Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
04/05/2004 Planning Board Minutes
Town of Gorham
April 5, 2004
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

        LOCATION: Gorham High School Cafeteria, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine 04038

Members Present:                                Staff Present:  
HAROLD GRANT, CHAIRMAN          DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE-CHAIR               AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
THOMAS HUGHES                           BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
CLARK NEILY                             
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.      BOARD REORGANIZATION
A.      RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING MEMBER/INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS:
The Chairman introduced Mark Stelmack, who has been appointed to replace Richard Shiers on the Board.

B.      ELECTION OF OFFICERS
The Secretary called for nominations for the position of Chairman:
Clark Neily NOMINATED and Michael Parker SECONDED Harold Grant for the position of Chairman.  Nomination CARRIED, 6-ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Grant).

The Chairman called for nominations for the position of Vice Chairman:
Clark Neily NOMINATED and Susan Robie SECONDED DOUGLAS BOYCE for the position of Vice-Chairman.  Mr. Hughes MOVED and Mr. Parker SECONDED that the nominations be closed, 7 ayes.  Nomination CARRIED, 7 ayes.

C.      COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Sign Ordinance Sub-committee:  Present members Boyce, Robie and Neily all indicated a willingness to continue serving.
Ordinance Sub-committee:  All Planning Board members indicated a willingness to serve:  Grant, Boyce, Hughes, Neily, Parker, Robie, Stelmack.
Private Way Sub-committee:  Membership of Grant, Boyce and Parker.


2.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 15, 2004

Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of March 15, 2004, as written and distributed.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes, 2 abstentions (Mr. Parker as not having been present at the March 15, 2004, meeting, and Mr. Stelmack).  [7:05 p.m.]


The Chairman asked to be excused from participation in the following Agenda item, and Douglas Boyce assumed the Chair.

3.      BLASTING PERMIT AMENDMENT – “BRANDY BROOK QUARRY” – off OSSIPEE TRAIL/ROUTE 25 – R. J. GRONDIN & SONS
PUBLIC HEARING
Request for amendments to the Blasting Permit for Brandy Brook Quarry, Route 25: (1) to remove the 3-year renewal requirement in accordance with the current Code, (2) to allow smaller, more frequent blasts annually and (3) to replace the 7-day written blasting notification with a shorter time frame, on land of Grondin Aggregates, LLC. Zoned R-SR-UR & SP; M42/L4.

Larry Grondin appeared on behalf of the applicant, and introduced Ken Grondin and Walter Stinson.  Mr. Grondin said their current blasting permit was approved in 1998 and they have had no violations at this quarry.  He said their first request is a renewal of their blasting license under the current ordinance, which no longer requires an automatic renewal every three years.  He said that they are requesting that Condition 9 of their current permit, allowing for a maximum of 12 blasts per year, be removed or amended to allow them to make a greater number of blasts using smaller charges.  Mr. Grondin said that abutters to the quarry have said that a greater number of blasts would be feasible so long as the vibration of the blast is lessened.  Mr. Grondin also asked that the original requirement of written notice at least 7 days in advance of each planned blast be changed to allow notification to be verbal and at least one hour prior to any blast.  He said that their blaster had brought up certain safety issues involved in the 7-day notification such as weather implications.

Ms. Fossum made the staff comments, stating that the gravel operator is seeking to have the 3-year requirement removed in accordance with the current ordinance as amended in 2001, is seeking to reduce the size of the blasts but to be allowed to conduct a larger number of blasts, and would like to change the method of notification.  She said she has checked with the Code Office to see if any complaints been received, there is no record of any complaints, and said that to her knowledge she does not believe there have been any calls from abutters regarding blasting at the site.  She said that staff has no concerns about the proposed changes.

