not6 have
an adverse impact upon the 30” culvert to which the enclosed drainage system is now routed.” Mr. Shields also drew the Board
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant read the Special Exceptions 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. The Board concurred unanimously, 6 Ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).
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. The Board concurred unanimously, 6 Ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).
Finding 3. The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants. The Board concurred unanimously, 6 Ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).
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. The Board concurred unanimously, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).
Finding 5. The proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid wastes generated by the use. The Board concurred unanimously, 6 Ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).
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. The Board concurred unanimously, 6 Ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant approval of School Street Methodist Church
Mr. Shields read the following proposed new Condition of Approval #8, which was acceptable to the applicant: “That the applicant shall submit a revised stormwater management plan reflecting the new storm drain layout and documenting that the post-development peak runoff rates will not exceed the pre-development rates and that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact upon the 30” culvert to which the enclosed drainage system is now routed.”
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant the request of the School Street Methodist Church for approval of their site plan to construct a new 14, 300 SF worship facility and 107-car parking lot at the corner of Cressey Road and Route 25, zoned Urban Residential, with the revised conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed in the meeting with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [9:15 p.m.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9. GRAVEL PIT / SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - MOUNTAIN DIVISION TRAIL PUBLIC HEARING
Request for an amendment to the H-Pit to show the location of the proposed Mountain Division Connector Trail. Zoned Rural/Shoreland Zoning; Map 72/Lot 20.
Danny Shaw, the applicant, explained that Peggy Duval of DOT was unable to attend. He explained that they would like to move the proposed portion of the Mountain Division Trail away from the river and in the pit. He said that SAPPI owns a 25 or 30 square foot piece of land at the end of Gambo Road which they would like to maintain in order to work on the dam, so Shaw Brothers had a deal with SAPPI where they could keep access to that land through Shawit will look like at the end of the pit life. He pointed out the current approved position of the trail in the 75 foot buffer to the river, and then showed how it would look when the pit is complete, showing how drainage will be internal to the pit, and the proposed 3 to 1 slope. Then he demonstrated how it will look next year before the material is out. (Ms. Robie said that she was a retiree of SAPPIrequired. He referred the Board to the 50-foot cross section diagrams provided and said that in all cases it is moved from the river 75 feet plus. He said that there will be no safety issues and the only disturbance to the area will be within the pit. He said that they still propose to follow the DOTMs. Fossum made the staff comments, saying that she and the Review Engineer walked the site and could see where the 75 foot buffer was because it was flagged, and could judge the approximate location of the trail. She said that currently the gravel pit is operating and a large amount of material is being removed, so the active gravel pit operation is very close to the proposed trail route in some area. She said that proximity concerned her and the review engineer, and there is difficulty in seeing how users of the Trail would be protected from the gravel pit activities. She said the plans are not clear as to how the Trail intersects or meshes with the edge of the pit, how long the pit will be active and affecting the Trail. Mr. Shaw said the reason the pit is active in this area is
because the Trail is being built and in some places 60 feet of material has to be removed to put the Trail into the pit. Ms. Fossum said the site plan needs to be amended because the Trail is shown in another location. Mr. Shaw said that the Trail will be built permanently but the back slope will change as the material is removed.
