 |
Town of Gorham
October 20, 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
THOMAS HUGHES NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
CLARK NEILY BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 22, 2003, and OCTOBER 6, 2003
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of September 22, 2003, as printed and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes and 2 abstentions (Mr. Boyce and Mr. Hughes not having been present at the 9/22/03 meeting). [7:01 p.m.]
Richard Shiers MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of October 6, 2003, as printed and distributed.
Discussion: Ms. Fossum said that there is a clarification to correct a misstatement quoted in the minutes to let the record show that in Item 5, Amy Bates and not Thomas Saucier visited Morrill Avenue with staff.
Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes and 2 abstentions (Ms. Robie and Mr. Parker not having been present at the 10/06/03 meeting). [7:03 p.m.]
2. 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 Rural/Shoreland Overlay District; M86/L10, 10.001 & 10.002.
Charles Brown of Sebago Technics appeared with Brian Yergatian, civil engineer from Sebago Technics and the applicant Brian Leavitt. Mr. Brown stated that the expansion of the pit is in fact the addition of the proposed maintenance/shop facility and the grading around it, and that the owner intends to continue reclaiming the old pit area as the remainder of material on site is utilized, which Mr. Brown said is a sand-clay mix used by Mr. Leavitt as filling in residential subdivisions. He said the site will be accessed over the existing driveway, which they propose to improve by paving. He said that the proposed building would be located just north of the Quonset hut already on site, and that the applicant is considering a 60 by 80 pre-engineered building with the office space inside, not in addition as
originally stated. Mr. Brown said that the existing well on site would be utilized. He said that the open storage space would be reclaimed and the applicant proposes to use the existing Quonset hut for storage. He said that monitoring wells have been installed to monitor water at the pit site. He said that there is another area to the west of Wescott Brook known as “pit 2” that is currently being mined. Mr. Brown said the applicant intends to secure a permit from DEP to process the existing stump pile and use it for the reclamation of the slopes within the pit area, as well as providing some marketable product.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments and referred the Board to the pitthat Leavitt Earthworks is an allowed accessory use to the gravel mining operation. He said that based on this decision of the ZBA, Leavitt Earthworks has been allowed to locate its construction business and associated equipment on this site, as well as having its office and maintenance facilities located within the proposed new building, subject to site plan review. Mr. Shields commented that staff has asked the applicant to provide a clearer scope of the operation and the nature of Leavitt Earthworks business. He said that staff has also asked the applicant to submit additional plans that delineate the existing conditions relative to approved gravel pit limits and the approved reclamation plan. Mr. Shields commented about the memoranda from the Code Enforcement Officer and Steve Bushey of DeLuca-Hoffman Associates about ongoing code violations at the pit, which the applicant is trying to remedy with the Town. Mr. Shields said; however, the violations
do not prevent the applicant from going forward with his requests before the Board, and in fact if some of the amendments requested by the applicant are approved, they would address some of the violations. Mr. Shields commented that once the materials have been extracted from this site, the mining operation must cease and the pit must be reclaimed and the site fully restored, and further said that according to the review engineer, there is little to no remaining material to be mined, the pit and reclamation of the existing pit is nearly nonexistent, and the site is basically being used as a processing and staging area for the construction business. He said that staff has asked the applicant for more accurate information on the quantities and locations of remaining gravel materials, as well as a revised reclamation schedule. He said that what material is left on site might only be adequate to reclaim the pit.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Deborah Eicher, 101 Plummer Road, thanked the Board members for their time in answering questions at the site walk.
Cindy Smith, 84 Plummer Road, also thanked the Board members for their thoroughness on the site walk, and expressed her concern about where the fueling of trucks would take place and how fuel runoff would be contained, and commented about water runoff being blocked off by the large stump piles.
Randy Perkins, 146 Plummer Road, expressed his concern about the proposed reduction in the buffers which were agreed to in the past.
Ross Tibbetts, 99 Dunlap Road, asked about the hours of operation of the pit, and expressed concern that the violations will not be cured by the pit owner but that the TownPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [7:25 p.m.]
Mr. Parker asked for clarification of Mr. BrownParker asked Mr. Brown how much material will be needed to reclaim the pit from its present condition, how much is left in the site, and how much is mineable if the amount needed to reclaim the pit were subtracted from how much is left. Mr. Brown said that within the pit 1 area, which has two active areas, a calculation of what is left can be made, and there is no current survey of pit 2 on the west side.