Mr. Neily asked if all abutters have been notified of the proposed changes.  Ms. Fossum replied that all abutters had received notification of this public hearing.  Ms. Robie asked how many abutters have to be notified.  Mr. Grondin said that all direct abutters are notified, as well as anyone else who wishes to be on the list, that half choose to be notified, and surmised that the number of people is somewhere in the high 30s.  Ms. Robie said she is uncomfortable with no upper limit on the number of blasts to be allowed, and asked Mr. Grondin what number would suffice.  Mr. Grondin said he thought that currently a couple of dozen would be enough, but in the future, a growth cushion would be 30.  Ms. Robie asked about early morning blasting; Mr. Grondin replied that blasting usually occurs between noon and 2:00 p.m., and said it takes 5 to 6 hours to get ready for a blast.  Mr. Hughes commented that he thought abutters would want to know more than one hour in advance of a blast.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Alfred Kinney, Cressey Road, said he did not know about the pit until after he had purchased his house and that he has been in his house for over a year.  He replied to Mr. Parker that Grondin has never notified him about any blasting, but that he did receive notice of tonight’s meeting from the Town.  He said he believes that notification can be the day of the blast, but thinks that at least three hours’ notification would be ideal.  Mr. Grondin said that Mr. Kinney would be added to their list of abutters to be contacted.  Ms. Fossum said that the new owner’s name might not yet be on the tax records.  Mr. Boyce asked whether it is the applicant’s responsibility to make sure their list is updated periodically, Ms. Fossum replied that it is.  
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.  [7:30. p.m.]

Mr. Grondin said that after tonight’s discussion he would implement a formal method of updating their abutters’ list.

Mr. Stelmack asked Mr. Grondin if the applicant would be agreeable to notifying abutters with both a 7-day written notice and a telephone call either one or two hours before the blast.  Mr. Grondin replied that was reasonable, but they would prefer to drop the 7-day written notice.  Mr. Neily said he believed the smaller blasts are a good idea, and suggested that a call at 7:00 in the morning would provide adequate notification of a same day blast.  Mr. Parker asked how many blasts have occurred for each of the last three years.  Mr. Grondin replied that last year they went a little over 12.  Mr. Grondin quantified to Mr. Parker what was meant by “smaller” blasts, saying that if the demand goes up and the number of charges does not, then each charge will have to get bigger, which will present the potential for larger vibrations.  Mr. Grondin said that the charges which are working are 6,000 to 8,000 yards per charge, and there is no regulation on the size of the charge.  Mr. Boyce called to Ms. Fossum’s attention the staff’s memo to the Town Manager on March 24, 2004, about certain discrepancies in the Code; Ms. Fossum said the purpose of that memo was to clear up any conflicts in the ordinance.

The Board discussed various options for the timing of abutter notification, such as a requirement that verbal notice be given by 9:00 a.m.; or that there be both a written notice perhaps 3 days in advance  and a verbal notice of at least one hour, or verbal notification the afternoon before.  It was also suggested that the abutters be advised that the notification method would be changed, and anyone who wished to receive written notification could ask to have that done.

Ms. Fossum directed the Board’s attention to the fact that condition 11 would be combined with the new proposed condition 10.  Mr. Boyce read the proposed condition 10 as follows:

“That all abutting property owners, other neighbors potentially impacted by the blast, the Town Planner, and Code Enforcement Officer, shall be given (at least offered) verbal notice, via telecommunications, at least one hour prior to any blast in the same manner described in the final approved blasting plan.”

Mr. Neily suggested adding the words “or any other notice requested by an abutting owner.”

Mr. Parker said he agrees with Ms. Robie that he too is not comfortable with an open-ended number of blasts and suggested 36 per year.  Mr. Grondin agreed this would be acceptable, and there was no objection to this number from any of the Board members.

Mr. Boyce called for a break to draft language for condition #10 to 8:10 p.m.

Mr. Boyce read condition 10 as follows:

“10.  That all abutting property owners listed on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1 of 7) of the approved plans shall be given written notice at least seven (7) days in advance of each planned blast in the manner described in the final approved blasting plan and as presented in the application submission; and furthermore that this list shall be updated annually by the operator, based on the current Gorham Tax Assessor’s records.”

Mr. Boyce then read the proposed additional language to be inserted at the end of condition #10 as follows:

“At his option, the applicant may make alternative notification arrangements with any given abutter.  Any such alternative notification arrangements shall be filed with the Planning Office.”

Ms. Fossum read proposed condition 11 as follows:

“That the Town Engineer, the Code Enforcement Officer and the Town Planner shall be given verbal notice at least 24 hours in advance of each planned blast in the same manner described in the final approved blasting plan and furthermore, a location detail of the area of the quarry where the blast is scheduled to occur shall be submitted to the Town Planner at the same time."

The Board and the applicant indicated their concurrence with the proposed changes.

