 |
Town of Gorham
October 6, 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, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
THOMAS HUGHES BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
RICHARD SHIERS
Members Absent:
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that Susan Robie and Michael Parker were absent.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 22, 2003.
Ms. Fossum reported that the minutes had been inadvertently omitted from the Planning Board members
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to table consideration of the September 22, 2003 minutes until the next Board meeting on October 20, 2003. Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent, Mr. Boyce abstaining as not having been present at the September 22, 2003 meeting). [7:02]
2. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment for a zoning map change for 674 Main Street/Route 25 to Roadside
Commercial to allow for business and light industrial uses on the property. Zoned Rural; M13/L4.
John Geary appeared on behalf of the applicant Erik Richardson and explained that Mr. Richardson is operating a stone cutting operation on the Main Street property and also has a showroom on Stroudwater Street in Westbrook. The applicant is hoping that with the zoning change he can consolidate his business on the Gorham site, to do an interior remodeling in the current residence to incorporate both a showroom and an office, and to enlarge the footprint of the garage where his stone saw is located. He also hopes to obtain permission to increase the number of his employees from 3 to 6.
Ms. Fossum explained that this request was first considered by the Town Council on August 5, 2003, heard by the Ordinance Committee on August 27, and referred to the Planning Board by the Council on September 2, 2003. She said that the Roadside Commercial District permits a wide range of retail commercial uses, in addition to light industrial uses under certain restrictions. She said that she had spoken to the Code Enforcement Officer whose opinion is that the stone cutting operation as described to him would qualify as a “light industrial use.” She said she had reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the recommendations within the Plan subject to its “gateway” aspects as discussed on Page III-6.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Joseph Guimond, 680 Main Street, an abutter to the property, said that if the zone change is permitted, his property will become worthless as a one family home. He said he does not believe the operation is a legal one and does not meet the requirements outlined as a home business.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce asked if there had been a site walk for this application. Ms. Fossum replied that there had not been one; Mr. Boyce suggested that one could be useful. Ms. Fossum confirmed to Mr. Boyce that if this property is rezoned, there is nothing to preclude any conforming use in that zone from being brought forward to the Board. Ms. Fossum answered Mr. Boyceadequate parking for an increase in the number of his employees; Mr. Richardson replied that there would be. Mr. Hughes asked how screening would be accomplished to protect the abutter; Mr. Richardson replied that he would do anything he needed to do as required by the Board. Mr. Richardson said that the business started about 3 years ago under his father
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to find the proposed rezoning consistent with the Town
3. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE - EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chapter I, Section II, 4) regulating the enlargement or physical replacement of non-conforming single-family structures.
Ms. Fossum explained that the proposed amendment is designed to permit the Code Enforcement Officer, instead of the Board of Appeals, to issue a building permit for the enlargement, physical replacement or expansion of a non-conforming single family structure or residential accessory structure, provided that the enlargement does not make the structure more non-conforming. She said that the Town Attorney has recommended several changes, such as establishing certain guarantees for abutters, which are contained in Proposal B. Proposal A contains the language referred by the Council. She would suggest that the Board recommend Proposal B to the Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily commended the proposed amendment as streamlining the process.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter I, Section II, 4), regulating the enlargement or physical replacement of non-conforming single family structures, as revised and presented in Proposal B. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent). [7:29 p.m.]
4. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval to remove the existing drive-through and install a diesel fuel island. Zoned RC; M32/L14.
Todd Flannery and Jeff Eaton of Guerin Associates explained to the Board that the request is designed to minimize the impact of installation of the diesel fuel island by reconfiguring the turning radii around the sides of the building and using the existing pavement for the drive lane.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments and discussed the modification to the proposal eliminating the extra lane. He said that the proposal has received favorable comment from the Town
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce discussed with the applicant and Mr. Eaton the Illuminating Engineering Society of North Americaone, but felt that the applicant was pushing the limit on the allowed signage.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant TNT Quickstop LLCDiscussion: Mr. Boyce proposed an amendment to the main motion that there be a condition of approval that the applicant shall revise the lighting plan to allow for an average illumination level of the diesel island canopy not to exceed 20 foot candles. Mr. Neily seconded and accepted the amendment, saying that he respects Mr. Boyce's experience and background in the matter. Ms. Fossum concurred that the appropriate method would be to add it as a condition of approval. The applicant concurred. Mr. Hughes asked if scaling back the illumination would sacrifice any safety, and said he was not comfortable with the Planning Board dictating what the lighting should be. Ms. Fossum suggested the addition of the words “provided that the
review engineer concurs;” Mr. Boyce agreed to the wording. Amendment CARRIED, 3 ayes and 2 nays (Mr. Hughes and Mr. Shiers) (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent). [7:44]
Main motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent). [7:45 p.m.]