Mr. Neily expressed his surprise to see the application come before the Board as it seemed fairly clear at the site walk that there is little or no gravel left to make the pit economically viable, that the materials visible during the site walk had obviously been brought in from offsite. Mr. Neily said that according to the Town ordinances, only one third of the materials on site can be brought in from outside and two-thirds must be developed from the site itself. Mr. Neily said that in his opinion, the real reason to continue the use of this site is to be the headquarters for operations that are not located there, that the accessory use cannot be the major use of the site and therefore is not valid without the existence of the gravel pit. Mr. Boyce concurred with Mr. Neily, saying that this pit appears
to have impacted the neighborhood long enough, that a 200 foot buffer stripped of vegetation does not meet the standards for a buffer, that any activity within the pit cannot be buffered by distance alone, that there appears to be a minimal amount of material available to extract and material may have to be brought in to reclaim the pit, that it would seem most appropriate for the applicant to complete the reclamation of the pit within a short time horizon and close the pit out. Mr. Boyce said that lacking the mineral extraction as a primary use, the proposed buildings would not represent a lawful accessory use and should not be allowed to proceed forward. Mr. Hughes concurred with Messrs. Neily and Boyce, and asked how many cubic yards had been extracted within the past 24 months from the pit, quoting the requirement that if 400 cubic yards have not been extracted, reclamation must take place. Mr. Leavitt replied that he believed about 2500 cubic yards had been
extracted. Mr. Brown drew the Board
Ms. Robie asked about DEP involvement in this application. Mr. Fossum replied that it will be involved in the wood processing process and might be involved in terms of some of the violations. Mr. Brown said that Mark Stebbins from the Bureau of Mining has been to the site and has not indicated any problems. Ms. Robie said her reason for asking was the obvious activity in the area adjacent to the brook and the quality of the runoff going into the brook, which appear to be in clear violation of environmental protection regulations. She said she would like to know the exact distance of the fuel tanks from the brook and expressed her concern about the standing water in the containment basins, which would not be able to contain any overflow from the tanks. She said she shares the concerns of the
other Board members that apparently there is no existing gravel pit and finds it difficult to understand how there can be an accessory to a use that does not exist.
Mr. Grant said that he concurred with the comments made by the Board members, that there are large areas in the buffers requiring a great deal of material, that the original 100 foot buffer requirement for the stream and 200 foot buffers for the side setbacks are still in effect today, and that he did not believe the applicant could meet today
Brian Leavitt said that perhaps applying for the building first was a mistake, that perhaps he should have tried for the pit expansion first, and that he is trying to cure the violations. He asked the Board to give him some direction on how to proceed. Mr. Grant told Mr. Leavitt that he has heard how the Board members feel about this issue. Ms. Fossum said that in terms of the violations the applicant should advise the Code Officer what has been done to correct them and ask for another inspection. She said that the applicant can proceed with his application, but in light of the Boardreclaimed, a revised reclamation plan has to be provided and schedule, and the applicant must meet a number of submission requirements in the Code for the site plan such as a formal application and an application for the gravel pit registration. She said that the applicant would be well advised to carefully review the Board Ms. Fossum agreed. Mr. Grant said that the applicant is only a minor culprit to what has been done in the pit in the past, but he is the owner now and is responsible for dealing with these issues, and that practically speaking, it could be in the applicant
3. FINAL SUBDIVISION Request for final approval for a 12-lot residential subdivision on 24 acres with a proposed 1,500
Brian Yergatian, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant, stating that they have addressed the comments and concerns of the Planning staff and the review engineers and are asking for final approval.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the applicant has provided a future right of way off the end of the private way to reach abutting land which could potentially be developed in the future. Mr. Shields said that the applicant provided the future right of way in order to meet the requirements of the Code in a similar fashion as has been done in other subdivisions approved by the Board in the past.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Ms. Nancy Taber, abutter, asked what sort of buffer area there would be between the development on the north side, abutting her land and the land of Cathy Johnson, which could serve to minimize the line of sight. Mr. Shields replied that the applicant had volunteered to maintain a 100-foot natural buffer which includes the stand of woods between the two properties, and that there is a plan note that no clearing will be allowed within that 100 foot buffer with the exception of clearing dead trees
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce asked for an explanation of the 50-foot right of way running adjacent and parallel to the northerly property boundary. Mr. Shields explained that it is now the driveway to Mrs. Johnsondoes not necessarily get a deeded right of way, the Town will take it, and as the right of way has been shown on a plan, nothing can be built there and therefore it is easier for the Town to take the right of way. Mr. Neily asked for confirmation that the Town would have to take this particular right of way by eminent domain. Ms. Burns replied that would have to happen in the absence of getting some sort of deeded right to use it, or alternatively, the Town could approach the people who have the deeded rights and ask them to deed their rights to the Town. Mr. Grant said when a road is offered for the Townsignificantly. Ms. Taber asked about the appearance of the 100-foot buffer zone being breached by the future access to adjoining land; Mr. Grant replied that it exists only on paper and would not be built. Mr. Grant said that there needs to be a policy established to deal with the issues presented by private ways. Mr. Parker asked whether the frontage of Lot 7 is adequate; Mr. Shields replied that there was a 202
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant final approval of Ralph Vance Land Development
The Chairman suggested a stretch break.