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the amended Blasting Plan for the Brandy Brook Quarry as requested by R.J. Grondin & Sons with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and as discussed with the applicant.
DISCUSSION:     Mr. Neily asked that the words “and discussed in this meeting with the applicant” be added to the Motion.  Mr. Parker agreed to the modification.  Thomas Hughes SECONDED the modification.   Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Grant abstaining).  [8:30 p.m.]

The applicant asked if the Motion included the elimination of the three-year renewal requirement.  Ms. Fossum suggested that the Motion be amended to state that the three-year renewal requirement was extinguished.

Clark Neily MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to reconsider.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Grant abstaining).  [8:31 p.m.]

Mark Stelmack MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to reaffirm the previous motion with the addition of extinguishing the three-year renewal requirement.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Grant abstaining).  [8:32 p.m.]

The Chairman rejoined the Board.


Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the meeting would not be extended beyond 10:00 o’clock and the Board would consider every item taken up before 10:00 o’clock.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes, 1 nay (Mr. Grant).  [8:32 p.m.]
______________________________________________________________________________

4.      PRELIMINARY & FINAL SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “KEENE DRIVE SUBDIVISION” – off 10 KEENE DRIVE – ROBERT & ELEANOR HAUSER
Request for preliminary and final approval of a subdivision amendment to create 2 new lots. Zoned R; M4/L3.

Bob Farthing, Survey, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicants and said that since their last presentation, soils survey and mapping on the three lots have been done, completing their requirement for approval.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, describing the application and stating that this amendment would amend the two previously approved plans, one originally approved in 1976, and then amended and approved in the year 2000.  He said that the creation of two new lots creates the need for a form of fire protection, but there is a fire pond about 900 feet down County Road and the new house lots would fall within the 2000’ distance required from that pond.  He said that Lot 3A has 11 inches of suitable soil instead of the required 12 inches to the depth of the water table, requiring a New System Variance Approval from the State for that septic system, and as a condition of approval, #4, has been added, which reads:

“4.     That prior to commencement of construction on Lot # 3A, a New System Variance for an approved Subsurface Waste Disposal System, be granted by the State of Maine and further approved by the Town of Gorham Plumbing Inspector;”

Mr. Shields said the previously approved subdivision did not show any RLMS calculations, so that the applicant and staff worked together to perform those calculations, showing that 3 lots are acceptable.  He said that the applicant is asking for both preliminary and final approval, and staff recommends that the Board waive the rules leading up to final approval and grant both preliminary and final at this meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.

Mr. Stelmack pointed out that on note 10 of the soils map, the word “multiple” is incorrectly spelled.

Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Board waives the rules to allow preliminary and final approval to be granted in one meeting.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.  [8:40 p.m.]

Douglas Boyce MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary and final approval of Robert & Eleanor Hauser’s request for an amendment to the subdivision plan of Keene (1976) and then of Smith (2000) to create 2 additional lots off Keene Road, zoned Rural, Map4/Lot 3, with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.  [8:41 p.m.]


Mr. Parker asked to be recused from participation in the next item.

5.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT & PRIVATE WAY – “GORHAM PINES” & “SCROGGIE WAY” – off 24 OSBORNE ROAD – MICHAEL & CAROLYN PARKER
Request for preliminary approval of a subdivision amendment to create 5 new lots with an 840’ private way on 11.83 acres. (Amends the former subdivision of Harland Banks) Zoned SR; M36/L21 & 22.

Steve Blais, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicants and described the site and the project.  Mr. Blais described the 840’ private way as having an 18-foot travel way, with 2-foot shoulders, with a ditched drainage system and adequate sight distance in both directions.  Mr. Blais said that the right of way has been extended to the edge of the property to provide future access to the adjacent parcel owned by Mr. Phinney.  Mr. Blais pointed out the proposed dry detention areas which are designed to provide storage for the storm events required by the Code, and said there will be no increases in peak flows leaving this site for the 2, 10 and 25 year storm events.  He said that the lots are all above 60,000 square feet and all have 200 feet of frontage.  Mr. Blais said that review comments and those received from staff have been addressed, and fire protection will be provided by sprinkling the houses.  Mr. Blais also said that concerns about the detention area above the roadway have been addressed by dropping the bottom of the detention area in order to provide the recommended shoulder height and the embankment of the existing pond has also been increased.  Mr. Blais indicated that there is a possibility of extending the roadway in the future, so it may change to a public roadway with 22 foot wide pavement and 4 foot shoulders, with a very small amount of disturbance to the wetland, which would not trigger any DEP permits.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that this subdivision is a combination of two parcels for a total of 11.83 acres, one parcel which the applicants live on, and the other one, which they have recently purchased, identified as Lot 2 on the Harland Banks Subdivision, approved some time ago and recorded in 1974.  The new proposal would amend the subdivision plan to create 5 new lots on the private way, the lots to be served by private well and sewer and underground utilities.  He said the calculations for Net Density have been done and the lot upon which the applicants live, referred to on the plan as Lot A, now needs to have a number because that acreage is being used as part of the calculations and must be included in the subdivision as a subdivision lot number, so it is a six lot subdivision but is creating 5 new lots.  Mr. Shields said if the applicants return with a public way, those modifications must be done before final approval.

