 |
Town of Gorham
January 5, 2004
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 WILLIAM DALE, Town Attorney
CLARK NEILY BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the Board observe the 10:00 o_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 1, 2003
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to accept the minutes of December 1, 2003, as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant abstaining as not having been present at the December 1, 2003 meeting). [7:05 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 125%.
The Planning Director explained that this item is a rehearing of Item 2 on the December 1, 2003, Agenda, because a last minute change made by the Town Council when it forwarded the item to the Planning Board had been overlooked. The change increased the proposed amount of a required performance guarantee from 100% to 125%, instead of 115% as originally stated, so the Agenda item has been readvertised as a public hearing; in this way the Board can forward its recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal as originally intended for its review.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter III, Section IV, C., 1) and 2) a) 1) & d) which increases the amount of required performance guarantees and retainage from 100% to 125%. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:06 p.m.]
3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment for a zoning map change at Ossipee Trail/Route 25 from Residential / Manufactured Housing to Roadside Commercial to create an auto sales lot for Ossipee Trail Motors, 439 Ossipee Trail. Zoned SR/MH; M76/L27.003.
Dana Lampron explained that they need extra parking and display area for used car sales, and the corner lot in question on Route 25 and Dingley Spring is not suitable for residential development due to the amount of traffic to which it is subjected.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Cathy Brown, 136 Dingley Spring Road, expressed her concern about the difficulties that exist now for good sight distance at the intersection of Route 25 and Dingley Spring, asked who provides the oversight for the applicant
Nic Woodsum, 181 Dingley Spring Road, said that his property is directly across Route 25 from the lot in question, expressed concern about the potential loss of his privacy which would result from a changed use to the lot and visibility into his picture window, impact on security, noise impact due to possible late night deliveries, and traffic concerns. Mr. Woodsum asked that buffering in the form of a ten-foot fence or tree planting running the length of Route 25 on this property on either side of the road be mandated as a condition of approval.
Susan Duchaine, Gorham resident, spoke in support of the development of Roadside Commercial, especially on the west side of Gorham.
Dana Lampron commented that he is in compliance with everything required by the Town of Gorham and that he is not trying to do something he should not be doing. He suggested that he cannot stop the traffic on Route 25 and suggested that the neighbor with the picture window draw his curtains.
Ms. Fossum read into the record the following correspondence from two abutters:
1. from Karen G. Strout, 28 Strout
“Dear Town Planner Deborah Fossum, Chairman Harold Grant, and Gorham Planning Board Members:
I would like to respond to the Public Notice I received regarding the zoning map change for Map 76, Lot 27.003 from Suburban Residential/Manufactured Housing to Roadside Commercial. I would like to offer the following comments which I would like read into the record during the public hearing on January 6, [sic] 2004:
I do not believe that it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan of the town of Gorham. Rezoning this area would be an encroachment into an area that is clearly now residential. There are clear delineations of both zones as they stand now. The Dingley Spring Road presently forms a boundary between the two zones. This rezoning of one parcel seems to be spot zoning. Has there been a change in the Comprehensive Plan philosophy to rezone the whole parcel along route 25?
Putting a business in this area would add further to the traffic safety issues. This is already a very heavily traveled area. There have been many serious accidents there and if another curb cut were added, it would make matters worse. The corner of route 25 and Dingley Spring Road is a very dangerous intersection. No further curb cuts should be allowed in this area without serious consideration of how to make it safer. There are certain times of the day that we have a lengthy wait through a steady stream of traffic to get out onto route 25.
This area has many well established residential homes whose property values would be compromised by this zoning change. This rezoned area would abut a single family home and a street of single family houses. Children and adults walk and jog along this street.
I also have concerns about the wells of the properties in this area. The business proposed would probably have a large paved area. I fear that the run off from the area and the use of salt etc on the parking lot could affect the water quality. This area has an aquifer.
Please look at the issues of the compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic safety, and water quality of this area before making a decision of such magnitude.