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN / SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for preliminary subdivision approval for a 24-unit condominium project. Zoned UR; M25/L6 & M106/L19.
Jeff Perry, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants and explained that as a result of a sitewalk in the spring, the applicants had investigated the feasibility of pedestrian access using the private right of way leading from the east end of the project to South Street and the possibility of sidewalks on Morrill Avenue. He said that the consensus was that the 12 foot right of way seemed inappropriate in that it leads through peoplea cross walk to the high school. Saying that they had attempted to reinforce the buffering around the perimeter of the site, particularly near the closest abutters off Sunrise Lane, Mr. Perry displayed an additional graphic, showing the location of a detention pond, 5 to 6 foot evergreen vegetation, and a solid wood fence. Mr. Perry said that the application will be sent to the DEP for stormwater permitting and that they had designed the ponds on site not only to meet DEP standards for a 25-year storm but also in a 100-year storm as well. He said that the calculations and analysis support the capacity of the ponds for those types of storm events. Mr. Perry said that Peter Hedrich was present should there be any questions about traffic.
The Board agreed that Mr. Shields should address each issue one by one before public hearing. Mr. Shields said that one of the major changes in the plan is that it is no longer a proposed public road, it is now a private access drive, designed to be a 24-foot paved road with a sidewalk and a green space between it and the roadway. He said it is proposed to be built as an Urban Access Roadway, which fits not only the quantity of units but the character of the neighborhood as well.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Access to the Site: Mr. Shields referred to the information received from Peter Hedrich and responsive information from Diane Morabito, the Townto accommodate any additional traffic. None of the Board members offered comments on this item.
Pedestrian Circulation: Mr. Shields agreed with the applicantssidewalk were installed, it would have to be in the road and would narrow Morrill Avenue to 24 feet. Mr. Shields said that after the site walk it was staffunder those circumstances. Mr. Grant confirmed with Mr. Perry that the applicants
Mr. Shields pointed out that the right of way that had been shown on the plans to the Hale parcel on the southerly side of the project is gone, and since the area is used for cross-town pedestrian movement from the abutting neighborhoods, there is no accommodation now on the plans to take care of that. Mr. Shields also said that in view of the anticipated occupants of the project, empty nesters and retirees, he could not see the point of connecting the sidewalk to the high school. He asked if the Board wanted the applicants to make any connection to the existing path. Mr. Grant commented that initially there was a future extension going to the parcel to the south, but now that has been blocked off and the road is proposed to be private, but there is no guarantee that the road will remain private
should the residents petition the Council in the future for the road to become a public road, and at that point it would have no future extension right of way. Mr. Grant said that he believed the Board should ask for the future right of way; Mr. Neily agreed. Mr. Boyce said he concurred as well, that while he thinks this can be a nicely designed and well built project and an asset to the community, one of the most significant issues he has with the project meeting the performance standards is that it would be a fairly dense private development with a lack of interconnection with the fabric of the community, alienating the abutters. Mr. Grant asked if the Board agreed that the most logical site for the future extension would be straight from their entrance road to the south of the project, where it had originally been shown; the Board concurred. Mr. Shields asked if the Board if it also wants to make sure that pedestrian access or easement is maintained over
that, even though this is a private development. Mr. Grant asked the Board members if they concurred. Mr. Shiers commented that if there were a pedestrian easement, it could mean that people would traverse over other private properties and that the owners of the undeveloped property to the south might not want people crossing their land. Mr. Boyce said he would be supportive of a pedestrian easement and have it restricted to non-motorized vehicles for the near term. Mr. Perry asked if the Board were looking for a full 50-foot right of way connecting to the southerly parcel, or a pedestrian way which would be far less than 50 feet. Mr. Grant said that the 50 foot requirement is in the Code for a future extension to abutting properties. Mr. Perry said they are proposing to connect the right of way to the easterly adjacent parcel and realign the road if there is an opportunity to connect to an adjacent parcel, and extending the 50 foot right of way
directly south would have a severe impact on the layout of the project. He asked if the connection southward could be pedestrian and if the Board could recognize that there is an opportunity for future road connectivity at a different exit point from the parcel. Mr. Neily said that he believed that there will be a demand for the shortest way to get from the residential area to the school and a fence will not deter that traffic. Mr. Perry said he recognized that a pedestrian connection is probably the most logical or strongest cross traffic on the parcel, which they could accommodate more easily than a full 50-foot right of way.