Mr. Blais confirmed to Mr. Stelmack that the public road would be wider than the private way and described what the difference would be.  Mr. Grant commented that if this is going to happen, Mr. Blais will have the proposed public roadway graded out and clearly shown by final approval.  Mr. Stelmack asked about certain details in the drainage report; Mr. Blais replied that they are designed to “track water all the way to the ocean.”  Mr. Stelmack also asked how stormwater facility maintenance is accomplished.  Mr. Blais said they include their engineering recommendations on how to keep the system working.

Mr. Neily asked whether the use of the hammerhead to count frontage would also be acceptable should the private way become a public roadway.  Ms. Shields said that it would be.  Mr. Neily said this was a very imaginative way to calculate the required 200-foot frontage.  

Mr. Shields said that the Public Works Director would like to see hammerhead turn to the right for ease in plowing in the event the private way becomes a public roadway.  Mr. Grant asked if the Public Works Director has the authority to require this under the Code; Mr. Shields said that this was the Public Works Director’s preference.

Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary plan approval of Michael & Carolyn Parker’s request for the proposed “Gorham Pines Subdivision and Private Way,” a 6-lot residential subdivision and amendment to the “ Land of Harland Banks” Subdivision Plan” on 11.83 acres off Osborne Road.  Zoned Suburban Residential Map 36, Lot 21 & 22 .
DISCUSSION:  Mr. Boyce confirmed with staff that leaving the private way in this motion was appropriate in that if it later becomes a public roadway, there will be a change at that time.
Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Parker recused)  [9:00 p.m.]


Mr. Parker rejoined the Board.

6.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION & PRIVATE WAY – “PAM’S WAY” – off 9 FILES ROAD – GILBERT HOMES, INC.
Request for preliminary approval of a 4-lot subdivision with an 888’ private way on 8.85 acres.  Zoned R; M77/L2.

John Kuchinski, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the project, explaining that the private way will have ditching for stormwater and will have a culvert crossing the wetland and at the entrance.  He said that sight distance on the private way is adequate.  Mr. Kuchinski discussed an 11-acre parcel which the applicant wishes to convey to an interested abutter or to the Town if the Town so desires for recreation purposes.  Mr. Shields indicated that staff had not heard of this option until tonight.  Mr. Grant asked if the parcel has frontage, Mr. Kuchinski said that it did not.  Mr. Shields said that in the past such circumstances were usually handled by a condition of final approval that the parcel will either be conveyed to an abutter or melded in to one of the other lots in the subdivision.  Mr. Kuchinski said that an access easement to the parcel for public use could be provided off the hammerhead over one of the lots.  Mr. Grant said he would ask staff to mention this to the Town Manager; Ms. Fossum replied that the applicant would have to make a formal written proposal to the Town Manager.  Mr. Kuchinski said he would suggest that Mr. Gilbert do so.  Mr. Kuchinski said that the existing house on lot 2 would have a revised septic system and a new well, if necessary; all the lots will have onsite wells and septic systems.  He said the test pit logs have been submitted to the Town as part of the application.  Mr. Kuchinski said that the utilities will be under ground.  He described the stormwater management as ditches and culverts with no water detained because water will flow into the 11-acre parcel and it is proposed that there be level spreaders for the culverts to further attenuate peak flows.  He said that the wetland crossing involves less than 3000 square feet and no DEP permitting is triggered.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the proposed lots will range from 40,000 square feet to up to 160,000 square feet and fire protection will be sprinkler systems.  Mr. Shields said that the density calculations have been reviewed, no slopes were removed, and 100% of the deduction for soils were in the wetlands.  He said that while it is not usual to buffer private homes from private homes, in an effort to protect the trees on the property lines as expressed by the Board during the site walk, the applicant has done everything possible to protect the trees with a wider right of way for the private way, 60 feet throughout.  Mr. Kuchinski said they maintained a ten-foot undisturbed area between the tree line and where the grading begins.  Mr. Shields said that the density of the project dropped with the removal of the 11-acre parcel, which has some of the poorer soils and which has a flood plain attached to it.  He said that if the parcel is joined with one of the other lots, then all the lots must have flood plain certificates according to the Code.  Mr. Shields recommended to Mr. Kuchinski that the disposition of the parcel be accomplished before the applicant returns for final approval.  Mr. Shields suggested that the private way wording be removed from the proposed motion, with Ms. Fossum explaining that it might be that a private way could be approved and the subdivision did not come back for approval, and it would be better to wait until final to approve the private way.  Mr. Kuchinski said they would wait for final approval to have the private way approved