Respectfully,
Karen G. Strout”
2. from Roger Hanscom and Georganne Hanscom
“I have no objections to the Commercial zoning on this corner. They have always kept a nice clean operation no matter what business they have run. Ossipee Trails Motor Sales is a very clean operation. My main concern is the water to flow to route 25 ditches as not to flood my door yard.”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant commented that the Planning Board has approved two parcels in this vicinity to be rezoned as Roadside Commercial under the current Comprehensive Plan in the past several years, both of which parcels were substantially larger in size than the current request. He explained that the Board will send a recommendation to the Town Council as to whether the parcel should be rezoned, and it is the Councilthis project to secure boundary markers for the setbacks from the corner of Route 25 and Dingley Spring, and that the Planning Board and the Minor Site Plan Review Committee need to pay close attention to possible improper road encroachment.
Mr. Hughes expressed his concern about the potential traffic problems which may be created by the different proposed residential developments, and his concern about a negative impact on the line of sight at the intersection of Route 25 and Dingley Spring. Mr. Neily commented that with all the areas that are available in Roadside Commercial on the other side of Route 25, it is not necessary to rezone this piece which is immediately adjacent to residences because of its adverse affect, and that while at some time in the future it may become advisable to do so, he is not inclined at this time to favor this rezoning request. Mr. Shiers complimented the LampronsRoadside Commercial one lot at a time. Mr. Shiers said that rezoning small lots in this way results in none of them individually warranting the appropriate infrastructure needed to support them, such as public water or a third lane or a stacking lane or a traffic light, resulting in “piece meal” development. Mr. Shiers said that perhaps a roadside commercial “park” would offer a solution with fewer curb cuts, appropriate buffers and setbacks, and he is reluctant to support rezoning Roadside Commercial one lot at a time. Mr. Boyce concurred with the Board statements about traffic issues, and said that it is reasonable to assume that eventually there will be intersection improvements required at this corner location including turning lanes, and there may be some need for encroachment on one of the corner properties for roadway improvements. Mr. Boyce said he believed it would be unwise for the Board to put this one lot into a commercial
operation which would by its nature tend to use 100% of the site available when setbacks need to be observed particularly at an intersection for sight distances along both road frontages, and that he agreed that zoning one small parcel is not advisable in an area that may otherwise warrant rezoning in its entirety at some future time. Mr. Parker said he regrets seeing a landowner who has difficulty making use of a lot which he owns, but he agrees with all that has been said about rezoning one lot at a time, that it is a mistake for the Planning Board to do, and he will not favor a recommendation to rezone this property. Ms. Robie concurred with the rest of the Board on the matter of rezoning a single parcel, and also made the point that the Fire Chief objected to this proposal because of the water issue in the Dingley Spring area. She said that it is not prudent with the Town to go forward with anything in this area until the issue of the water supply is resolved.
Mr. Grant asked if the Board members wished to schedule a site walk. Mr. Shiers said he believed the Board should vote on this application now and send its recommendation forward to the Town Council; Mr. Grant polled the Board, and a show of hands indicated that the majority of the Board concurred with Mr. Shiers. Mr. Boyce said that the Board
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that the Planning Board finds that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the TownDiscussion: Mr. Grant asked the maker of the motion why the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, saying that as two parcels have been rezoned in the area under the current Comprehensive Plan, he would like to know why this request is not consistent. Mr. Boyce said he agreed with Mr. Grant, stating that the basis for his nonsupport of the proposal is not its inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan so much as it is his belief that taking a small parcel and rezoning it without looking at the bigger picture, i.e., rezoning a larger area, is inappropriate, and the motion should be so structured. Mr. Shiers concurred with Mr. Boyce.
Mr. Neily requested that he be permitted, with the consent of the seconder of the motion, to amend the motion as follows:
“… that the Planning Board does not recommend adoption of the proposed map amendment requested by Dana and Anita Lampron to rezone the parcel of land located at the intersection of Route 25 (Ossipee Trail) and Dingley Spring Road and shown on the Tax AssessorDiscussion: Mr. Parker asked if any rationale should be added to the motion. Ms. Fossum said that the Minutes of the Board
The secretary read the amended motion as follows:
“… that the Planning Board does not recommend adoption of the proposed map amendment requested by Dana and Anita Lampron to rezone the parcel of land located at the intersection of Route 25 (Ossipee Trail) and Dingley Spring Road and shown on the Tax Assessor
4. FINAL SUBDIVISION / SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for final approval of a subdivision / site plan for an 88-unit condominium development on a 78-acre site n/f of Ramsay. Zoned UR/SR; M46/L11.001.
