Town of Gorham
May 3, 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 NATALIE BURNS, ESQUIRE, Town Attorney
CLARK NEILY BARBARA C. SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
MARK STELMACK
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Clerk called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 5, 2004
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of April 5, 2004, as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:01 p.m.]
2. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE - FORT HILL WATER MAIN EXTENSION IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICT
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment to establish an Impact Fee Benefit District for the extension of a water main from the current terminus on Fort Hill Road to Huston Road and for improvements to service in the Gorham Village Water Service area.
Ms. Fossum explained that the proposed Fort Hill Water Main Extension Impact Fee Ordinance has been developed at the request of the Gorham Town Council, with Mark Eyerman of Planning Decisions having been contracted with to develop the ordinance language and written explanation of the methodology. She said that the Council is hoping to have this ordinance adopted and in effect prior to the work to be done by the Maine Department of Transportation on Route 114 later this summer. The ordinance puts into place an impact fee to recover some of the costs that would be associated with the extension of a water main on Fort Hill Road to the intersection of Huston Road to provide improved service in that area and eventually for improved service and fire protection within the Gorham Village District. Ms. Fossum
explained that a Planning Board workshop was held with Mr. Eyerman, and suggested amendments from that workshop are available for the public to review. Ms. Fossum then introduced Mr. Eyerman.
Mark Eyerman, Planning Decisions, described an impact fee as essentially a one-time charge on new development to pay for the cost of specific capital improvements, either new or expanded, which are needed to serve new development. He said an impact fee is regulated by state law, and how the Town can or cannot use impact fees is controlled by the state. He said that the Council’s interest for an impact fee for the extension of a water main on Route 114 was driven by the proposed reconstruction repaving of Route 114 later this year, with the realization that once that repaving occurred, it is unlikely that a water main could in fact be installed within Fort Hill for a period of at least five years thereafter. The impact fee will allow the Town to work with the Portland Water District to accelerate
the installation of a water main so that it can be put in place this year before the reconstruction occurs. Mr. Eyerman said that the proposed improvement is about 8000 feet of 16” water main from the end of what will be the terminus of the current public water main when it is extended to serve an approved subdivision to the intersection with Huston Road. He said the estimated cost is about $800,000 being shared between the Portland Water District and the Town, the Town’s share being $249,000 and the Water District paying the balance. The impact fee is designed to recover over time the $249,000 local cost from new development in two areas, which Mr. Eyerman pointed to in the draft ordinance as Areas A and B. He described Area A as that area beyond the current water main along Fort Hill Road where there is no current public water service available; it would provide an extension of water for new development and existing subdivisions to connect to
should they so desire. He described Area B as the area currently served by the Village Water System, which is a single connection coming in Main Street with a pump station at Libby Avenue. A second service into Gorham would be provided under the proposed impact fee to a new pumping station at Huston Road. Mr. Eyerman said that of the Town’s cost of $249,000, $49,000 was allocated to Area A and $200,000 was allocated to the Village-wide improvement. Calculations based on potential residential development that might occur in the two areas result in a basic one-time fee per new single-family dwelling unit of $650 in Area A and $200 in Area B. He said that the proposal before the Board includes an inflation provision at 3% per year representing the reduced purchasing price value of the payment and inflating the basic charges to higher levels each year. Mr. Eyerman said that inasmuch as the Town has impact fees in effect now, the collection
mechanisms are already in the Code.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
N.A. Martin commented that there are certain properties, particularly in the Phinney Street area, that might be included in Area B should development occur there. Mr. Eyerman said that the map geography is a judgment call, but property owners could connect to the water main should they wish to.
John Tewhey, 3 Valley View Drive, commended the Town for a fair and reasonable proposal.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [7:16 p.m.]
Mr. Grant and Mr. Hughes commended the work done by Mr. Eyerman and the clarity of the proposal. Mr. Boyce acknowledged Mr. Martin’s comment about the properties not included in the map. Mr. Eyerman again confirmed that an abutter outside the map area could hook up to the public water at his own expense and is not excluded therefrom.
Ms. Fossum asked if the Board had any discussion about the amendments. Mr. Boyce commented that he had asked that the word “new” be inserted before the phrase “single-family dwelling unit(s),” and there were other amendments as well as to the proposed methodology. Ms. Fossum said that the amendments were available to the public and will continue to be available before the issue returns before the Town Council.