Mr. Grant commended the applicant on accommodating the circumstances of the property and the concerns of the abutters.  
Mr. Boyce asked how the private way language in this motion differed from the previous motion just passed.  Mr. Shields said that there is no difference.  Mr. Stelmack discussed with Mr. Kuchinski the comments about the stormwater analysis by the Town’s Review Engineer, which have been resolved.  Mr. Stelmack asked about the shape of the drainage easement; Mr. Kuchinski replied that the easement is following the level spreader in from the road off the ditches.  Mr. Hughes asked if there was a requirement for a 50-foot right of way to adjoining property; Mr. Grant replied that when it is a private way, no one else can use it to travel to adjoining property.  Mr. Boyce asked how conveyance of the 11-acre parcel is addressed on the final subdivision plan, if it appears as part of the subdivision if it is conveyed out.  Mr. Shields said that the parcel is part of the land as it is going through subdivision, so the metes and bounds will have to be shown, but it will not be a numbered lot.  Mr. Kuchinski said it was his impression that a conveyance to an abutter was exempt from subdivision.  Mr. Grant said he felt it should occur before coming in for preliminary approval; Ms. Fossum said that it has always been her understanding too, but due to some contradictory legal advice, it would require checking on.  Mr. Shields said that it would be in the applicant’s best interest to give the parcel away and not include it in the subdivision.  Mr. Kuchinski said that originally the applicant was approached by an abutter interested in acquiring some of the parcel, the applicant thought that perhaps the Town as well might be interested in the parcel, but it might be easier to convey the parcel to the abutter and move on.  Ms. Fossum said that the question was the sequencing of the conveyance, and there are some open-ended questions on how to calculate the densities and if the parcel is part of the subdivision or not.  Mr. Grant asked if the applicant would be agreeable to postponing the item to May, and staff agreed that this would be a good solution.  Mr. Kuchinski concurred, saying the parcel would be conveyed to the interested abutter, and then they would return to the Board for preliminary approval..  Mr. Shields said that keeping the parcel in the calculations would not affect the number of lots.  Ms. Robie asked if the Phinney land would be landlocked; Mr. Grant asked staff to check on this.

Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to table this item until the applicant is ready to return.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.  [9:29 p.m.]


7.      PRIVATE WAY AMENDMENT – “STAGECOACH LANE” – off 129 HARDING BRIDGE ROAD – KENNETH & CAROLYN GRONDIN
Request for approval of a minor shift in the roadway alignment and profile view of the private way plan for Stagecoach Lane. Zoned R-SZ-RP; M50/L13.

Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants, saying that Ken Grondin was also present.  Mr. McCullough explained that the application is a minor shift in the location of the hammerhead turnaround and road grade, so as to better fit the alignment of the future subdivision which is to be discussed as the next item on tonight’s Agenda.  He said that the applicant lost his appeal before the Zoning Appeals Board for an appendage that stuck out into the 50-foot setback, so the applicant will be removing that appendage to comply with the Board’s last condition of approval that the appendage must be removed before a certificate of occupancy is granted for either of the houses.  He said that the applicant has removed the outbuildings.  

Staff had no comments, except to note that there are only three conditions of approval because all the other previous conditions are to remain in effect.  