Robert Georgitis, project manager, appeared and told the Board that “Pheasant Knoll” now is comprised of two separate condominiums: one is a 60-unit condominium called “Ridgefield Condominiums” and the other is called “Wood
Aaron Shields presented the staff comments, and referred to the project description where the last sentence reads “8 unit structure,” which should be changed to “4 unit structures.” He gave a brief project description and overview history. He said that this proposal represents Phases I through III and encompasses about 27.5 acres of the total site. He said that the Town Council has approved a Contract Zone Agreement with the developer on December 9, 2003. He said that the project will be served by public utilities, curbed stormwater and underground utilities. Mr. Shields stated that the project will be accessed by two entrances, Peregrine Drive and Falcon Crest Drive, both being characterized and built as Urban Collector Road, and the roads which will serve the units
in the development will be considered internal Access Roads and reviewed under Site Plan. Peregrine and Falcon Crest will be public roadways as part of the Contract Zone, and the other roadways, although being designed to Urban Access standards, will have a somewhat different geometry. Mr. Shields said that the developer has requested a certain amount of flexibility in its design standards to perhaps change a roof line or pitch and to come into the Planning Director to receive de minimus change modifications to the plan instead of returning to the Planning Board for such modification approval, and there is a Condition of Approval to that effect. He said that as part of the Contract Zone, the developer has agreed to perform several offsite improvements, one of which would be a sidewalk from the entrance of USM to the southerly entrance of the development, or Falcon Crest Drive, on the easterly side of Route 114, and to specifically include granite curbing as
the Board had requested. The other improvement is the upgrading of the sewer pump station near Tannery Brook, which will be a capacity upgrade far larger than this development requires, for which the developer has agreed to pay two large installments to the Portland Water District. Mr. Shields said that the developer has negotiated an agreement with MDOT to correct the intersection of the project
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shiers asked about certain details of the sidewalk installation on the eastern side of Route 114. Mr. Georgitis replied that he has met with MDOTthat Condition of Approval #10, referring to the private access roads, should state that the maintenance is to be the responsibility of the condominium association and should also state that these roads are never intended to be Town roads. Mr. Georgitis concurred with Mr. Grant and pointed out Plan Note #16 which currently reads “Private access drives which do not meet Town standards for public street acceptance will be owned and maintained by the condominium association. Kasprzak Condominiums, Inc. shall maintain private drives until the condominium association is activated.” Mr. Dale concurred that future Town Councils will understand the intention of the Plan Note. Mr. Shields stated that Condition of Approval #10 should correctly read “private access roads” instead of “access private roads.“ Mr. Grantsidewalk,, saying that he believed the Board should impose a condition that Kasprzak cannot proceed beyond a certain point or phase of completed before the sidewalk is built. Mr. Grantnote sequencing the phase construction. Mr. Georgitis replied that practically speaking, Phase I must be built first because that is where all the utilities enter the site, such as sewer, and water. Mr. Grant then suggested that Condition of Approval #15 should have added to it that the roads within the internal project cannot exceed 1500 feet until the second road is built. Mr. Shields suggested that the addition be “The developer shall ensure the construction of the northerly drive entrance (Peregrine Drive), where it intersects with Route 114, will meet or exceed the minimum sight distance requirements established by the Land Use and Development Code. No building permits in Phase II shall be issued until the completion of Peregrine Drivethey could not go beyond 1500 feet until Peregrine is built. Mr. Shields suggested that “no certificates of occupancy shall be issued;” Mr. Georgitis concurred with that suggestion. Mr. Grant asked if the sidewalk installation should also be included. Mr. Georgitis said that to simplify matters with MDOT, Kasprzak offered to include their sidewalk construction in their contract, and that he assumed the Board was looking for some assurance that the sidewalk construction would happen, regardless of what MDOT does, and the solution would be to post a bond with a time limit on it that if MDOT postpones the reconstruction project more than 2 years, Kasprzak will go forward with the sidewalk construction on its own. Mr. Georgitis said they also have a binding agreement with the Town in the Contract Zone Agreement, recorded in the Registry of Deeds, requiring them to build and pay for that sidewalk, and they intend to fulfill their obligations. Mr. Grant remarked that if the Board