1
Stretch Break from 8:11 p.m. to 8:28 p.m.
4. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE/SUBDIVISION Discussion of a proposal for an 11-lot residential subdivision on 90 acres with frontage on Route 114 and Dingley Spring Road on land of Lewry. Zoned Rural; M81/L27.001.
Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained that since the creation of the sketch plan, they now have a topographic map, some additional wetlands mapping has been done, and the soils information has been refined through some 60 to 70 test pits, all of which will be included in their preliminary application packet. Mr. Greer said that of the overall parcel size of 90 acres, the parcel under consideration now is some 46 acres, mostly comprised of forested land with two fields located near Route 114 and a smaller field running parallel to Dingley Spring Road. He said the concept for the first phase is to create two relatively large “estate” lots of some 15 acres off Route 114 to create an open space feel, as well as to minimize the number of curb cuts
into Route 114. He said that the remaining nine 60,000 square foot lots would be developed along Dingley Spring Road, and there will be onsite septic systems and drilled wells. Mr. Greer said that the developer has retained approximately 43 acres of the site, the interior section, which will come back before the Board as phase 2 of the project. He said density calculations will be performed on the entire project.
Mr. Shields said that this is a pre-application conference and a site walk should be scheduled.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
Mr. Shiers said he believed it would be appropriate to enter into a discussion about the potential of extending public water if coordination could be accomplished between the other developer contemplating subdivision approval in this neighborhood and this developer. Ms. Fossum confirmed that the proposed public water ordinance has been referred back to the Town Councilsaid they were willing to pay their fair share, but there is not enough money in any one of the projects, or even the two projects together, to bring public water out that far. Ms. Fossum commented that staff has met with this developer, Mr. Risbara, a representative of Dingley Spring Association, and Ken Spiller on the subject of public water extension, with Les Berry present as well to provide outside engineering consultation in put. Mr. Grant commented that this is the ideal time to try to extend public water further out Route 114. Mr. Greer stated that if a density bonus were available to these projects, there would be more incentive to pay for that.
Mr. Neily asked Mr. Greer to point out on the map where the second phase of development was contemplated. Mr. Neily said that it should always be clearly stated when a subsequent addition is proposed for a development. Mr. Greer confirmed that they will need to secure MDOT driveway cuts approval for the two lots on Route 114. Mr. Boyce asked about the status of the Stateproposed ordinance would prohibit the development of new driveways along arterials and collector roads, and if that ordinance were adopted, it would prohibit the creation of new frontage lots along such a road as Dingley Spring Road. Ms. Fossum also said that a proliferation of driveways along a collector road creates a significant impact on the capacity of the road, and that this is an issue that should be considered as part of a subdivision review. Mr. Shields remarked that the applicant might consider the possibility of shared driveways as a method of cutting down curb cuts. Mr. Boyce suggested that the applicant do its density calculations and try to be more creative. Mr. Greer said they will look at the possibility.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED: Lynn Hamilton, abutter at 29 Dingley Spring Road, suggested that the Board view this application in light of the pending access limitation ordinance and that more preliminary work for phase 2 would be useful with regard to access and public water issues.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant directed staff to schedule a site walk.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE/SITE PLAN Discussion of a proposal for a new 10,125 sf building for a 180-student childcare facility/private school on land of Hansen. Zoned Rural/Suburban Residential/Contract2; M3/L22.