Mr. Grant commented that the applicants seem to be concerned about losing a unit on the project and that he felt that there were too many buildings proposed for the small area. He said that in order for the Board to process the applications received, they must be complete and ready to go, that for the Board to have to resolve these issues is very time consuming and impractical, and that an applicant needs to work with staff to resolve the issues beforehand so that the Board can process an application quickly and effectively. Mr. Shields replied to a query from Mr. Boyce that the applicantsmeets the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Grant asked if the Board wanted to resolve this issue or let staff work it out with the applicants. Mr. Boyce replied that he did not believe the Board should reach definitive decision points on these items without first soliciting public comments, that there are a number of performance standards and ordinance requirements where this project pushes the envelope, and that it is useful to talk these items through. It was agreed that Mr. Shields would continue summarizing the items for discussion.
Stormwater Management: Mr. Shields said that the stormwater management areas, on the far west of the site, are in the area of the buffer, requiring the removal of all vegetation along the southeast property line, and that staff has recommended other options, such as a closed stormwater drainage system and putting stormwater detention underground, that may be available. He said that the applicants
Natural Features: Mr. Shields said that 90% of the natural features of the site would be removed in order to construct the development and that to engineer it properly, extensive grading and filling would be necessary.
Landscaping: Mr. Shields said that staff suggests a Performance Guarantee to cover the cost of replacing any of the extensive landscaping that may be lost after installation, and that maintenance and improvements should also be required as part of the homeowners
Buffering: Mr. Shields said that the applicants have been asked to provide accurate, to-scale landscape drawings depicting what the landscaping really will look like, specifically around the pond area looking from Sunrise Lane over the detention areas toward the buildings inside the development. He said that staff would suggest a Performance Guarantee for a period of two years to cover any landscaping that may be lost after planting.
Multi-family Performance Standards: Mr. Shields referred the Board#11, where the applicants
Mr. Shields concluded his remarks by saying that the staff recommends preliminary approval if the Board feels comfortable with the applicants
Stretch Break from 8:30 p.m. to 8
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Board observe the ten o
The Chairman explained that because the Board had voted to observe its ten o
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN/SITE PLAN CONTINUED
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Melanie Rubins, 14 Sunrise Lane, spoke about the two storm drains and drainage problems on her property; to say that “when” the project is approved is not fair, that it should be “if” the project is approved; that the project is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood, citing the different proposed lighting in the project; what will happen to the abutters
Susan Duchaine, Gorham resident, commended anyone who wants to put this much investment into Gorham and said the development should be encouraged; that the Town
Elaine Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane, said that the applicants may not use abutters
Al Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane, said that the 12-foot right of way which runs through his land and that of the Pinkhams was created to provide an easement for a driveway to a landlocked parcel, it is probably no longer valid, and he and the Pinkhams pay taxes on that land. He also said he has spoken with David Rourke, State of Maine soils scientist for the Department of Agriculture, about the possibility of Mr. Rourke taking the high intensity soil drainage test, which Mr. Liberio believes to be inadequate. Mr. Rourke said he would be more than willing to perform the testing, but he must be asked to do so by the Town. Mr. Liberio said he feels that the Board has not addressed any of the issues about which the abutters have expressed concern. Mr. Liberio also disapproves of a road leading straight
into the high school.
David Ernest, 107 South Street, said that the development will not be consistent with the neighborhood; does not represent prudent planning because it will not maintain the character of the neighborhood; that he believes the typical retirement home is a single floor, two bedroom home, not the condos as represented in the applicants
Margaret Clements, 10 Morrill Avenue, asked the Board for some reassurance that if this project goes forward there will be guidelines to protect the neighbors; and asked that the Board not grant the applicants
Mike Chabot, 17 Morrill Avenue, commented that his major concern is the safety issue on Morrill Avenue and that the proposed sidewalk is not a good representation of what the Ordinance requires.