does not place a condition now that the sidewalk has to in place before the developer goes beyond some certain number, either units or phase, bonding the sidewalk will not be enough to get the sidewalk constructed. Mr. Shiers said that the Contract Zone Agreement clearly states that Kasprzak will build the sidewalk, and he thinks it will happen. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Dale if he is familiar with the Contract Agreement, and asked if Mr. Dale is confident that the Town will indeed have a sidewalk. Mr. Dale commented on two things: (1), there is an obligation in the contract that this developer has to build the sidewalk, different from another situation presently before the Board, and (2) he believed he heard Mr. Georgitis offer to have an amendment to the subdivision approval to have a time limit on it, such as two years. Mr. Georgitis concurred, saying that two years seemed to be a reasonable time. Mr. Dale said that between the contractual
obligation and Mr. GeorgitisPhase II or Phase III until Peregrine Drive has in fact been properly constructed.” Mr. Dale said he felt that these changes would cover both issues of no building permits until they have either built the road or posted the bond, and no occupancy permits for people to move into houses until the road is actually done. Mr. Grant commented that that this Condition does not reference the sight distance problem that is to be corrected in the road; Mr. Shields said that is covered by the first part of the Condition by the phrasing “… will meet or exceed the minimum intersection requirements…,” and Mr. Dale agreed. Mr. Dale said that the time period of 24 months is to be added to Condition #14. Ms. Fossum asked when the 24 month period is to begin. Mr. Neily suggested that the period be 30 months and that it start from the date of project approval. Mr. Georgitis concurred with this time frame. Ms. Robie asked for
clarification of the phrase in Condition #14 of “… existing sidewalk adjacent to the University of Southern Maine…” It was agreed that that the word adjacent should be deleted and the sentence should read “… along the easterly side of Route 114 opposite to the entrance to the University of Southern Maine. Mr. Shields mentioned a change to Condition #13, so that the landscape bonding be limited only to the proposed Town right of way, so that the Condition would read “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 within the proposed Town right of ways on Falcon Crest Drive and Peregrine Drive. Said defect guarantee shall remain in effect for three years after the installation of the plant materials.”
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED that the Planning Board grant final subdivision/site plan approval of Kasprzak Land Holdings, Inc.'s request for a proposed 88-unit condominium development on 78+/- Acres off Fort Hill Road, zoned Urban Residential/Rural; Mapy46/Lots 11.001, with Conditions of Approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant and as further amended at the Meeting. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:25 p.m.]
Stretch Break from 8:25 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
5. APPLICATION CONFERENCE - PRIVATE WAY & SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Discussion on a proposal to extend a private way to serve one additional lot off Perry Lane and amend the subdivision plan off Waterhouse Road for a lot line change between Lots 4.002 and 4.004. Zoned R; M22/L4.001, 4.002 & 4.004.
David Titcomb, Titcomb Associates, appeared on behalf of the applicants and explained that the proposal is to amend a private way and subdivision plan approved in 1987 in order to extend proper frontage for Lot 1A so that Lot 1A can be conveyed to the applicant
Mr. Shields made the staff comments, saying that Lot 1A had no hammerhead and no legal frontage under the original approval and the applicant now needs to provide a hammerhead and frontage and bring the lot into conformance, with a reconstruction of the private way to current Town standards for a private way.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shields answered a question from Mr. Shiers by saying that there is nothing in place now as a private way, and that there will be a total reconstruction built to Town standards. In response to a question from Mr. Grant about fire protection, Mr. Shields said that this is an approved subdivision and no subdivision lot is being added because all the lots are already there, but he will check into the question of fire protection.
