 |
Town of Gorham
December 1, 2003
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Cafeteria, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR. DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
THOMAS HUGHES AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
Members Absent:
HAROLD GRANT, CHAIRMAN
Douglas Boyce, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that Harold Grant, Chairman, was absent.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 17, 2003
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of November 17, 2003 as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Harold Grant absent; 1 abstention, Douglas Boyce, as not having been present at the November 17, 2003 meeting). [7:01 p.m.]
2. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chapter III-Subdivision, Section IV-Final Plan, C-Improvement Guarantee, 2) a) (1) to increase the amount of the required performance guarantee and retainage from 100% to 115%.
The Planning Director explained that developers establish performance guarantees with the Town for any of the public or quasi public improvements associated with their various developments, the amount currently being set at 100% of the estimated cost of the improvements. Ms. Fossum said that the belief now is that a cushion needs to be established over the 100% in the event the Town should have to exercise a performance guarantee and take the money to complete the work. She said that has happened in recent years on some small projects, and in one case the funds were not quite adequate to cover the cost of completion, and while the project was completed by the Town, it was not done to the same standard that was approved by the Board. Ms. Fossum said that an increase from 100% to 115% is being recommended.
Mr. Parker asked Ms. Fossum to explain what constitutes “quasi public” infrastructure. She replied that private ways fall into that category as the private way ordinance requires that private ways be built to a certain standard to allow fire and safety vehicles can access properties on the private ways. She said that sidewalks in some instances and buffering can fall into the “quasi public” category, but most performance guarantees are for public improvements. Mr. Hughes asked if the Town is responsible for assuming costs over the 100% figure. Ms. Fossum replied that it is a developeron the Town to build as much of the improvement as possible to a satisfactory standard that perhaps may not be as high as the Board has approved. Mr. Parker asked how many times there has been an overrun of a performance guarantee; Ms. Fossum replied that there has been one instance in the past 9 years where the Town was unable to make all of the improvements shown on the approved plan, and there have been 3 or 4 other instances where the Town has completed projects because the developer was unable to. She said in those instances there were adequate funds but it was close. Mr. Parker expressed concern for a small developer who has to put in a private way and therefore has to come up with 215% of the infrastructure, and asked if there has only been one instance in the last 9 years where the performance guarantee has not been adequate, did this constitute a trend warranting a change in the Code. Ms. Fossum said that a developer does not need to put up 215%, as
very often the developer will request a release as soon as an improvement is made or will request partial releases during the construction. She said that as improvements are made, the developer can request a partial release and pay its contractor within 30 days.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily said that performance guarantees can be less than the actual cost to the Town of doing the work, and the Town does not have the bidding advantages that a contractor can utilize, and to make the amount 115% is logical and reasonable. Mr. Boyce asked how much does it cost a developer to get a bond. Ms. Fossum replied that most developers put up a cash guarantee or get a letter of credit from a bank, and a large company will utilize a bond because of an on-going relationship with a bonding company. She said she believes that bonds are expensive and typically are not seen very often.
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter III, Section IV, C., 1) and 2) (a)(1) and (d) which increase the amounts of required performance guarantees and retainage from 100% to 115%. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent). 7:14 p.m.
3. FINAL SITE PLAN - “GORHAM COMMUNITY CENTER” PUBLIC HEARING
Request for final approval for a 31,000 SF renovated building that will house the Gorham Recreation Department, the Gorham School Department Administrative Offices, a public meeting hall, and cable access television studio. Zoned Urban Residential
Rachel Sunnell of Gawron Turgeon Architects, appeared on behalf of the Town of Gorham, and introduced the Town Manager, David Cole, Stan Gawron, principal and architect of Gawron Turgeon, and David Douglas. Ms. Sunnell said that the parking lot has been reconfigured to establish current parking standards, to accommodate ADA access, and to provide the library with better accessibility. She said it is proposed to reduce the amount of paving by better organizing the parking area and still accommodate the 106 proposed parking spaces, with the area being regraded for better drainage and to have only an overlay system of pavement where the existing sub base material is acceptable, which is the majority of the area. Ms. Sunnell discussed the proposed “dark sky friendly” lighting fixtures in the
parking lot islands, which refers to lighting with full cut off and not projecting more than 90 degrees above the light fixture. She said there will be some lighting which will match that of the library along the entrance, so that there will be a continual line of lighting from South Street along the library all the way to the front of the Community Center. She pointed out the different building entrances and discussed the transplanting of certain trees on site. Ms. Sunnell explained that there are additional fire exits which include a double door from the gymnasium, as well as the two existing fire exits from the back of the building and a sidewalk for a fire access from the public meeting hall. She said that the existing sidewalk from South Street is proposed to be used as a fire truck access to the facility, widening the sidewalk past the library to allow fire trucks access off of South Street if necessary. She said there will be an 8” water
line from South Street to the building with a fire hydrant located on site where the Fire Chief decides. Ms. Sunnell said that the demolished area of the building site will be reclaimed into an open space area for outside gatherings. Ms. Sunnell said that the bus drop off area will be included in phase 2. She then introduced David Douglas.
