 |
Town of Gorham
March 1, 2004
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, Clerk of the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
Members Absent:
HAROLD GRANT, CHAIRMAN
The Vice-Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Clerk called the roll, noting that all members were present except the Chairman, Harold Grant.
Mr. Boyce on behalf of the Planning Board presented a plaque of appreciation to Richard Shiers, whose 4-year term of office will end on March 31, 2004.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 2, 2004 & FEBRUARY 9, 2004
In the minutes for February 2, 2004, Mr. Neily pointed out two corrections: (1) page 6: “Mr. Clark” should be changed to
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2004 Planning Board meeting as written and recently amended by Mr. Neily. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent). [7:06 p.m.]
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2004 Planning Board meeting as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes (Mr. Grant absent, Mr. Shiers and Mr. Boyce abstaining as not having been present at the February 9, 2004 meeting). ([7:07 p.m.]
2. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE Proposed amendments to Chapter I, Section XVII, which extend the ordinance beyond its current expiration date of April 30, 2004; modify the boundaries of the Water Resource Management Area and Remedial Activities Areas; and remove certain prohibited activities.
Ms. Fossum said that the correct description of this item should read “… proposed amendments to the Gorham Land Use and Development Code, Chapter I, Section XVII, the Black Brook and Brackett Road Special Protection District and Zoning Map which extend the ordinance beyond its current expiration date of April 30, 2004; modify the boundaries of the Water Resource Management Area and Remedial Activities Areas; and remove certain prohibited activities.” Ms. Fossum described the history of the creation and the purpose of the Special Protection District, which was to prevent the spread of groundwater contamination in the bedrock aquifer area surrounding the intersection of New Portland Road, Brackett Road and Libby Road. She said that the Town Council had extended the expiration date of the
ordinance from December 5, 2003, to April 30, 2004, in order to give the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Town staff additional time to review test data collected during the summer and fall, and for the DEP to make its recommendations to the Town. As a result of DEPcontemplated is in the map itself whereby the DEP is recommending that the original Remedial Activities Area be retained, but is comfortable with a reduction in the size of the original Water Resource Management Area subject to certain cautions. Ms. Fossum said that staff suggests re-describing the Water Resource Management Area as the “Limited Water Resource Management Area.” She said that within the ordinance, there is a notice to property owners in the Limited Water Resource Management Area that if they rely on or create a private water supply well within the area, they do so at their own risk and with the knowledge that the potential for contamination exists in that neighborhood, and if any new water supply wells in this area are found to be contaminated with chemicals attributable to the Wyman Auto Body site, such wells must be properly abandoned at the well ownerin accordance with the State
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
David Gagnon, 42 Blackbrook Road, asked that the “no blasting” area shown on the map be extended to included the Limited Water Resource Management Area, saying that blasting could open fissures in that area which could contaminate existing wells.
Cathy Cook, 10 Brackett Road, across from Blackbrook Road, said that certain family members would like to build on land they own on Brackett Road, and asked what restrictions would govern their actions. Ms. Fossum replied that they would be subject to the prohibited activities outlined under Section C of the ordinance, which include prohibiting the drilling of any new residential, commercial, industrial or other water supply well; prohibiting the removal of ground water by any new commercial, residential, or industrial development, prohibiting blasting except by the Portland Water District contractors or anyone authorized to do such work by the Portland Water District for the purpose of extending a water main; and prohibiting hydraulic fracturing, overpumping, blasting or pressure intensive methods of increase the
yield of existing wells. Ms. Cook asked how to determine where her family
Cathy Davis, 9 Jackie
Eric Ousback, 22 Jackie
Jim Sawyer, 15 JackiePUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [7:26 p.m.]