Mr. Stelmack asked if additional lots needed to be added to either Area A or B, would the Town Council deal with this issue. Mr. Grant said he believed that adding more lots would require re-calculating the parameters originally adopted. Ms. Fossum said there would need to be a re-advertisement because adding lots would expand the areas to be impacted, and confirmed to Mr. Stelmack that the ordinance as discussed would freeze the delineations of A and B until such time as it may be brought up again.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of proposed amendments to the Land Use and Development Code relative to the creation of a Fort Hill Water Main Extension Impact Fee for the purpose of extending a water main from the current terminus on Fort Hill Road to Huston Road and for improvements to fire protection flows and pressure in the Gorham Village service area, and, further, to include the language in the document dated May 3, 2004, entitled “Possible Amendments to the Draft Impact Fee Methodology and Ordinance Amendments Fort Hill Water Main Extension” as discussed this evening. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:25 p.m.]
3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – 680 MAIN STREET TO THE WESTBROOK TOWN LINE – JOSEPH P. GUIMOND
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment for a zoning map change at 680 Main Street, and additional land, easterly to the Westbrook line, including properties of Rines and Cutter et al, from Rural to Roadside Commercial for a depth of 500’. M13/L3; M13/L2.002; M13/L1.
Ms. Fossum explained that Mr. Guimond is seeking to rezone his property from Rural to Roadside Commercial, wishing to market his property for commercial use in light of the rezoning of the abutting property of Erik Richardson several months ago. The Town Council referred the matter to the Planning Board and asked that the Board also consider inclusion of all land between Mr. Guimond’s parcel running easterly to the Westbrook line in an expanded Roadside Commercial District, to include the parcel belonging to the Cutter family, et al., as well as a large tract of land belonging to Mr. Dale Rines. Because the Council was not specific about the depth of the rezoning, staff has looked at other rezonings along Route 25 and concluded that 500 feet was a reasonable depth based on a recently created Commercial
Office District. Town Councilor Phinney, maker of the Council’s motion, agreed that 500 feet was a reasonable starting point. Ms. Fossum said the rezoning would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, as this area along Route 25 is identified as a commercial area.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Joseph Guimond, 680 Main Street, said he did not intend to get the Rines and Cutter family involved in his rezoning request, and that he believes a zone change will give him another option to market his property. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Guimond said his property is approximately one acre in size.
Earl Cutter, representing Cutter abutters, asked what Gorham’s long-range impact for the area is, the motivation for the request, what is the perceived impact on individual property values, and extension of sewer services. Ms. Fossum responded that this area is identified as a commercial area, quoting from the Comprehensive Plan as follows that these are areas that are “…suitable for retail, service and specialty commercial uses outside of Villages Areas. These areas have good access and are either serviceable by public sewer or have soils suitable for on-site sewage disposal. Within these areas, the Town should allow a wide range of nonresidential uses subject to performance standards. Since these areas are located along major roadways, the Town should establish standards for
access to minimize the impact on the ability of these roads to move traffic.” She also said that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as an important gateway to the Town of Gorham, and one of the stated policies for “… the area between Gorham Village and the City of Westbrook, where public services including public water and sewer are available, is to encourage the expansion of the Town’s commercial/industrial sector while assuring that the sense of a gateway is maintained by retaining a greenbelt along the major roadways.” Ms. Fossum pointed out that Westbrook has recently rezoned its section of Route 25. She said that as Mr. Guimond expressed earlier, inasmuch as the property abutting his is now zoned for Roadside Commercial use, he also would like to have that option for his property. Ms. Fossum said it would be anticipated that developers would be responsible for extending water and sewer, both of which are available
for connection fairly close by. Ms. Fossum said that the impact on residential property would be transitional and would probably over time be converted to commercial or service businesses, but certainly maintaining a residence or building new housing is not precluded. Mr. Warren Cutter asked if property values would be lessened. Mr. Grant said he did not believe anyone could properly answer that question, but Mr. Guimond responded by saying that the rezoning would give a property owner a second option in the event the value of a single family home depreciated.
Dale Rines, Walnut Crest Road, said that he agrees with the proposed rezoning and believes that 500 feet is a good distance.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [7:40 p.m.]