Mary Ellen Valentine, 19 Morrill Avenue, spoke about the traffic and drainage problems, saying that a high water table already exists in the neighborhood. She commented about the poor air quality created by the traffic. She queried whether emergency vehicles could safely turn around in the proposed development.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant said that if Board members have any issues requiring more information or have something they want to see implemented, they should give guidance to the applicantsfrom, and how effective will it be. Mr. Hughes said that he believed there was always proposed to be some sort of right of way on the south side of the property, that he is disappointed that it does not exist on the plan now, and that some retirees do like two story houses. Mr. Grant quoted from the agenda memo: “Staff has asked the applicant to provide an accurate, to-scale landscape drawing of what the landscaped buffers will look like, specifically around the pond area looking from the end of Sunrise Lane over the detention areas toward the buildings inside the development.” Mr. Grant said that he liked the proposed recreation area near South Street, but his concern about the detention pond area is the removal of all the vegetation that could act as a natural buffer and asked if underground storage would also entail the removal of vegetation. Mr. Perry replied that with underground storage, plants with a lot of roots have to be avoided,
so basically it would be lawn. Mr. Grant stated that he would like to see an itemized breakdown of the underground storage cost of $200,000 figure given by the applicant. Mr. Grant said he wants the original future extension to the south of the parcel restored, with a pedestrian right of way. Mr. Boyce said that he did not have a strong comfort level that this project will be able to get over the threshold of Performance Standard #1, retaining and respecting the existing streetscape and character of the neighborhood. He said that this project is not part of the fabric of the neighborhood of single family homes, due to its private designation and the lack of interconnection isolating the project.
Mr. Shields asked the Board what its views were about the density of the project. Mr. Grant replied that he believed that although the density of 24 units is 3 less than the maximum allowed, if some of the units have to be eliminated in order to resolve other issues, such as joining some units to re-instate the southern right of way, then so be it. But Mr. Grant said he did not favor eliminating units without reason. Mr. Hughes concurred, saying that the fact of 24 units has no bearing except to resolve some issues, such as restoring the right of way by dropping a couple of units, but the number of 24 itself falls well within the Ordinance and within the density calculations, and the project canconsidered single family homes, with both Mr. Shields and Mr. Perry discussing the fact that single family homes are not the best use of the site.
Mr. Perry said they would try to address the issues heard this evening. Mr. Grant suggested that the key to most of these applications is to work with staff to resolve the issues so that staff can give the Board a recommendation for approval, instead of taking the Board
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to postpone this item until the applicant is ready to return before the Board. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent). [9:40 p.m.]
6. PRELIMINARY SUBDVISION / SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for preliminary approval of a revised subdivision plan from 62 to 88 condominium units on a 78-acre site on land of Ramsay. Zoned UR/SR; M46/L11.001.
Mr. Grant asked if Kasprzak
7. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT - “HEARTWOOD SUBDIVISION” Request for approval of a subdivision amendment for a lot-line change between Lots 2 and 3. Zoned SR; M117/L2&3.
Susan Duchaine, SoLD, Inc., explained to the Board that a setback encroachment occurred when surveyor pins were inadvertently moved and the house on Lot 3 was built outside the building envelope. She said that inasmuch as she still owns Lot 2, she is asking the Board to approve a subdivision amendment to change the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 as the simplest and least complicated way to resolve the problem.
Ms. Fossum gave the staff comments, saying it made sense to amend the subdivision plan rather than to go to the Board of Appeals, given the fact that the applicant still owns the adjacent, undeveloped lot, and the next house to be built can be made to fit within the building envelope. In response to a query from the Town Attorney, Ms. Duchaine confirmed that Design Dwellings is the owner of the lot and she will do corrective deeds for both lots.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant approval of SoLD, Inc.
The Board then returned to the original order of the memo items and took up Item 6 on its agenda.
6. PRELIMINARY SUBDVISION / SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for preliminary approval of a revised subdivision plan from 62 to 88 condominium units on a 78-acre site on land of Ramsay. Zoned UR/SR; M46/L11.001.