Kathy Niziolek, Project Manager, DEP, introduced herself, saying her involvement with the project dates from 1998. She described the remedial activities undertaken by DEP and the residential monitoring program that has occurred of the wells considered to be at risk, and said that none of the results have shown that the contamination has moved. Ms. Niziolek said that it is expected that without a continuing source, over time the contamination plume will decrease in concentration until it is diluted enough so that it is no longer be a threat in any area, but at the present time there is still higher contamination in the ground water in the Remedial Activities Area than the DEP would like to see. She said that within the past two weeks the DEP has placed two monitoring wells on the Wyman Auto Body property
southern edge, and the monitoring schedule will be four times a year for the first and then twice a year, and that information will be used to guide their recommendations to the Planning Board and the Town as to when or if these restrictions should be lifted.
Mr. Parker commented that it would appear from public comment tonight that there is contamination outside the Water Resource Management, and if that is so, he asked Ms. Niziolek to justify reducing the size of the Water Resource Management Area. Ms. Niziolek replied that she is unaware of any contamination outside of the Water Resource Management Area that is attributable to the Wyman Auto Body shop, and that the Davis well contamination information is the result of the plastic piping which delivers water to the house and is not attributable to the Wyman Auto Body shop. She said that DEP testing of copper piping did not reveal the contaminants which are present in specimens of water delivered in plastic piping. Mr. Parker suggested that the well owner should be informed of that contamination source; Ms.
Niziolek agreed and said that if it has not already been done, she would be sure that the report is sent to the Board. Ms. Niziolek confirmed to Mr. Parker that there is no contamination in the ground water beyond the Water Resource Management Area. She said that since the DEP has not been able to show any such contamination, they have made the recommendations that they have to the Board. Ms. Niziolek also stated that it is not the place of the DEP to restrict activities of people on their land unless there is a scientific basis or foundation to do that. She said that the fractures that serve the water supply in the outer area appear from DEP testing not to be continuous to the fractures that were contaminated, and that DEP has not been able to define any connection through sampling, pump tests or through a transducer study measuring water levels in a number of residential water supply wells.
Mr. Shiers asked if DEPwould find out for Mr. Shiers how many of those units are on public water.
Mr. Hughes commented about the “risk” issues, asking if blasting were permitted in the Limited Water Resources Management Area. Ms. Niziolek replied that they have no indications that blasting would be problematic there, and the DEP did not recommend that blasting be prohibited. Ms. Fossum confirmed to Mr. Hughes that the word “developer” in the ordinance would include any property owner. Ms. Niziolek surmised that a person causing harm to another property owner by contaminating that personanyone in that neighborhood, but the foundation for the Departmentthat the DEP was monitoring the water wells in the neighborhood at the time of the blasting and saw a small change in water levels in some of the wells but never saw any change in the contamination levels during the course of the three more years of sampling, and this was the basis for stating that the fractures do not propagate outward from the contamination area.
In response to Mr. Boyce, Ms. Niziolek replied that the past sampling was for the residences in the neighborhood and that no contamination was found, so the DEP went from a quarterly sampling program to a semi-annual sampling program until last year when a single sample was done. She said that the sampling program now involves the two monitoring wells on the Wyman property within the plume area, there will be quarterly samples for a minimum of one year, and thereafter they will sample during the two best sampling quarters for perhaps three to five years. She said that if DEP sees a continuing trend either upward or downward, they will adjust either way, and this will form the foundation of any future recommendations to the Board and to the Council. Ms. Niziolek said that it is not the Departmentto continue the monitoring and the restrictions in place forever, only as long as needed to protect the residents and the wells, which is why a sunset provision is not recommended.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD REOPENED: Mr. Boyce reopened the public comment period so that Ms. Cathy Cook could ask Ms. Niziolek about testing on the Cook well, saying that she has never seen anyone test the well nor has she seen any results of any testing. Ms. Niziolek replied that the DEP has not sampled the Cook well on a regular basis because that well was placed after the recommendation that wells not be placed there, that when the Department was already involved in defining the area of concern, the Cooks placed their house and well there anyway. Ms. Niziolek said that from the Departmentthe exchange between Ms. Cook and Ms. Niziolek, saying that it involved a dispute outside the Board
Jim Sawyer, 15 JackiePUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily commented that his experience with the Department of Environmental Protection is that the Department leans on the side of greater protection, being concerned about potential harm to people and to the land, and that the reduction of the size of the Water Resource Management Area should be carefully considered in light of DEPresponse to Mr. Boyce, Ms. Fossum said that the Planning Board
Susan Robie MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter I, Section XVII, which extend the ordinance beyond its current expiration date of April 30, 2004; modify the boundaries of the Water Resource Management Area and Remedial Activities Areas; and remove certain prohibited activities. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Grant absent). [8:00 p.m.]