Mr. Grant instructed staff to schedule a site walk. [8:45 p.m.]
6. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion on a proposal for an 11-lot subdivision on a 90-acre site off Dingley Springs and Fort Hill Roads. Zoned R in a Public Drinking Water Supply Source Water Protection Area for “Dingley Spring Estates”; M81/L27.001
Thomas Greer, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained that certain changes had been made to the sketch plan originally presented to the Board, primarily involving elimination of the lot driveway entrances out to Dingley Spring by going to a clustered subdivision. He showed how the parcel is now divided, with a 27-lot clustered subdivision in one area accessed from an internal roadway system, a 1500 foot road aligned with a project across the street, with suitable well and septic locations on each lot. He said that the Board is being asked to approve two large lots under the cluster provision off Route 114, each for a single family home. He said that a commitment has been made on one of those lots, and they are asking the Board to consider that as part of their overall
cluster plan. He pointed out blocks of common open space on the plan. Mr. Greer said that the applicant has asked to be on the Town Councilwater from near the Standish line down 114 and up Dingley Spring Road. He said that they would install any water lines that would go through the project under the project
Mr. Shields made the staff comments, saying the applicant is coming back with a plan on which they want the Board
Michael Parker said he has engaged Mr. Greer to represent him on Item 7 of tonight
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to permit Mr. Parker to participate in the discussion of this item. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Parker abstaining). [8:53]
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Pamela Lanz, Buck Street, expressed her concern about the 3 proposed projects for the Dingley Springs area, and said that the area is far from the Town
Norman Wedge, Sanborn Street, Director of Dingley Spring Water Association, spoke about the need to protect the Dingley Spring watershed in the event public water does not come to the area, and suggested, if it is legally possible, that each deed carry a covenant for the three proposed projects that each lot owner has to abide by Public Law 761, which says that a public water supply within 2500 feet has a buffer and abutter status, and that the Planning Office direct the Tax AssessorPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Shiers commented that now is the time to get public water into this area. Mr. Greer said that this project and Mr. Spillerthat this project will go to DEP and Mr. Spillerfrontage reduction. Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Boyce, saying that this is a much more desirable concept, rather than having all the driveways onto Dingley Spring Road. Ms. Robie also commended the developer for his change to cluster development, which she feels is by far the best use for the land, as well as for trying to address the public water issue. Mr. Grant asked if Mr. Greer had advised the other developers with proposals for this area of this applicant
7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion of a proposal for a subdivision amendment to create 5 lots and a private way off Osborne Road. Zoned SR; M36/L21&22.
Michael Parker asked to be recused from discussion of this item.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to excuse Mr. Parker from this item as he is the applicant. Motion PASSED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker abstaining). [9:11 p.m.]
Thomas Greer, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the project, saying that this is a 12 acre parcel, which is a previous subdivision consisting of Lots 1 and 2, with Lot 2 to be incorporated into the overall project as well as the original parcel. He said that the existing home site is located in the middle of the area, there is one 60,000 sf lot north of the existing site which will be accessed off Osborne Road, and there will be an 800-foot long private way to service 5 other lots, 3 on the right hand and two located in the back. Mr. Greer said there is an existing pond which may become a storm water management pond as well as a fire protection pond. He said there will be a nitrate impact analysis which will also any water supply issues that may arise. The plan
is to leave the existing home site as is and work around it. Mr. Greer advised the Board that Lot 1, along Osborne Road, may be sold prior to the final subdivision plan, and that legally one sale of a house lot is allowed. He said that it will be included in the overall subdivision because it would have been a division made within the last 5 years. Mr. Shields said that the out-sale of Lot 1 has to come prior to making a submittal of his preliminary package; Ms. Fossum concurred, saying that otherwise if it has not been conveyed out or sold prior to the submission of the preliminary plan, it has to remain part of this subdivision and cannot be sold until after final approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Grant directed that staff schedule a site walk. [9:18 p.m.]
Mr. Parker rejoined the Board.