Mr. Stelmack asked about the appendage to be removed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, asking that if the private way were constructed and the subdivision plans did not go through, might not the Town be left with a private way with a building still in the setback.  Mr. Grant suggested that the applicant talk to the Code Enforcement Officer, as the CEO may be of the opinion that he will not grant a building permit until this is resolved.  Mr. Stelmack confirmed with Mr. Grant that Mr. Grant’s comments were in reply to Mr. Stelmack’s concerns.  Mr. McCullough said that the house is no longer occupied, and they simply wanted some time to decide how to modify the structure and to allow the builder on the other lot some time to get his foundation in.  Mr. McCullough said he would speak to the Code Enforcement Officer.

Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion grant Kenneth and Carolyn Grondin’s request for an amendment of Stagecoach Lane, a private way, located at the end of Harding Bridge Road with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.  [9:35 p.m.]


8.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE – “LITTLE RIVER FARMS” – off 129 HARDING BRIDGE ROAD – LITTLE RIVER PROPERTIES, LLC
Discussion of a proposed 14-lot subdivision on 80+/- acres on land formerly of Johnson. Zoned R-SZ-RP; M50/L13.

Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of Little River Properties, L.L.C., whose principals are Carolyn and Kenneth Grondin, and described the project, saying that this was a 72 acre parcel with a 14-lot subdivision on part of the parcel, with the remaining 34 acres as retained land not to be developed without further approvals.  He said lot sizes range from just over 40,000 square feet to over 8 acres.  He said that if there were 15 lots, DEP review and approval under the Site Location Act would become necessary.  Mr. McCullough said that the Harding Bridge Road right of way terminates at this property, but formerly Harding Bridge continued on around, across the River and over to Queen Street.  He said the Town discontinued that section beginning at 129 Harding Bridge Road in the 1980s, so it reverts back to the owners on each side, with the Town, however, retaining a public easement to provide access to the River.  He said that the nearest public water to the site is the better part of 3500-4000 feet away, but if and when Gilbert Homes develops its proposed project, that would bring water to within 300 feet of this property, and the applicants would be interested in putting public water in if the timing works out.  Mr. McCullough said that the Portland Water District has a 42-inch main on an abutter’s property, which could be another option for the applicant to pursue.  If public water is not feasible, the applicants would propose wells on the property, with either a fire pond or sprinkler systems for fire protection.  Mr. McCullough said that the proposed roadway from the terminus of Harding Bridge Road would not exceed the 1500 feet required by the Code.  He further stated that they are performing the Net Residential Density calculations and currently are proposing relatively low densities.  He said the property is partially within the Shoreland Zone and partially within the Resource Protection Zone, and that they will stay out of the Resource Protection Zone and for the most part will stay out of the Shoreland Zone.  

Referring to a site walk for the Gilbert project, Mr. Grant asked if anyone remembered comments made about the use of the River and property along the edge, perhaps some sort of public access allowed along the river.  Mr. Parker said his impression was that there was to be some sort of access to land along the river but could not remember the specific details.  Mr. Grant said that there needs to be a determination made if some sort of commitment was made for the other project that may impact this project.  Mr. Boyce said he believed Mr. Gilbert’s engineer suggested that access to open space by the River would be retained for the use of the property owners in that subdivision.  Mr. Grant said that there needs to be some consistency for what is required from this applicant, based on what was required of Mr. Gilbert.  Mr. Boyce concurred, saying the Board would want this applicant to consider the interests of the Town in having access along the River corridor and access to it from the infrastructure that would bring people to it.  Mr. Boyce said he would like to see a potential layout of lots for the Phase 2 plan for the property to see if this application is making best use of the property.  Mr. Grondin commented that there is a phase 2 in the project in order to add some more lots to fund the water line.  Mr. Grondin said he would be glad to work with the Town in providing some sort of public access through the use of the discontinued Harding Bridge Road and hopes that the Town will work with him.  Mr. Grant said that the question of public water is one of timing, but if there is no public water available, he personally will be looking for sprinkled homes or public water.  

Mr. Parker said he was uncomfortable if the only reason for developing half of this now is to avoid a review process that would take place if the entire project were under consideration.  Mr. McCullough said that originally the project was to be 14 lots, and when the issue of bringing in public water arose, Mr. Grondin needed to keep some options open, so there is a future phase of adding at most 8 to 10 lots to the project.  Mr. Stelmack asked if DEP review would be required if the 8 to 10 lots were added; Mr. McCullough replied that the Site Location law specifies review for 15 or more lots on 30 or more acres, and they would be in the range of 24 lots on 72 acres, which would require permit from DEP.  Mr. Grant said he has no problem with developers phasing their developments.  Mr. Boyce said that Phase 1 would not be subject to DEP review, but Phase 2 would bring the entire site into DEP review.  Mr. McCullough concurred.  Mr. Parker said he was more comfortable with the idea of deferring and not avoiding review.