Robert Georgitis, project manager for Kasprzak Condominiums, Inc., explained that they have returned to their original sketch plan of 4-plex units because the cost of sprinkling the buildings is much lower than they had initially thought. He said they are maintaining the same street layout and drainage and they have received their DEP site location permit for the project. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Georgitis about the status of the two roads entering the project, whether they are to be private or public. Mr. Georgitis replied that the roads will be built to public standards but will be private unless and until the homeowners
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that the applicant is now proposing 22 4-plex units for a total of 88 units constructed in three sub-phases, there are some minor grading questions that the review engineer has asked, and there is still a question about the scaled-back landscaping being sufficient to comply with the requirement to develop the outdoor common area. Mr. Georgitis said that after investigation the original trail system they had proposed turned out to be too expensive, and they felt they would be better off taking the money and working toward a plan to develop the Townthe original proposal, but which they hope they can enhance in subsequent phases. He said that with a potential density of over 200 units, the “fee in lieu of” they would be paying to the Town would be over $100,000, which they believe would be of more benefit to the Town than constructing recreational facilities that the targeted market age group of retirees and empty nesters probably would not use. Mr. Grant said that he believed the Town Council should dictate where the $500 “fee in lieu of” should be spent, not the Planning Board, and that the Council will be considering new recreational fees at its October 7, 2003 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Diane Kimball Dresser appeared on behalf of the Kimball family, and asked why the number of units had gone from 62 to 88. Mr. Shields explained that the 62 units did not utilize the full density of Phase 1 based on their original proposal of 2-plex or 3-plex units; however, 89 units represent the full density, so with 4-plex units they can achieve a total of 88 units in 22 buildings. Ms. Dresser commented that apparently the Town feels that the proposed project does not represent a future impact on Town services such as the schools, the police department, and road congestion. She presented the Board with a handout outlining a formula used by her husband, a real estate broker, to determine land value, which she believes would have valued her familyat about $3 million more than it was. She said that the cost of the impact of the completed development would have to be borne by the Town.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the request by Kasprzak Condominiums, Inc., for an amended preliminary subdivision plan to increase the number of units in Phase I of the proposed Pheasant Knoll Condominium development from 62 units to 88 units, on 78 acres off Fort Hill Road. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent). [9:59 p.m.]
8. APPLICATION CONFERENCE / CONTRACT ZONING AGREEMENT Discussion of a proposal for a contract zoning agreement between the Town of Gorham and Kasprzak Land Holdings, Inc. on 78-/+ acre site off Fort Hill Road on land of Ramsay. Zoned UR/SR; M46/L11.001
Robert Georgitis, project manager for Kasprzak Condominiums, LLC, explained that the applicant has agreed to pay for the new pump station which will serve their development, USM and future growth, their contribution being about 10% of the flow into the station, and there are other outside improvements as well, so their concern is that they need to be able to build their units and sell them to be able to pay for these upfront costs. He said that the only way to do that is to obtain a contract zone agreement with the Town so that they are protected against a future action of a Town Council to limit building permits, which would restrict their ability to sell the product that they are going to build. He said they understand that there is no ordinance presently being considered and no discussion on such a
limitation, but they have seen it happen in other areas. He said they can change the $500 recreational fee to match whatever new ordinance the Town Council votes on, or they can take that entire section out of the agreement. They would like to have something happen on the Town property, but if the Board is uncomfortable with that and it is removed from the agreement, then they may want to reconsider whether they develop something on site for the neighborhood they are trying to create.
Ms. Fossum suggested that the Board discuss the various items in the draft Agreement. Mr. Grant confirmed with Mr. Georgitis that their main interest in the contract zone is to protect their right to build the houses to recover upfront expenses without any future cap that might be placed by a Town Council. Mr. Grant referred to page two, Item 2, “… consisting of up to two hundred twenty-eight (228) single-family units” and asked if the number limited the Board in any way. Mr. Georgitis said that the figure of 228 was based on the current ordinance and the net density calculations, and unless it is “upzoned” and a higher density were allowed, this puts a cap at the current zoning. Ms. Burns said that the figure of 228 states what the current limitation is, and
without an amendment to the contract, even if the zoning became more favorable, it could not exceed 228. She said the Board is not locked into 228 because in each phase the applicant has to return for new subdivision approval for that phase, as well as site plan, and there are issues which could arise at each phase, placing further restrictions beyond the zoning limitations.
Mr. Grant referred to page 2, Item 3b, “In addition to the installation of public and private sidewalks, as shown on Exhibit B, Kasprzak will pay to the Town five hundred ($500.00) upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy of each as the recreational fee required by Chapter III, Section 3.C.4 of the Land Use and Development Code. The Town shall utilize all money paid as the recreational open space fee for the purpose of building and maintaining public trails and other recreational amenities on the Town owned land adjacent to the development.” Mr. Grant said that the Board has never had the authority to direct where this money shall go and the he believes the language is not appropriate. Mr. Neily said he believed that if the Board disagreed with something in the draft
Agreement, the only thing it can do is make a recommendation or suggestion to the Council on how to change it. Ms. Burns said that the Council can make minor changes to the contract zone, but if they are substantive changes, there needs to be a new notice and a new public hearing at Board level. She noted that the $500 figure was in the original contract and was written prior to the commencement of the new impact fee ordinance which obviously would have a different number, and the provision needs to be considered in light of that. Ms. Burns also commented that the language stating “… upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy of each unit…” was proposed by the developerchanges; for example, the Council can zone less than what the Board has recommended but it cannot zone more. Ms. Burns said that the Council could elect to say that there will be nothing in the contract concerning impact fees and those would only be governed by the ordinance, which would not be a substantive change because it would revert to the default provision that would apply in any event. Ms. Burns said that staff has to talk to the developer about the changes in the ordinance and how they might apply.