8. SPECIAL EXCEPTION / PARKING REDUCTION Request for approval of a special exception use and reduction in the required number of parking spaces for the office headquarters of an environmental research organization. Zoned UR; M105/L32.
Lee Attix, representing the applicant, explained that it is the intention of BioDiversity to use the house on the site as offices and continue to rent the apartment that is part of the structure, and no changes, additions or alterations are proposed to the building at this time. Mr. Attix explained that BioDiversity is an environmental research education group, founded in 1998 as a non-profit organization, currently leases space in Falmouth, and their mission is to look at contaminants in fresh water aquatic systems, do research in the field, publish papers, and conduct education through seminars and public presentations.
Ms. Fossum explained that the project requires review under 3 separate sections of the ordinance: (1) it is classified as a minor site plan because it is a conversion of a residential unit to a non-residential unit and is currently going through the minor site plan review process; (2) the project is a special exception use because it is an institutional use in the Urban Residential District and is before the Planning Board because of its size (over 2000 square fee), and the applicant has to address the 6 Special Exception Standards that the Board must review; and (3) because the applicant has requested a reduction in the number of parking spaces, that is a waiver under Chapter II which the Board can permit. Ms. Fossum said that this project is somewhat unusual because there are so few proposed site changes and
the applicant elected to proceed with the site review committee. She suggested that the Planning Board look at the Special Exception requirements. Mr. Parker asked the applicant if it is intended for seminars to be conducted at this site. Mr. Attix replied not at the offices, that usually those are done at public facilities that invite BioDiversity to speak before them, the number of full time staff who would work at the site is 6, and visitation by others is fairly minor, maybe once a month. Mr. Attix said that two parking spaces would be provided for the apartment. Mr. Grant asked if BioDiversity has any affiliation with the college; Mr. Attix replied that the Executive Director is an adjunct professor of biology at the Portland campus of USM. Mr. Attix said that they do offer internships to students for summer field research, so there is a potential that they could develop further affiliation with the University. Ms. Robie asked if any
physical research is intended to occur at the site. Mr. Attix replied not at the site, no, but their field equipment will be stored there, and as a traffic consideration for the project approval, at least half of the 6 full time staff will be at full time field stations for half of the year. In response to Mr. Grant, Mr. Attix said they obtain their grants from State and Federal agencies such as Maine DEP and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and from private industries and other non profit groups. Mr. Neily asked if anything done at the site would create any environmental degradation of any sort. Mr. Attix replied that there was absolutely nothing. Ms. Robie asked for clarification of the location of the parking spaces, and if any growth is anticipated, how would parking then be accomplished for any additional employees. Mr. Attix pointed out the location of the 9 parking spaces, that there are 2 existing gravel parking spaces not shown on
the plan, and that Sebago Technics had advised them that they are not in violation of any setbacks. Ms. Fossum explained that Route 25 is considered the front yard and there is a prohibition against parking within the front yard set back, but Flaggy Meadow Road would be considered a side yard, with a 25 foot set back for building purposes, and parking would be permitted in essentially what is a side yard. Mr. Attix said they do anticipate employee growth in the future, at which time they would come before the Board for approval for additional parking between the structure and Route 25. Mr. Attix told Mr. Hughes that BioDiversity is a 501C3 non profit organization. Mr. Dale commented having a tax exemption under the Federal Internal Code does not necessarily mean that they are exempt from paying property taxes under Mainegrandfathered as existing spaces currently used by the apartment occupants. Mr. Shields explained how the front yard requirement of this lot is satisfied by Route 25 and Flaggy Meadow is not used to satisfy that frontage, and the Code Enforcement Officer has determined that corner lots should not be penalized for having two front setbacks when it comes to parking, only for buildings. Mr. Shields also said that the applicant is cutting back to a one-way entrance/exit, and is not proposing to use Route 25 as an entrance any longer. Mr. Parker asked what the total number of required parking spaces is from which the parking reduction will be made, and Ms. Fossum replied that the total required is 10. Mr. Parker commented that should more parking be required, there is plenty of space to accommodate it, and in his opinion it is not a big issue to permit the requested reduction. Mr. Attix said he understands the need to keep open an avenue of entry and exit
for emergency vehicles. Mr. Parker said that because the Board is not reviewing the site plan, he hoped that the minor site plan review committee will consider the parking adjacent to buildings that might interfere with fire fighting and the exit on to Route 25 where he believes that the sight visibility may be inadequate. Ms. Fossum said that these items will be considered, and said that she has asked the Public Works Director to look at the exit on to Route 25. She said that she has also spoken to the local Division 6 traffic engineer for MDOT because the University has plans that will create a slight lane widening on Route 25 to permit left turning into Husky Drive, and he believes that with the amount of traffic anticipated for this drive, it should not be a problem.