Thomas Greer, P.E. of Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the project. He said the facility would accommodate 180 children between the ages of 6 weeks and 12 years, there would be a paved driveway to Route 22, there would be a 40-45 car parking lot, there would be no drop-off service area, there will be fencing around the playground area, the building will be sprinkled, septic would be in the back of the building, and water would be provided by the existing well, with a projected use of 590 gallons per day against a Maine State Plumbing Code permitted use of 1300-1500 gallons per day under similar user conditions. Mr. Greer said that Diane Morabito of Casey & Godfrey has performed a preliminary traffic study, which calls for the westerly entrance to made into a
“right turn in” and a “right turn out” only entrance, with no left turns permitted for either exiting or entering. He said it is proposed that the primary access will be at the light, which will be upgraded to a 4-sided light with a left turn lane constructed along the Route 114/Route 22 overlap as one approaches from the east with 3 lanes to allow for queuing at the light. Mr. Greer said the traffic study revealed only one high accident area, at the Burnham Road/Route 22 intersection, with 9 accidents over the last 3-year period.
Mr. Shields asked if the Board had received copies of the abutters
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Mary McFarland, 86 County Road, said she and some of the other abutters, the Fricks and Chadbournes, did not know about this project until tonight, and expressed concerns about the amount of traffic that will generated by the facility, there are more accidents which have occurred than have been reported, and she is concerned about drainage on her property and a possible impact on her well.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
A lengthy discussion ensued among the Board members about the potential impact of the facility on existing traffic conditions. Mr. Neily commented that a hard look needs to be taken at looking at a wider entrance/exit away from the Route 114/Route 22 intersection. Mr. Hughes commented on the high number of possible trips generated in and out of the facility. In response to queries from Mr. Shiers and Mr. Hughes, Mr. Shields explained that a permitted use has no strings attached, and a special exception has strings attached. Mr. Boyce said he agreed that traffic is the paramount issue and suggested that a workshop with the applicant4-way signal light would only worsen traffic conditions at the intersection. Ms. Robie asked if MDOT would be involved in this project; Mr. Greer replied that a MDOT traffic movement permit would be required. Mr. Shiers agreed that it is very important to get as much information as possible about the Route114/Route 22 overlap traffic management. Ms. Fossum said she would follow through with MDOT, the applicant
The Chairman directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:12 p.m.]
6. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE/PRIVATE WAY Discussion of a proposal for a 370
Robert Greenlaw of Back Bay Boundary, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained that the Town of Buxton Code Enforcement Officer has reversed his opinion on the non-conforming lot issue and now believes that his requirements will be met. In answer to a question from Mr. Grant, Ms. Fossum said this does not require a joint meeting with Buxton because it is not subdivision, but Buxton will be notified and staff will check with their Code Officer, as well as the Road Commissioner, to be sure that they are satisfied with the private way paved entrance requirement.
The Chairman directed that a site walk be scheduled. [9:27 p.m.]
7. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:28 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
_______________, 2003
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\Minutes\PBMN04FY\PBMN102003Sec.doc
3. FINAL SUBDIVISION 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 prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated within the approved subdivision, the applicant shall arrange pre-construction meetings with the selected Review Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
4. That prior to the commencement of construction or land improvements or the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the developer shall pay the fee required by the Recreational Space Ordinance in lieu of setting aside improved recreational land within the development;
5. That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Fire Chief and Police Chief;
6. The Town of Gorham shall not be responsible for the maintenance, repair, plowing, or similar services for the private way shown on this plan, and if the private way has not been built to public way standards, the Town Council will not accept it as a public way;
7. The private way shall be maintained for emergency vehicles year-round;
8. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town of Gorham Tax Assessor;
9. The applicant shall create a homeowners association or other legal entity acceptable to the Town and shall submit the association documents or declaration creating the association or other legal entity in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.~ The documents or declaration shall specify the rights and responsibilities of each lot owner with respect to the maintenance, repair, and plowing of all streets within the subdivision, and shall state that the homeowners association and/or the lot owners shall be responsible for all costs related to the street.~ The applicant shall be responsible for recording the approved documents in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of the date of approval of the subdivision by the Planning Board;
10. That the applicant
11. That these conditions of approval and the Final Plans shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