Mr. Boyce stated that while generally he is in favor of the proposed rezoning, he is concerned about access to Route 25 and the potential for multiple curb cuts if the rezoning is granted. He said it is inappropriate to approve the rezoning without the tools necessary to manage Route 25 access, and said the rezoning proposal should be postponed to let the Board deal with this question. Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Boyce, listing the permitted possible retail commercial uses and commenting that there is no minimum lot size in the Roadside Commercial zone. Mr. Stelmack asked about the 500 foot depth. Ms. Fossum replied that neither the Guimond property nor the Cutter property is 500 feet deep, so it only applies to the Rines parcel. Ms. Fossum said that the Commercial Office District has a 1000
foot setback. Mr. Neily said that Mr. Boyce’s point about curb cuts was well taken, and that it has been the Board’s policy to urge a single entrance for several adjoining commercial enterprises. Mr. Parker said that the “greenbelt” mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan has to be greater than 500 feet and suggested that 1000 feet would be better.
Mr. Boyce suggested that the Board needs to take the time to discuss this in a workshop, not in this forum, and asked that a site walk be scheduled to look at these three properties. Mr. Stelmack, Ms. Robie and Mr. Neily all agreed with Mr. Boyce that a workshop should be scheduled and this item should be tabled. Mr. Guimond said he had no sense of urgency in getting the rezoning approved and agreed to a workshop, as did Mr. Warren Cutter. Mr. Grant said that the public is welcome to attend the workshop. Mr. Boyce reiterated his request that staff schedules a site walk. Mr. Grant asked staff to also get map information from Westbrook on their rezoning and their depth requirements.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to table this item. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:05 p.m.]
4. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE - ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chap. II, Sec. V, E, 4), b) & Sec V, I, 4) to remove the term “as-built”.
Ms. Fossum explained that when certain changes to the Land Use and Development Code requiring engineering certification of certain road construction and other improvements were approved by the Town Council last fall, the phrase “as-built” was inadvertently left in the language officially adopted instead of using the correct phrase of “record drawings.” She said that this is a housekeeping amendment to remove the two references to “as-built” incorrectly left in the approved language and substitute “record drawings” instead.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce said that no where in the Code does there appear a definition of the phrase “record drawing” and that one should be added before the Board approves this amendment. Ms. Fossum concurred with Mr. Boyce that a definition should be added to Chapter I to preclude any possibility of misinterpretation. Mr. Grant agreed with Mr. Boyce.
Mr. Boyce suggested that the definition of “record drawing” be discussed at a workshop session, and that this item be tabled.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to table this item until the Town Planner is ready to bring it back before the Board. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:20 p.m.]
5. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE - BLASTING PERMIT AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chap. II, Sec. I, C, 7) a), c) & d) for removal of references to the three year renewal requirement for blasting permits for quarrying operations.
Ms. Fossum explained that in 2001, the Town Council amended Chapter II to remove the 3-year renewal requirement for blasting permits associated with mineral excavation. Apparently related language in the Mineral Excavation Ordinance was overlooked t the time, and staff now recommends this housekeeping amendment to remove the conflicting language.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Boyce suggested removing the word “precisely” in paragraph “c” of Chapter II, where the language presently reads: “c) In addition, the application shall include a site plan showing precisely where the blasting will take place…” and substitute the word generally in its place. The Board discussed various other terminology, such as limits or general limits.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to change precisely to limits. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:25 p.m.]
Stretch Break from 8:25 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
The Chairman announced that there was another motion to be made on Item 5.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the corrective amendments to Chapter II, Section I, C, 7: a), c) and d) by removing references to a three-year renewal requirement for blasting permits for quarrying operations and as amended, as the Town Council has previously removed the requirement for quarry operators to renew their blasting permits every three years. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:46 p.m.]
6. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – “GORDON FARMS PHASE II” – off FORT HILL ROAD – SMITH & SMITH CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Request for preliminary approval of a 24-lot subdivision on 58.44 acres. Zoned R; M45/L23 & M47/L39.
Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, explained that the first phase of the Gordon Farms Subdivision was approved by the Board in August of 2003 and the first 14 lots are currently under construction, as are the improvements to Mercier Way, as well as the proposed improvements to Queen Street to construct a loop. Mr. Frank said the applicants have come for the second phase of the development, which encompasses 24 lots on the remaining 58 acres of the parcel to the back. Mr. Frank said that the areas of 20 to 33% slopes were deducted from their Net Residential Density Calculations. The lots will be served by public water, private on-site septic systems, underground utilities and proposed public roads. Mr. Frank said that the proposed loop road will be 24’ feet of pavement, with 4 foot shoulders on
each side and ditch systems which will collect stormwater runoff and transfer it to a proposed detention basin. Mr. Frank said that the total project will require MDEP Site Location permitting, and once this has been granted, they will return before the Board with a final subdivision application. Mr. Frank also referred to the condition added to Phase 1 involving certain improvements having to be made to correct sight distance issues on Route 114 before the issuance of any building permits, and said that MDOT has not yet made the improvements necessary for lot owners to obtain building permits and for the developers to move forward with the development completion. He said that the applicants have met with DOT on the schedule of improvements and have indicated that if the improvements are not made by mid-summer by DOT, the applicants will obtain the necessary Town permits and make the improvements themselves per MDOT plans.