Mr. Douglas described the elevations of the proposed improvements as being similar to what is there now in order to maintain the character of the building as much as possible in with the existing buildings around it.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that the applicant has added additional building exists with appropriate walkways leading to and from the building for additional fire safety, that granite curbing has been added to the plan in all areas slated for construction or reconstruction, that the walkway width from the library to the community center has been widened, and that Phase 1 of the project deals with the majority of the site and Phase 2 is the drop off area. Mr. Shields also said that the applicant has reconfigured the parking lot to enhance the parking layout. Mr. Shields called the Boardcompared to the impervious area now present; the landscape plan utilizes existing site plantings as well as introducing new plantings; the Fire Chief is satisfied with the plans; and Les Berry, review engineer, has some questions on minor details for clarification on grading, utilities, and certain specifications but these will not affect the overall site plan and is satisfied with the revised plans.
Ms. Robie asked the applicant to point out the vehicular path to be used to access the library through the parking lot; Ms. Sunnell showed the vehicular access for the library across the front of the new building and that the parking lot width will be a 24-foot aisle and said there are 5 parking spaces adjacent to the library. Ms. Robie asked if there was any data available indicating that the proposed access is adequate for the number of patrons to get to the library by car. Ms. Sunnell said that the access has not changed much from the original access, and no additional data has been collected. Mr. Parker asked if it would be possible to reverse the route when exiting from the library; Ms. Sunnell confirmed that one could exit from the far north and park in the parking lot. Mr. Parker also asked
about the shift from a concrete swale to a vegetative swale; Ms. Sunnell pointed out that the existing concrete swale will remain, indicating that that a portion of the existing parking area is to be reclaimed and the vegetative swale is designed to move the water toward the concrete swale.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Adam Ogden, 65 South Street, expressed concern about the dumpster location and suggested that it be moved so that it not be adjacent to an abutting residential site, or, if it cannot be moved, that it be buffered by some vegetative plantings or a higher fence. He also asked that the Board consider very carefully the street opening requirements for the 8-inch water main crossing South Street, and that there be some kind of guarantee for performance expectations as part of the street opening permit.
Burt Kenty, 79 South Street, asked what kind of buffering will be placed along his property to protect his privacy. He also expressed his dissatisfaction at the prospect of a park replacing the building that abuts his property. He concurred with Mr. OdgenPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [7:40 p.m.]
Ms. Sunnell addressed Mr. Kentyreplied that the permits are issued by the Town through the Public Works Department, there is an ordinance in place that should cover the concerns raised by Mr. Ogden, and she said she would pass Mr. Ogden
Mr. Shiers asked for clarification about the status of the fence between Mr. Kentypossibility of creating a buffer with evergreen trees, which would be the abutter
The Board next discussed the matter of the bus drop-off proposed in Phase 2. In the event the drop-off is not constructed, Ms. Sunnell said that the site would still function but not ideally for buses. Ms. Sunnell said that this phasing was not “when it will happen” but “if it will happen.” and that it was important to have a goal of what their minimum requirements would be. Ms. Sunnell affirmed to Mr. Parker that Phase 1 does include parking on the west side of the building, and that buses could fit into the area from where the portable classrooms will be removed.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant the Town of Gorham
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION / SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for final approval for a 40-unit multi-family housing development (10-multi unit structures) on 25+/- acres of a 102.27- acre tract off Barstow Road on land of Barstow and Dyer. Zoned SR; M87/L21, 22, & 23.