Mr. Grant read the Special Exceptions Criteria and the Board determined as follows:
Finding 1. The proposed use will not create or aggravate hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks, both off_site and on_site, serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles on such roads; by a show of hands, the Board concurred unanimously.
Finding 2. The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results; by a show of hands, the Board concurred unanimously.
Finding 3. The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants; by a show of hands, the Board concurred unanimously.
Finding 4. The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or unreasonably restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties; by a show of hands, the Board concurred unanimously.
Finding 5. The proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid wastes generated by the use; by a show of hands, the Board concurred unanimously.
Finding 6. The proposed use will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat, and, if located in a shoreland zone, will conserve (a) shoreland vegetation; (b) visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (c) actual points of access to waters; and (d) natural beauty. By a show of hands, the Board concurred unanimously.
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the proposed Special Exception Use for BioDiversity Research Institute located at 19 Flaggy Meadow Road, zoned Urban Residential, under the Special Exception standards of Chapter I in the Land Use and Development Code. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:45 p.m.]
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant the request of BioDiversity Research Institute for a parking reduction located at 19 Flaggy Meadow Road with a condition that the Minor Site Plan Committee approve the Site Plan. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:46 p.m.]
9. STREET ACCEPTANCE REPORT “BRADFORD DRIVE”
Mr. Hughes asked that he be recused from participation in this item since he has not participated in the past on this matter.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to recuse Thomas Hughes from participation in Item 9 of the Agenda. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Hughes abstaining). [9:46 p.m.]
Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, explaining that the applicant is requesting acceptance of the streets serving a total of 36 homes in Phase II of the Heartwood Subdivision, and gave a brief history of the project. She said that Les Berry of BH2M Engineers has prepared the final inspection report for the Town indicating that the streets have been built as proposed and the as-built drawings are acceptable. Ms. Fossum said that the Portland Water District has inspected and approved the installation of water lines, hydrants, and sewer lines throughout this phase of the project. She said that the Town Attorney has requested that certain minor changes be made to the legal documents associated with the roads in Phase II of the Subdivision, such revisions to be made to the Offer of Cession Letter,
Exhibit A to the Warranty Deed, the Right-of-Way Plans, the One-Year Maintenance Guarantee, and the Real Estate Transfer Forms. She said that the developer has agreed to provide a $10,000 one-year road maintenance guarantee in the form of a contractorrequirements, has not been constructed, the applicant saying that she has not been able to secure the necessary easements which would allow her to construct the sidewalk, although the review engineer has said that a sidewalk could be constructed in one form or another and the applicant should propose another plan requiring no or fewer easements. Ms. Fossum said that the Town currently holds a performance guarantee in the amount of $125,000 to cover the cost of the improvement, which guarantee will automatically expire on January 31, 2004, unless an extension is secured by the applicant. Ms. Fossum also called the Board
Mr. Grant asked the staff and the developer if there are any other streets to come forward, or do these streets represent the entirety remaining in the development. Both Ms. Fossum and Ms. Duchaine indicated that there are no other streets to come forward.
Mr. Shiers asked to speak to the South Street sidewalk issue, saying that while he is satisfied that the roads within the development have been built according to the Town
Susan Duchaine, president of SoLD, Inc., replied to Mr. Shierseasements by eminent domain, which has never been done. Ms. Duchaine further stated that she believes that if there was an impact to begin with, which she never agreed was the case, it no longer exists as there is a sidewalk running from Matthew Drive to the new Middle School and down Weeks Road.