Mr. Shields made the staff comments, replying to a query from Mr. Grant that if the applicants have to make the Route 114 improvements in the public way themselves, they would not need a DOT permit as it is a Town section of road, but would need approvals from either the Town Council or the Public Works Director. The Town Attorney said that the applicants would need approval from the Town Council to authorize them to do work within the public right of way, and would most likely also need a street opening permit from the Public Works Director.
Mr. Boyce discussed certain drainage easements and wetlands impacts on the plan with Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank confirmed with Mr. Boyce and Mr. Grant that he will look at relocating the future right of way connection to the south to minimize its potential impact on an existing wetland area. Mr. Grant said that these right-of-way connections should be usable and not just lines on the paper. Ms. Robie asked if the property to the east would be rendered isolated; Mr. Grant replied that the property would have frontage on Queen Street. Mr. Frank said that the Town made it very clear that it maintains a right of way across Queen Street from Fort Hill Road to Route 202, that it owns the land of the right-of-way. Mr. Stelmack asked if any consideration was given to a fence around a detention pond; Mr.
Frank replied that generally benching is considered more practical and is now standard for a Maine DEP wet pond design. Mr. Stelmack asked if the two detention basins are a DEP requirement; Mr. Frank replied that the rule they have to follow is that post-development runoff shall not exceed pre-development runoff. In reply to a question from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Frank replied that this will be a treatment pond as well, so there will be a permanent pool of water in the pond. Ms. Burns said that the pond will be in a common area, so it will become the maintenance responsibility of the homeowners’ association and presumably they will have insurance in place for common areas. Mr. Frank explained the various levels of permitting required for the filling of wetlands, and referred to plan note 17, which lists the total wetland impact for both phases as 14,500 square feet, which is all that is allowed without the appropriate DEP and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permits. Mr. Frank said that a right of way has been provided back to the Town of Gorham for the section of Queen Street that they will have improved so if Queen Street is ever improved, there could be a reconnection without necessitating parallel roads.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary plan approval of Smith and Smith Construction’s proposed “Gordon Farms Phase II,” a 24-lot residential subdivision on 58 +/- acres off Fort Hill Road. Zoned Rural Residential with the following condition of approval:
1. That the applicant shall obtain the required permits from MDEP prior to the submission of its application for final approval.
Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:22 p.m.]
7. GRAVEL PIT AMENDMENT - “HAMLIN PIT” – LEAVITT EARTH WORKS CO., INC. (BRIAN LEAVITT)
Request for approval of an amendment to the gravel pit reclamation plan. Zoned Rural Shoreland Overlay District; M86/L10, 10.001 & 10.002.
Charles Brown of Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of the applicant Brian Leavitt, also present, and described the proposed reclamation plans for Pits 1 and 2, saying that an existing conditions survey has been completed for both Pits. Mr. Brown demonstrated in Pit 1 the two areas which have not been mined, pointed out the field survey of the stream location, showed where the offsets for the buffers on the original plans have been plotted, and the areas in the buffers that need to be reclaimed, and described the two major areas that need to be regraded. He said that there is about 10 to 12 thousand square feet of material remaining in the two areas, part of which is to be utilized in the reclamation and part of which would be sold. Mr. Brown said that the applicant has applied for a DEP waste processing
license to process stumps, which is envisioned to take place at the rear of the property. Mr. Brown discussed the proposed plantings for the northerly and easterly buffers and the proposed erosion control plan. Mr. Brown also discussed proposed reclamation and grading options for Pit 2 and described what has been done in both pits in the way of grading, loaming and seeding.