A discussion ensued with the Board members, Ms. Fossum and Mr. Shaw concerning possible Trail drop offs, such as twenty feet or more, which Mr. Shaw said could be as much as 60 feet but in a 3 to 1 slope; safety for potential Trail users; erosion controls and drainage; how the excavation of the pit and building of the pit will coincide; ownership of the Trail, perhaps with Shaw Bros. owning it and the Town having an easement for the maintenance of the Trail. Ms. Fossum said that the plans do not show the Trail relative to the grading plan for the reclamation plan of the H-Pit, which is the plan that the review engineer is looking for. She also said she would be looking for information from the State on their permitting requirements, erosion control specifications they use, details about the
width of the easement to be offered to the Town and when that would be shown on the plan. Mr. Shaw said they will build the Trail whether the State has funding to contribute or not and they would prefer to build it in the new location. In response to Mr. GrantPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Mary Lee Dodge, Kemp Road, read two letters into the record as attached and incorporated herein: one letter dated September 5, 2003, from Robert Alan Wake, President, Gorham-Sebago Lake Regional Land Trust, and one letter dated September 5, 2003, from Earle G. Shuttleworth, Jr., Maine Historic Preservation Commission. She expressed her pleasure that the Trail has been moved back, but encouraged the Board to do everything possible to protect the Presumpscot River to keep it healthy and do everything according to the best standards and the most complete review, said there should be a separate DEP approval process to put the Trail in the pit, and said she shared the concerns expressed about the safety of users of the Trail. She also requested
that all concerned parties, such as the Cumberland and Oxford Canal Association, Presumpscot River Watch, and Trout Unlimited, be kept up to date, so that they may comment should they wish to. Mr. Shaw said that the State is working with DEP to get a permit, and read a paragraph from an April 7, 2003, letter as follows: “Because the proposed trail is located within the excavated area of the pit, it is not located within 75 feet of the River. A permit to construct the trail is not required from the Department. Any associated stream crossings for the trail outside the proposed limit of the excavation can be licensed under the DepartmentPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Ms. Fossum suggested if the Board wished to approve the request, it should be dependent upon the same conditions of approval that were originally imposed; Mr. Shaw said that would be satisfactory. She reiterated her concern that there is no plan showing where the intersection of Trail occurs with the operating gravel pit, that it would be beneficial to have such a plan and a time frame showing where the operation of the pit and the Trail occur concurrently. Mr. Grant said he could not support the amendment without the approval of the reviewing engineer. Mr. Neily said he would like to see it approved conditionally pending review by the reviewing engineer. Mr. Parker said he believed that the proposed location was better than the previous Trail location had been approved and did not see why the
Board was now requiring so much more detail that it didnRichard Shiers MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant approval of Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc.Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to waive the 10:00 o_____________________________________________________________________________
10. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN / PRIVATE WAY Request for preliminary approval for a 12-lot residential subdivision on 24.07 acres off 59 Wood Road on land of Gavett with a 1,500
James Seymour, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Mr. Ralph Vance. Mr. Seymour described the project as a 12-lot residential subdivision, with a 1500 foot proposed public way cul-de-sac with a 180 foot private way extension to access the back two lots. He said that a dry detention pond would be located in the center of the cul-de-sac, with the outlet control being two twin 18-inch culverts. He said that Net Residential calculations resulted in 16.5 acres, with 12 allowable lots. He said there is approximately 8400 square feet of wetlands that will be impacted, they have applied for a Tier 1 Wetlands Alteration Permit and have also applied for a stormwater permit, both of which are still pending. He said the subdivision will be served by individual wells,
subsurface septic systems, and sprinkler systems will be installed in all of the homes. He said that the site distance from the entrance is 540 feet east and 800 feet west, which is ample under DOT
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the applicant has provided a rear protective buffer, there are some notes on the plan regarding no clearing in the buffer areas, a future right of way off the end of the private way has been provided for access to adjoining land, the trees to the right will be protected by limiting the building envelope on lot #1, and only some small plan and modifications will be needed before the applicant returns for final approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary approval of Ralph Vance Land Development__________________________________________________________________________________
11. ADJOURNMENT
Richard Shiers MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 Ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [10:22 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
__________________, 2003
CONSENT AGENDA
A. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
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;
2. That prior to the conveyance of any lot within the subdivision or construction of any improvements, the applicant shall submit the final revised grading details for the Gorham Industrial Park for review and approval by the Town
3. That the subdivision developer shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements associated with the approved stormwater plan for the subdivision, including the detention basins and structures on lots 2 and 3.
4. All other applicable conditions of approval attached to the original subdivision plan approval shall remain fully in effect; and
5. That these conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
7. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
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 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;
4. 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 Planning Director and Inspecting Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief and Code Enforcement Officer to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
5. That the site improvements shall be completed as shown on the approved plans and if not completed before November 1, 2003 a performance guarantee, covering the remaining site improvements shall be established through the Planning Department; and
6. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board8. SITE PLAN / SPECIAL EXCEPTION
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 April 11, 2000 and attached as Attachment A;
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 applicant shall submit a revised stormwater management plan reflecting the new storm drain layout and documenting that the post-development peak runoff rates will not exceed the pre-development rates and that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact upon the 30” culvert to which the enclosed drainage system is now routed; and
9. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