Richard Shiers asked that, as in the past, he be recused from discussion on Item 3.
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to recuse Mr. Shiers from discussion of the item. Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Mr. Shiers abstaining, Mr. Grant absent). [8:01 p.m.]
3. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT & PRIVATE WAY PLAN - “FORT HILL HEIGHTS, PHASE II” - SECOND AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAN & “MARTIN DRIVE EXTENSION”-PRIVATE WAY Request for approval of a proposed new private way and preliminary and final approval of a subdivision amendment to create one new lot. Zoned Rural/Shoreland Protection-Resource Protection; M44/L4.001.
Walter Stinson appeared on behalf of the applicants and reviewed the past history of the 1994 subdivision approval of Fort Hill Heights Phase II, which included the construction of Martin Drive to serve the 6 lots in the subdivision. Mr. Stinson said that in 1994 a 12+ acre parcel, not part of the subdivision, was deeded to the Sullivans. Mr. Stinson explained that Plan Note #13 on the 1994 approval was that Martin Drive could not be extended, and the Sullivans tonight are requesting two actions: (1) an amendment of the subdivision plan to remove Plan Note #13, and (2) approval of the creation of a 300 foot private way off the end of Martin Drive.
Ms. Fossum said that Martin Drive is paved so the question of a paved apron is moot, the required hammerhead turnaround will need to be provided at the end of the private way, a plan note needs to be added about the fire pond easement remaining in place, standard private way plan notes need to be added, and a street name needs to be proposed. Mr. Parker asked why Plan Note #13 prohibiting the extension of Martin Drive was added; Mr. Stinson said he was before the Board in 1994 when the subdivision was approved, and he does not remember. Ms. Fossum said that in 1994 there was a 1000 foot limit which was perhaps the reason, but she also could not recall the specific reason for the Note.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED
Mr. Neily said he saw no problem with the request; Mr. Hughes concurred, saying that there were no problems expressed by the neighbors during the site walk.
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary and final approval of Timothy J. and Amber Martin Sullivan
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant approval of Timothy J. and Amber Martin Sullivan
Stretch Break from 8:11 to 8:20 p.m.
Mr. Shiers resumed his place on the Board.
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN Request for preliminary subdivision plan approval for a 20-unit (10 duplexes) condominium development on 7.5 acres on land now or formerly of Phinney. Zoned Urban Residential; M25/L6 & 106/19.
Jeff Perry, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants and asked for the Board
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that members of the public on several occasions had expressed concerns about the soils on the site. Mr. Shields said that the applicant had had two soils surveys performed by competent soils professionals regarding the adequacy of the soils for development, and that staff had met with Dave Rocque, State Soils Scientist, to review the soils reports. Mr. Shields said that after a thorough review of the soils information and clarification of some questions with the soils scientist who prepared the report, Mr. Rocque concurred with the conclusions of the applicantsidewalk concept plan is acceptable.