Ms. Fossum presented staff’s comments, stating that Pit 1 and Pit 2 predated the adoption by the Town in 1989 of a gravel pit ordinance and because both pits combined were greater than 5 acres, they went through the Planning Board registration process and were required to provide a reclamation plan, which the Board approved in 1991. In the ensuing years, Ms. Fossum said that the pit has been worked by several different operators, with ownership changing hands several different times, and buffers were mined that should not have been mined. The purpose now is to bring the reclamation plan into conformance. When the applicant was last before the Board in the fall of 2003, he had a reclamation plan, a proposal for a new maintenance building on site, and the waste processing project. A plan was
submitted to the Planning Office on February 20, which was the deadline imposed by the Code Office. The Code Office also placed a deadline on the commencement of all reclamation, which was to start this spring and be completed by July 20, and specified that corrective action along the stream should occur by June 1. Staff met with the applicant and suggested that the plans for the reclamation of both Pits 1 and 2 and the wood processing application be separated from and treated ahead of any plans for future expansion and plans for the building.
Mr. Shields said that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the pit reclamation plan because it is different from the reclamation plan that was approved in 1991. He said that the amended reclamation plan is necessary due to the extent of material that was mined from Pit 1 within the buffer areas. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Shields confirmed that before the Board for consideration tonight are both the gravel pit reclamation plan and the expansion of the use of Pit 1 to include a wood waste processing facility. Mr. Shields said that the amended reclamation plan is presented using the same setbacks approved in 1991 but transitioning the existing grades using the design criteria in place at the time of those approvals. Mr. Shields said that the 1991 approved reclamation plans
required a 200’ buffer from adjacent property lines, 150’ buffer from Plummer Road, and 100’ buffer from the two brooks that divide the property into these two pits, with the buffers along Plummer Road and on the east side of Pit 1 having had vegetation removed and having been heavily mined. He said that attempts have been made on the amended plan to regrade and restore some of the buffer areas, but it is important to note that while the ordinance now allows some of these buffers to be reduced, such action must be done beforehand. Mr. Shields said that the proposed reclamation plan has slopes of 3:1, the current standard, with the exception of the area noted as a “steep escarpment” to the southeast end of Pit 1, which according to Mr. Brown is heavily wooded. Mr. Shields also called the Board’s attention to section “f” of the Operational Requirements for New and Existing Pits, which states that “On an annual
basis no more than thirty-three percent (33%) of all materials crushed or otherwise processed on the property of such excavation operation may be brought in from a location outside the property.” Mr. Shields said that the amount of material remaining in the pit is relatively small, with an estimated amount of 10 to 12 thousand yards remaining, so if an active pit is only allowed to process 33% of imported materials, then that would allow approximately 3650 yards to be brought in on an annual basis. He said that it would appear that there is substantially more material than that on site, probably more than 3650 yards.
Mr. Grant asked about the DEP permit for wood processing the applicant has obtained, and asked if this should not be a site plan application. Ms. Fossum said it should be and should be reviewed under site plan review. Mr. Shields said that there was a site plan application with respect to the overall pit and the maintenance facility building added, but there is no specific site plan application for the wood processing. Mr. Parker asked if the wording “…crushed or otherwise processed” applied not only to gravel but also to wood and loam; Mr. Shields said he believed that it did. Mr. Neily asked where the estimate of 10 to 12 thousand yards came from; Mr. Shields replied that it came from the applicant’s engineer. Mr. Hughes asked if the applicant is operating within the
approved hours now; Mr. Brown replied that it was his understanding that the applicant was. Mr. Grant asked if construction equipment does not leave the property before 6:00 a.m. and does not return after 6:00 p.m.; Mr. Leavitt confirmed that was so. Mr. Stelmack asked why the Board was considering a reclamation plan for a pit that was going to continue gravel operations. Ms. Fossum replied that in general the Code creates a system of progressive reclamation, and in this case it is the restoration of a buffer that was mined, so the existing operation is not in compliance with the approved plan. She said that in addition, there is the question of how much material remains to be mined, and it appears to be approaching the end of its practical life. Mr. Grant said that when the Board took its site walk at the pit, it was unanimous among the Board members at the site walk that the pit was at the end of its life, and the material which the applicant says is
on site is not gravel or aggregate, it is clay, and may be part of what is needed to reclaim the pit. Mr. Grant said the Town’s engineer believes the pit is at an end, and the uses accessory to a gravel pit cannot exist when the pit is at an end.
Mr. Boyce asked staff where wood waste processing appears in the Code as an allowable use, accessory or otherwise, on this property, other than initially opening a pit where there might be wood to take care of. Mr. Boyce asked if there was an application for the wood waste processing. Ms. Fossum replied that an application was submitted on February 20, but it may not have been included with the Board’s packets. She said that with respect to wood processing, there is one other gravel pit where there was an application for wood stump processing, and the Code Officer at that time determined that it would be allowed, and it was processed as a site plan. Ms. Fossum said that the other gravel pit’s wood processing is of material coming in from off site. Mr. Shields said it is a very
common practice for a pit owner who does excavation work to bring stumps back to the pit if they cannot be buried on site, and then have the stumps processed for them, but seldom is DEP licensing involved. Mr. Grant said the Code Enforcement Officer should be asked if this is an accessory use to a gravel pit. Mr. Shields said that no matter what the status of the pit is, they must have an amended reclamation plan.