Thomas Greer, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and said that since preliminary approval was granted, an approved DEP storm water permit has been secured, the detention basin has been elevated and underdrains have been added, minor grading changes for the septic systems have been made, any other grading changes to the septic systems will have to have planning staff approval, and overall the project is ready for final approval.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, stating that the applicant is working with DOT on the site distance requirements for the Route 237/Barstow Road intersection improvements and that the Board has given a favorable opinion on allowing these road improvements to occur prior to the start of Phase II of the project, which will give the applicant and DOT time to come to a resolution about the intersection. He said that Condition of Approval #11 has been drafted to insure that the improvements will be made prior to Phase II. Mr. Shields discussed the applicantthe applicantApproval #13, that there shall be no further division or development of the common open space area other than for recreational use. Mr. Shields said that the applicant retained S.W. Cole Engineering to perform a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment on the property, and staff is recommending that a Condition of Approval be added requiring the applicant to perform all of S.W. Cole
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
George Skillin, 157 Barstow Road, asked what would happen if the project is begun but not finished due to a lack of funding; commented that there has not been a marketing survey performed; that he thought the road had to be rebuilt before the project could be started; that he is concerned that no headlights show in his living room; and he does not want to see a stop sign on a 90 curve or any jake breaks allowed on the curve.
Newbern Miner, 19 Bear Run Drive, expressed his belief that the Board has the responsibility to insure that abuttersprotect water quality of abutting property owners, then, yes, they have the right to ask the applicant to do that. Mr. Shields said, however, that at the July 7 meeting, the applicant replied that all the studies required by the Townthat the road should be reconstructed before the development begins to insure the safety of the residents.
Don Adams, 139 Barstow Road, questioned the financial responsibility of the applicants, said that the development would have a negative impact on the community and is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [8:45 p.m.]
Mr. Greer responded to Mr. Skillinreport. He said that the applicant will not start the project without having the financial capacity completed, they are not going to write the Town a check for $80,000 and then only get halfway through the project.
Mr. Boyce asked staff to revisit the question of the timing of the road improvements and how that might mesh with the timing of the construction of the project and to revisit the financing issue. Mr. Shields replied that the plans have been very thoroughly reviewed and their technical capacity is complete. He said that regarding the financial capacity, the Board has the right through a condition of approval to grant final approval, but he would stress the this should not become the standard or norm and hopefully it will not continue as projects typically have the financing capability in place prior to final approval. Mr. Shields said that a project of this scale sometimes requires final approval in order to get final approval of a loan, or financial partnerships that an applicant might be looking for
will not commit without final approval in place. He said that without final approval none of those pieces can come together, but if final approval is granted, condition of approval #12 assures that before the first shovel full of dirt is opened, the Town gets a performance guarantee in place in order to finish Phase 1 infrastructures improvements of creating the road, pump station, and septic systems. He clarified, however, that typically the performance guarantee does not include building the homes themselves, but there is a huge incentive for the developer to finish his homes because the Town has his money. Insofar as the road issue is concerned, Mr. Shields said that prior to the start of any construction, the developer must give the Town $80,000, which will be added to the Townthat the $80,000 can come upfront prior to any phases, the Board has agreed that the applicant will not be responsible for making the road improvements, and the improvements need not be completed before the applicant begins construction.
Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Shields if the applicant
Mr. Neily inquired if any other development had sought final approval without proof of financial capability provided in advance. Mr. Shields reminded the Board of such a project in just the past three months that was approved by the Board with an almost identical condition of approval as this project Mr. Greer said that Mr. Hawkes has been working with several different private lending institutions to provide financing for the project, and generally they do not provide letters indicating financial capability, they provide financing once the project is approved.