Mr. Hughes commented that he still would like to see the development
Mr. Boyce confirmed with Ms. Fossum that the item is not advertised as a public hearing; Ms. Fossum said that the applicant is seeking preliminary subdivision approval which does not require a formal public hearing. She said that public comment can be taken during the meeting but it is not a formal public hearing. Mr. Neily commented that there appears to be an effort by the Town to deal with the traffic situation on Morrill Avenue with the installation of a “15 miles per hour school zone” sign and a “caution children” sign, and echoed Mr. Shiers
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Peggy Clements, 10 Morrill Avenue, said the traffic signs are the result of citizens
Elaine Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane, discussed the stormwater issue, ponding of stormwater and snow melt on her property, creation of health issues, and said that EPA regulations do impact this development because the ponds intersect the water table. She also said that dry ponds reduce home values while wet ponds add value and stated that a sidewalk on Ball Park Road does not meet Code requirements when it is Morrill Avenue that needs the sidewalk.
Lisa Bolduc, 7 Sylvan Road, said that a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue is what should be done, that a sidewalk on Ball Park Road will not be useful, Ball Park Road is not lit, and the sidewalk will cause the removal of too many trees. She suggested that the developer would be better advised to spend his money for speed tables and not on a sidewalk on Ball Park, and that if he saved enough money by not putting in sidewalks he could improve Robie Park.
David Ernest, 107 South Street, said that the development is not appropriate, it will cause an adverse impact on traffic, and the Board has not given enough study to a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue.
Al Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane, discussed the potential impact of the developmentPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [8:55 p.m.]
Mr. Neily commented that it has not been mentioned that the removal of the junior high school traffic can be considered as a counterbalance to an increase caused by other uses of the facility. Mr. Boyce commented that he is not totally comfortable with the outcome of a vote on the project as there are things the Board would like to be different, particularly better vehicular interconnections, that there is nothing this developer can reasonably do to improve the vehicular situation given the constraints in place, and that it is unfortunate that better planning to provide interconnecting streets was not exercised in the past. He said that the Boardmuch peer review done, and the project needs to be moved forward to a decision., and he will support the project. Mr. Hughes said that the 6 reasons he has had for not approving the project have all been addressed by the applicant and he will support the project. Ms. Robie said that the Board has asked the developer for several things, such as an additional stormwater management review. She said that the developer was asked to look at a sidewalk down Morrill Avenue, but the restriction there is the issue of private land, and a sidewalk cannot be installed on Morrill Avenue without tearing down trees or asking the Town Council to take land by eminent domain. Ms. Robie said that she agreed with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Boyce that the project meets the density requirements of the zone it is in, and the character of the buildings is no longer an issue. She said she is concerned about the traffic on Morrill Avenue, but that is beyond this development issue,
and suggested that the residents who are concerned should speak to the Public Works Director about speed bumps. Mr. Parker said that every possible consideration has been given to a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue but that is just not possible, this project has received more professional engineering review than any other he has been associated with, that he is inclined to rely on the statements of the engineers and the State soils scientist about drainage at the site, that he believes the developer has gone the extra mile and he will support the project.
Richard Shiers MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary subdivision plan approval of Pines of Portland, Inc.
5. PRELIMINARY Request for preliminary approval for an 8-lot residential subdivision and 1,500
Ms. Fossum stated that during the break, the applicant requested that this item be tabled.
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that the item be tabled at the applicant
6. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN Discussion of a proposed 10,898 SF worship facility on land now or formerly of Straw & Washburn. Zoned Rural; M5/L26, 25 & 24.
Deacon Jeff Monroe, chairman of the building committee for Redeemer Lutheran Church, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Karl Brantner of SGC Engineering. Mr. Monroe said the Church is hoping to build on a parcel of land at the corner of McLellan Road and Route 114, consisting of two integral parcels, one a 19.9 acre parcel on which the church will be built, and a smaller parcel of 2.6 acres, which is west of 114 and is a wetland basin area. He said the building will be approximately 10,900 square feet, two stories built on a basement, consisting of a sanctuary, downstairs offices, Sunday school space, and a large narthex. The lower portion of the building is planned to be a stone veneer, and the upper portions will be horizontal and vertical metal siding with windows.