Mr. Stelmack asked if Steve Bushey, the Town’s engineer, has prepared a response to the applicant’s reply of April 23 to Mr. Bushey’s comments; Mr. Shields said that as yet nothing has been received from Mr. Bushey but that a response is expected. Mr. Stelmack said he is not comfortable with voting on a motion to approve the reclamation plan until he sees Mr. Bushey’s assessment of the answers provided by the applicant’s engineer. Mr. Grant agreed, commenting that there were many unanswered questions and issues without satisfactory answers. Mr. Brown explained to Ms. Robie what is meant by “permit by rule” for the wood processing permit and confirmed that there is no investigation by DEP under permit by rule. Mr. Shields said that staff has made no proposed
motion as there are a variety of directions the Board could take on this issue.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Cindy Smith, 84 Plummer Road, commented that the history of this pit is one of violations and has been a burden on the neighbors, and said that another site walk should be held so the Board can see how the pit has changed in recent months. She also commented about blockage to drainage off her property that now occurs.
Deborah Eicher, 101 Plummer Road, commented about the different view into the pit from her property due to changes that have been made, spoke about trucks leaving the site at a very early morning hour, and suggested that another site walk would be appropriate before the Board makes any decision on the reclamation plan.
Brian Leavitt, owner of the pit, agreed on the need for another site to see what they have tried to accomplish, said that the construction company will be moving to another piece of property, that he would like a year to build a new building to move to, and that he would like to get the reclamation plan approved in order to move forward with that work. Mr. Neily asked for confirmation that a lot of material besides stumps has been brought into the site; Mr. Leavitt replied that when they haul out, they usually haul loam back in to process, and until the Code Enforcement Officer’s stop work order, they were also bringing in stumps in hopes to grind them in a once-annual grinding for erosion control measures. Mr. Leavitt said materials have been brought from Pit 1 to Pit 2 in preparation for reclamation
there. Mr. Parker asked to be shown the area in Pit 2, which is below the required 5-foot water table separation mentioned by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Brown indicated the area in question.
Janice Dunlap, 95 Plummer Road, spoke about truck violations and that there seem to be no restrictions on entering and exiting this pit. She asked if the business would remain on site after the reclamation is completed.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [10:30 p.m.]
Mr. Grant asked if the Board members think the reclamation plan is adequate. Mr. Shields said there will be more comments from Mr. Bushey. Ms. Robie said she would like to see Mr. Bushey’s further comments before there is another site walk. Mark Stelmack, Thomas Hughes and Harold Grant agreed. It was also agreed that there should be another meeting after receipt of Mr. Bushey’s comments and the site walk. Mr. Grant said he would like to see revised plans that he agrees with in order to be ready for a site walk. Mr. Neily concurred. Mr. Boyce said it is unlikely that the proposed grading will change, that a site walk should be held sooner, even before another reclamation plan comes in, and that it would be helpful to have Mr. Bushey’s comments. Mr. Parker
said that it is a balance between the delay that will be caused to determine that this is a correct reclamation plan and the need to get such a plan going. It was agreed that having Mr. Bushey present at a site walk would not be useful. It was agreed that the wood processing issue would be taken under consideration once the reclamation plan has been established, and if the Code Enforcement Officer makes a decision that the wood processing is acceptable as an accessory use to the reclamation of the pit, then the Board probably would not have to act on it.
Mr. Grant asked Mr. Leavitt what his future plans are for this pit; Mr. Leavitt replied that after the reclamation, the construction company will move out, there will be a pit expansion on Pit 3, across the brook, and hopefully Pit 2 can be subdivided into three individual residential lots with a private way.
Mr. Brown asked if the Board would like to see any staking for the site walk. Ms. Robie said she would like to see the stream protection line and buffer lines; Mr. Boyce said he would like to see the 200 foot and 150 foot buffers; Mr. Stelmack said he would like to see precisely where future mining will occur in Pit 1 and Pit 2.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to table this item until after the site walk occurs. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [10:49 p.m.]
8. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [10:50 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Clerk of the Board
_____________________, 2004
| 