Ms. Robie pointed out that page 5.1 of the plans shows the landscaping to protect Mr. Skillin from light pollution and said she was disappointed that no conversations had occurred between Mr. Skillin and the developer about the matter. Mr. Greer said that at one of the site walks he had discussed the landscaping with Mr. Skillin and Mr. Skillin indicated it was acceptable to him. Ms. Robie asked Mr. Skillin if it was adequate, Mr. Skillin replied that it was. Mr. Greer said that the location of the landscaping plant material will have to be coordinated with the Towndiscussed, but perhaps a formal easement should have been secured from Mr. Skillin, which would have meant that he was formally agreeing to having the work done. Mr. Shields answered Mr. Boyce by saying that Public Works is committed to doing the work on the corner. Mr. Greer said that the plant material will be purchased and installed by the developer and they will work with Mr. Skillin to make sure it is in the right place and will work with him to get a construction easement if necessary. Mr. Greer said that the applicant has provided to Public Works a boundary survey for Mr. SkillinTown would need to obtain in order to change the shape of the corner, and a construction easement from Mr. Skillin to the applicant in order to permit the landscaping to be put in place. Mr. Skillin replied that he would like to have someone come out from the Town to talk to him. Mr. Boyce suggested that the applicant has met its responsibility to protect Mr. Skillin with appropriate landscaping; the Board concurred. Mr. Boyce suggested that the Town needs to work with Mr. Skillin; Mr. Skillin said he was prepared to talk to anyone who wished to. Mr. Shiers commented that it was not the Planning Board
Mr. Neily expressed his concern that the recommendations from S.W. Cole in the Environmental Site Assessment to “… remove stained soils, burn piles and a cesspool connected to a bathroom in the barn…” be carried out, and said that he had asked the Planning Director to draft another Condition of Approval requiring that the applicant perform the remedial suggestions made by S.W. Cole. Ms. Fossum read the following newly created condition:
“That prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I, the developer shall satisfy the recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the S.W. Cole Engineering, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment Services report dated September 3, 2002, under the supervision of S.W. Cole Engineering, or another environmental or geotechnical firm acceptable to the Town Planner, which shall provide written documentation to the Town Planner and the Code Enforcement Officer that the recommended environmental cleanup has been completed in a satisfactory manner and as recommended in the report.”
Ms. Fossum read S.W. Cole
“We recommend that the stained surficial soils at the reported location of a 10-gallon hydraulic fluid leak, adjacent to the barn structure and in the working yard be excavated properly and disposed at a licensed soil recycling facility or off-site facility approved by the MDEP.
We recommend that a qualified contractor assess all on-site storage containers (i.e., tanks, drums). We recommend that all inactive containers and their contents be recycled or removed and disposed of properly.
We recommend that both burn piles be removed and disposed of properly due to the elevated arsenic concentrations.”
We recommend that the cess-pool connected to the bathroom in the barn structure be properly abandoned. If contamination or suspicious material is encountered during abandonment, then we recommend characterization of the encountered materials.”
Mr. Greer said that the new condition of approval is acceptable provided that they may use another environmental or geotechnical firm acceptable to the Town, instead of S.W. Cole.
Mr. Parker asked where in the Code the Board is obligated to certify the financial capacity of a developer. Mr. Greer commented that the Town Attorney has determined that the Board can approve the project with certain conditions. Ms. Fossum referred the Board to the section dealing with improvement guarantees, and confirmed to Mr. Parker that the language specifies that “before the recording of the final subdivision plat or as a condition of final approval, the Planning Board shall require and shall accept in accordance with the standards adopted by ordinance the following guarantees:…performance guarantees, …” She also discussed the language concerning conditional agreement, whereby the developer can begin construction of the project and is only required to post a
performance guarantee when he seeks his first building permit. Mr. Boyce asked if the 100% figure of the performance guarantee should be increased to 115%; Ms. Fossum said that the Board has only recommended to the Town Council that the figure be changed, so the Council will consider the question in January and the change is not currently in effect. Ms. Fossum also referenced the State subdivision law from which the Town draws its requirement for financial and technical capacity, and drew a distinction between letters of financial capacity versus loan commitments. The Board discussed the issue at length, including whether to require a letter of financial capacity from a bank or lending institution guaranteeing the cost of the building construction. Mr. Greer ultimately suggested that a solution might be that the Board approve the project with the conditions of approval as listed and include that the Mylar not be signed and recorded until a letter of
financial capacity is provided and the planning staff is satisfied. Mr. Boyce said he favored this solution, so long as it does not set a precedent; Michael Parker concurred, saying he would like to see the letter, as did Mr. Neily. Ms. Robie, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Shiers concurred as well. Ms. Fossum read a condition of approval as follows:
That prior to the Board
Ms. Robie stated that because this condition of approval has been added, she believed that the Board is fulfilling the State
Mr. Shiers said he was not sure who would actually build the units. Ms. Fossum said that if the project were sold to another developer, that developer would have to come back before the Board and show financial and technical capacity.
Ms. Robie commented that the Board has an obligation to approve projects that meet the terms of the ordinance and given that, abuttersproposed nor where it is being put, but he has no legal basis for doing other than voting for it, which he will do with great reluctance.