The narthex will have a 117 foot spire, which is 3 feet less than what is required for review by the FAA. He said that DEP has directed that the access of the site be changed from 114 to McLellan, which has been done. Mr. Monroe said that the parking area of 70 spaces will be to the north of the building, and there will be a small stone wall with a crucifix at the corner of McLellan and 114. Mr. Monroe said that they have heard from the Fire Chief about his requirements, and are currently planning a meeting with the neighbors and abutters. Mr. Brantner described the slope of the parcel and discussed the grading to be provided for stormwater detention into an existing swale.
Mr. Shields said that as Mr. Monroe is the Director of Transportation for the City of Portland, the first question to him was if the spire would require FAA approval. Ms. Fossum said that this area of South Gorham is one that the airport administration is concerned about for future expansion of flight paths. Mr. Parker asked if a traffic study will be required; Mr. Monroe said that they must go through a traffic movement permitting process. In response to a question from Ms. Robie, Mr. Monroe said the crucifix will probably be about 12 to 14 feet high off the ground, with a corpus smaller than life-size. Mr. Monroe said that lighting in the parking area will be shielded lights directing light downward into the parking area, some low lighting for the access road, and some peripheral external
lighting on the building, corpus on the crucifix, and signage.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Bill Hebert, 178 Brackett Road, said public water should be extended due to the large size of the building, commenting about the many activities that will be involved, such as the rectory, religious services, religious education, possible child care, church suppers, fairs, etc. He asked if there were any restrictions on the project. Ms. Fossum replied that the activities Mr. Hebert mentioned are accessory to the primary use, a religious facility, which is a permitted use, and will also fall under the special exception standards, but there are no restrictions with respect to the uses Mr. Hebert listed. Mr. Hebert said he did not believe that the spire fit into the neighborhood. He said that this building should have public water, and public health should come before development.
Peter Gibson, 4 Mahlon Avenue, said he was generally in favor of the project but expressed his concern about the lighting at the church. He also asked if and how he will receive notice about the site walk and other actions involving the application. Ms. Fossum explained that the immediate abutters are notified by the Planning Department of site walks and Planning Board action on the item, and it sounded as though the applicant was planning to contact abutters independently for a meeting. She said that if a DEP meeting were required, the abutters would receive notification of that as well.
Mr. Boyce directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:20 p.m.]
7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion of a proposed 400
Andrew Morrell, BH2M, appeared on behalf of the applicants and described the proposed private way to serve two lots, with drilled wells, individual septic systems, underground utilities, a 75 foot buffer on each side of the intermittent stream on the site, a stream crossing permit has been received from DEP to access lot 2, and all of the run off will be collected by vegetative ditches and directed to a pair of level spreaders, wooded buffers and eventually into the intermittent stream. He said that the site distance is adequate on either side of Brackett Road. He said the applicant is considering requesting a waiver of the street offset distances because Shirley Lane, on the opposite side of Brackett Road, is 175 feet north of the proposed Ethel
Mr. Boyce commented that better orientation on Brackett Road of the site on the plan should be provided. Mr. Morrell said that the applicant currently owns both pieces of land under separate deeds. Mr. Parker requested that at the site walk, a legitimate center line, without a waiver, be flagged on the proposed private way.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Bill Hebert, 178 Brackett Road, said that public water should be extended in this area. He said that public health should come before development.
Mr. Boyce directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:24 p.m.]
8. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Grant absent). [9:25 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Clerk of the Board
___________________________, 2004
3. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT & PRIVATE WAY PLAN - “FORT HILL HEIGHTS, PHASE II” - SECOND AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAN & “MARTIN DRIVE EXTENSION”-PRIVATE WAY
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 applicants and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;
3. That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant will establish a performance guarantee with the Planning Department to cover the cost of constructing the paved apron;
4. That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of any required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Fire Chief and Police Chief;
5. That the applicant
6. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new lot being created by the division of the applicant
7. That the private way plan shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan shall be returned to the Town Planner.
| |