Mr. Grant asked staff to schedule a site walk.


9.      ADJOURNMENT

Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes, 1 nay (Ms. Robie).  [10:00 p.m.]

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
_________________, 2004


P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\Agendas\Minutes\PBMN04FY\PBMN040504.doc
3.      BLASTING PERMIT AMENDMENT – “BRANDY BROOK QUARRY” – off OSSIPEE TRAIL/ROUTE 25 – R. J. GRONDIN & SONS
Approved
Conditions of Approval
That this amendment is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the request for amendment 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;

That the applicant has subcontracted with McGoldrick Bros. Blasting Services, Inc. of Windham, Maine, to perform the blasting at the site. The applicant shall submit an appropriate certificate of liability insurance prior to the commencement of any blasting operations at the quarry in an amount approved in advance by the Town Manager as sufficient to cover any damage reasonably likely to occur; and furthermore, that the Town shall be named as an additional insured and the Town notified at least fifteen (15) days in advance, if the insurance policy lapses;

That any changes in the blasting subcontractor will require the operator to notify the Town of Gorham and submit an appropriate certificate of liability insurance prior to the commencement of any blasting operations at the quarry in an amount approved in advance by the Town Manager as sufficient to cover any damage reasonably likely to occur and furthermore, that the Town shall be named as an additional insured and the Town notified at least fifteen (15) days in advance, if the insurance policy lapses;

That the operator shall be required to submit certification of the blaster’s liability insurance on an annual basis thereafter in an amount approved in advance by the Town Manager as sufficient to cover any damage reasonably likely to occur; and furthermore, that the Town shall be named as an additional insured and the Town notified at least fifteen (15) days in advance, if the insurance policy lapses;

That prior to the first blast a pre-blast survey of all wells within 2000 feet of blast area shall be conducted to establish a base line against which any claims of adverse damage can be judged;

That with the first blast the operator and its blasting subcontractor shall perform (or at least offer to perform) both pre-blast and post-blast inspections with photographs or videotape of all abutting properties within 2000 feet of the center of the quarry;

That the operator and its blasting subcontractor shall perform (or at least offer to perform) an annual survey, to include seismograph and pictures, on properties directly abutting the quarry and any additional properties with structures within 500 of the current blast site to include seismograph and video or photographic record;

That the records for each blast, including all monitoring records, shall be filed with the Code Enforcement Officer no more than ten (10) days after each blast and all such records shall be available for public inspection and copying;

That the maximum allowed number of blasts per year is 36;

That all abutting property owners listed on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1 of 7) of the approved plans shall be given written notice at least seven (7) days in advance of each planned blast in the manner described in the final approved blasting plan and as presented in the application submission; and furthermore that this list shall be updated annually by the operator, based on the current Gorham Tax Assessor’s records.  At his option, the applicant may make alternative notification arrangements with any given abutter. Any such alternative arrangements shall be filed with the Planning Office.

11.     That the Town Engineer, the Code Enforcement Officer and the Town Planner shall be given verbal notice at least 24 hours in advance of each planned blast in the same manner described in the final approved blasting plan and furthermore, a location detail of the area of the quarry where the blast is scheduled to occur shall be submitted to the Town Planner at the same time

12.     That these conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of  Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board approval and a dated copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planner within five (5) days of the date of recording.


4.      PRELIMINARY & FINAL SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “KEENE DRIVE SUBDIVISION” – off 10 KEENE DRIVE – ROBERT & ELEANOR HAUSER
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 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;

3.      That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;

4.      That prior to commencement of construction on Lot # 3A, a New System Variance for an approved Subsurface Waste Disposal System, be granted by the State of Maine and further approved by the Town of Gorham Plumbing Inspector; and

5.      That the amended subdivision plan and related Decision Document 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 and a copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planning Office.


7.      PRIVATE WAY AMENDMENT – “STAGECOACH LANE” – off 129 HARDING BRIDGE ROAD – KENNETH & CAROLYN GRONDIN
Approved
Conditions of Approval
1.      That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;

2.      That all previous conditions of approval attached to the private way will remain in effect; and

3.      That the amended private way plan and related Decision Document 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 and a copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planning Office.