Mr. Grant commented that the Board made a mistake by not conditioning the construction of the South Street sidewalk so that it had to be done after completion of Phase I of the subdivision and before the developer could proceed to Phase II, or that it had to be done after so many units had been completed, so that the developer would have had to find a way to construct the sidewalk in order to continue with the development of the subdivision. He said that the TownNeily said he agreed with Mr. Grantto advise the Council to either get an extension on the guarantee or do whatever is necessary to make sure the guarantee doesnintend on the Planning Board, particularly the Chairman, announcing that they will take a performance bond as this Board is not authorized to do that, and further repeated that she does not have the land in which to build the sidewalk. Ms. Duchaine said that if the performance bond is taken by the Town, she believes it can only be done by the Council to build the exact sidewalk the Board approved, for which there is no land to build it on, and that she has never seen a plan from the review engineer on how to build the sidewalk without getting the easements. She asked the Board to give her an “aye” or “nay” answer about recommending acceptance of the subdivision streets, and said she would then deal with the Town Council.
Mr. Grant asked the Board what it wished to do. Mr. Neily replied in his opinion a motion was necessary to advise the Council that the Board cannot recommend acceptance of the roads until the matter of the South Street sidewalk is settled and the amount of the performance guarantee set-aside is secured to the Town so that the sidewalk can be constructed. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Dale if this were possible; Mr. Dale replied that such a motion would be legally permissible as being within the Board
That the Planning Board advise the Council that the Board cannot recommend acceptance of the roads until the matter of the South Street sidewalk is settled and the amount of the performance guarantee set-aside is secured to the Town for the construction of the sidewalk.
Mr. Grant asked if there was a second to the motion, and Michael Parker seconded.
Discussion: Ms. Robie raised a question about the recommendation for a left hand turn into Quincy Drive that the Board had not as yet discussed, and suggested that it be taken up before a final vote on the motion on the table. With Mr. Dale
Ms. Robie said she believed that the process to resolve the left turn question between the inspecting engineer and the Public Works Director needs to be completed. In response to Ms. Robieconstruction of the sidewalk is still a requirement of the subdivision approval, and the Board
The secretary read Mr. Neily
That the Planning Board advise the Council that the Board cannot recommend acceptance of the roads until the matter of the South Street sidewalk is settled and the amount of the performance guarantee set-aside is secured to the Town for the construction of the sidewalk.
Motion SECONDED by Michael Parker. Motion CARRIED, 6 Ayes (Thomas Hughes recused). [10:21 p.m.]
10. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Thomas Hughes not present). [10:22 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
_____________________________, 2004
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\Minutes\PBMN04FY\PBMINUTES 010504 Sec Draft.doc
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. 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 private access roads shall be maintained to allow year round access for all emergency vehicles;
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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 within the proposed Town right of ways on Falcon Crest Drive and Peregrine Drive.~ Said defect guarantee shall remain in effect for three years after the installation of the plant materials;
14. That the applicant shall ensure that as part of this development the sidewalk extension along Route 114, leading from the southerly entrance of the development toward the village, to the point of the existing sidewalk along the easterly side of Route 114 opposite to the entrance to the University of Southern Maine will be constructed to MDOT. standards within 30 months from the date of final project approval and shall include granite curbing with any / all necessary drainage improvements;
15. That the developer shall ensure the construction of the northerly drive entrance (Peregrine Drive), where it intersects with Route 114, will meet or exceed the minimum sight distance requirements established by the Land Use and Development Code, and, further, no building permits shall be issued for dwelling units in either Phase II or Phase III until either Peregrine Drive has been properly constructed or the applicable performance bond for the same has been posted with the Town, and, further, no certificates of occupancy may be issued for any dwelling units in either Phase II or Phase III until Peregrine Drive has in fact been properly constructed;
16. That the developer may make minor modifications to the building elevations and / or footprints with approvals from the Director of Planning such that the modifications do not change the character or style of the development and do not exceed the impervious surface threshold as permitted by DEP;
17. That the applicant
18. 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
| |