George Skillin, 157 Barstow Road, returned to the podium, to say that the Board is breaking its own rules requiring the demonstration of financial capacity and asked what ramifications this position could have in the future.
Mr. Boyce asked staff what recourse a resident has if he believes his well is polluted as a result of this development going forward. Ms. Fossum replied that the issue basically becomes a civil matter, and the reports in this instance would indicate that the probabilities are low that this can occur. Mr. Shields said that there are criteria to use in reviewing this issue, and staff felt that the applicant has done everything necessary to show it was safe for this development to go forward, but nothing is 100% guaranteed
Newbern Miner, 19 Bear Run, returned to the podium and said he was not asking for a 100% guarantee, he was asking the Board to require the developer to implement and fund a well monitoring program for the residents of Bear Run during the construction of this project.
Mr. Boyce said that in his opinion the professional evaluations, particularly the nitrate studies which would have the closest impact on Bear Run, have all suggested no compelling reason to require a well monitoring program. Mr. Boyce then polled the Board on the well monitoring issue. The Board concurred with Mr. Boyce
Michael Parker MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to grant final subdivision/plan approval of The New Tomorrow
5. ADJOURNMENT
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent). [10:19 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
___________________________, 2003
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\Minutes\PBMN04FY\PBMN120103 sec draft.doc
3. FINAL SITE PLAN - “GORHAM COMMUNITY CENTER” Approved
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;
3. That 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 the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the Fire Department as outlined in the Fire Chief
5. 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;
6. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION / SITE PLAN
Approved
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimis 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 prior to the commencement of any site improvements;
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 the hydrant locations shall be determined by the Fire Chief at the time of installation. There will be two hydrants required for the project. The cost of the hydrants and their installation shall be the developer
5. That the~developer shall be responsible for the cost of the yearly hydrant rental from the Town of Gorham, as well as for the maintenance of the private water main and the two hydrants.~~ The developer shall also be responsible for maintaining a current maintenance agreement with the Portland Water~District for the hydrants and the~private water main.~ ~These costs and responsibilities~shall be assumed by the homeowners association upon the commencement of the association's responsibilities for common elements under the terms of the Condominium Declaration.~
6. That all buildings shall be sprinkled with the sprinkler system meeting all applicable sections of the Towns Sprinkler Ordinance;
7. That the sprinkler system will have to be tested, approved and the test papers provided to the Fire Department before a certificate of occupancy will be issued.
8. That the buildings shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code.
9. That the sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshal
10. That the developer shall pay to the Town of Gorham $80,000 for the cost of improvements to Barstow Road.~ This amount shall be paid prior to the commencement of any work within the subdivision;
11. That the developer shall perform the required sight distance improvements to the intersection of Route 237 and Barstow Road~prior to the commencement of construction in Phase 2 of the development.~ These improvements shall be approved by MDOT prior to the start of work on the sight distance improvements and shall meet or exceed the minimum sight distance requirements established by the Land Use and Development Code;~
12. That there shall be no~sales of units~or commencement of any site construction activities whatsoever in either phase of the development, until a bond or performance guarantee in the amount equal to 100% of the cost of installation of the required public or quasi-public improvement for that phase, as delineated on the approved plans, is posted with the Town in an amount~acceptable to the Town Manager and in~a form acceptable to the Town Manager and the Town Attorney. This condition shall not prohibit the sale of the entire subdivision to a new owner, provided that the new owner submits an acceptable bond or performance guarantee as required hereby prior to the commencement of any construction in either phase of the development;
13. That there shall be no further division or development of the area shown as open space, other than for recreational uses;
14. That the private road shall be maintained to allow year round access for all emergency vehicles;
15. 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;
16. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town of Gorham Tax Assessor prior to the pre-construction meeting with staff;
17. That the developer shall provide a defect guarantee, which may be in the form of a bond, letter of credit or escrow account with the Town or a responsible financial institution, for all plant materials required to be installed under this plan.~ Said defect guarantee shall remain in effect for three years after the installation of the plant materials;
18. That the applicant
19. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I, the developer shall satisfy the recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the S.W. Cole Engineering, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment Services report dated September 3, 2002, under the supervision of S.W. Cole Engineering, Inc., or another environmental or geotechnical firm acceptable to the Town Planner, which shall provide written documentation to the Town Planner and the Code Enforcement Officer that the recommended environmental cleanup has been completed in a satisfactory manner and as recommended in the report;
20. That prior to the Board
21. 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
| |