Mr. Grant referred to page 2, item 3c, “… if the Town and MDOT agree to granite curbing in all areas of the Route 114 reconstruction.” Mr. Grant said that this language should be stricken because the Board unanimously said that it wants granite curbing on the proposed sidewalk on 114, even though MDOT may not agree. He said that the project is in the Compact Zone completely and the Planning Board has the right to make the decision about the curbing. Mr. Georgitis replied that they had met with MDOT engineers and asked if they intended to do granite curbing in their reconstruction plans, and that MDOT had replied they did not plan to do so, unless the Town asks for it and agrees to pay the difference. Mr. Georgitis said if the Board insists on granite curbing they will
abide by it, but that appears to be an issue with what DOT is planning. Mr. Grant said that the Board has made the decision to have granite curbing and the language under consideration should be deleted. Mr. Shiers, Mr. Neily, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Boyce concurred.
Mr. Grant referred to page 2, section 4: “To enhance traffic safety along Route 114, the Town shall request MDOT extend the 25 m.p.h. speed zone approximately 1,000 ft. to Meadow Crossing Drive.” He said he believes that this language would permit the developer to improve the sight visibility only for the standard for 25 m.p.h. rather than 40 m.p.h., and that he does not believe it would be in the Towndeveloper would do so, if the speed were reduced to 25, there would be less demand on what kind of entrances the developer needed to make for their roads. Mr. Neily said he agreed with the Chairman and believes that the Board should not recommend 25 m.p.h. to the Council but rather let MDOT decide the issue.. Mr. Hughes quoted an MDOT representative at a workshop who said “Changing the speed limit does not lower the speed” and has very little effect on safety. Mr. Shiers said he has no credible input as he is not a traffic expert and that the speed of Route 114 should be controlled by the appropriate people, the MDOT traffic experts. Mr. Boyce agreed that the language did not need to be in there. Mr. Grant directed that the language in question be deleted.
Mr. Grant confirmed with Mr. Georgitis that the two access roads will be constructed to public standards but shall remain private unless and until the homeowners
Mr. Hughes pointed out typographic errors on page 3, section 6: “… each residential wait..” should be “… each residential unit…” and “… taxes in the fall amount…” should be “… taxes in the full amount…” Ms. Burns said that that language is something developed by the developer
Mr. Grant said that the impact fee issue is one that will need to be addressed among the developer, staff, and the Town Attorney, depending on the action taken by the Council on the proposed recreational space impact fee at its October 7, 2003, meeting. Mr. Georgitis said they are willing to work with the Town on this issue.
___________________________________________________________________________________
9. APPLICATION CONFERENCE / GRAVEL PIT AMENDMENT & MINOR SITE PLAN Discussion of a proposal for a revised gravel pit reclamation plan, a site plan application for the construction of a 4,800 sq. ft. maintenance/shop facility with attached 576 sq. ft. office, and a wood waste processing facility in an operating gravel pit. Zoned R/Shoreland Overlay District;M86/L10, 10.001 & 10.002.
NOT HEARD DUE TO OBSERVANCE OF 10:00 O_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker absent). [10:30 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
____________________, 2003
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBMN04FY\PBMN100603 DFFdraft.doc
4. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Approved
Conditions of Approval:
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de 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 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;
5. 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 structure; or a performance guarantee, covering the remaining site improvements shall be established through the Planning Department;
6. That the applicant shall revise the lighting plan to allow for the illumination of the diesel island canopy to provide for an average of no more than 20 foot candle average value, provided the review engineer concurs; and
7. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
7. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT - “HEARTWOOD SUBDIVISION” Approved
Conditions of Approval:
1. That this amendment is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimis changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That all previously approved conditions of approval attached to the Heartwood Subdivision remain in effect; and
3. That the Decision Document and Partial Amended Subdivision Plan of Heartwood Subdivision, dated 09-27-03 shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds and that a copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planning Office within thirty days (30) of approval of the amendment by the Planning Board.
| |
