Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
02/09/2004 Planning Board Minutes
Town of Gorham
February 9, 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
THOMAS HUGHES                           AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY                             BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE                             

Member Absent:
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR.
RICHARD SHIERS

The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.  The Secretary called the roll, noting that Douglas Boyce and Richard Shiers were absent.

The Chairman announced that a Board member term will expire at the end of March, leaving a position open on the Board, and suggested that anyone interested in applying for the position should contact the Town Clerk for an application.

1.      OFF-SITE PARKING – 21 MAIN STREET – BARBARA J. KEENE
Request for approval of off-site parking. Zoned VC; M102; L105.

Mr. Shields explained that it is a requirement in the ordinance for the minor site plan review committee that if there are parking requirements that cannot be met the application must come before the Planning Board.  The applicant therefore is asking for the approval of one off-site parking space pursuant to Chapter II, Section II, in the Land Use and Development Code, which the Planning Board can allow under certain conditions.  He explained that the applicant is undergoing minor site plan review to convert an existing single-family home to mixed-use occupancy, with the property being divided into two units: an apartment to be occupied by the applicant’s son and approximately 240 square feet of office space which the applicant will use for a skin care business.  Under the Code parking requirements, the site requires 2 spaces for the residential unit and one for the business.  The applicant is proposing to provide 2 spaces on site in the location of the existing garage, which will be torn down, with a turn around in the rear of the existing building.  Because of the limited size of the lot and the Village Center District standards, parking is not permitted in the front, side or rear yard setbacks, therefore limiting the space available to create the required on-site parking.  Mr. Shields said that the applicant has found a site for the lease of one parking space at 42 Main Street, which is behind the “Book Worm,” approximately 250 feet away, and she has provided a copy of the proposed lease agreement.  Mr. Shields said that either the applicant or her son will use the leased space, her normal business hours are 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., typically when her son will be off site, and this schedule and the location of the leased space across the street seem to make this an appropriate request in order for approval.

Mr. Neily referred to correspondence from Mr. and Mr. Traill and expressed his concern that there be no intrusion on their property.  The applicant concurred.

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

Mr. Parker commented that should this business cease at this location, these parking arrangements would no longer apply to any new use of the property.  Mr. Shields said that this is conditioned in the Conditions of Approval for the minor site plan review, that this lease is only with her, and if she leaves the lease goes away as well.  

Susan Robie MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant Barbara J. Keene’s request for approval of off-site parking for one vehicle at 42 Main Street, Map 102, Lot 114, to satisfy the parking requirements of the applicant’s building use at 21 Main Street, Map 102, Lot 105.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Richard Shiers absent).  [7:09 p.m.]


2.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – “NOTTINGHAM WOODS” – off WOODS ROAD – CHASE CUSTOM HOMES & FINANCE
Request for preliminary subdivision approval for an 8-lot residential development with a 1,500’ proposed public road on 17.3 acres.  Zoned Rural; M54/L12.

Jeff Perry, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant, and said there still remains work to be done with respect to environmental permitting and final lot grading for stormwater management.  He said the plan itself has not changed except that the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 has been modified giving more building envelope land area for Lot 1.  Mr. Perry confirmed to Mr. Grant that the project will have underground utilities and sprinkled houses.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the 1500 foot road, constructed to a Rural Access standard, will serve 8 lots ranging in size from 66,000 to 156,000 square feet with at least 200 feet of frontage per lot, and the lots will be served by private wells and private on-site septic and underground utilities.   He said that there are several permits still to be obtained from the DEP, and since the outcome of those threshold permits may alter the outcome of the final plans, staff has asked that the Board condition this approval on those permits being granted prior to the application for final approval.  He said that the applicant is not proposing to leave a separate dedicated right of way to adjacent undeveloped land because the proposed roadway abuts and runs parallel to an existing undeveloped parcel that is shown on the plan as property “N/F of Stephen Watts,” so this parcel can be accessed directly from the proposed subdivision road, and there is no need to require a right of way in this direction.  Further, Mr. Shields also noted that the property at the back does not lend itself to a continuation because of its wetland topography, and that the Board should let the applicant know if the roadway continuation requirement would be waived.  Mr. Shields said that staff has asked the applicant’s hydrogeologist Mark Cenci to provide an opinion as to whether there is any impact on the nitrate plume from the road accessing the pond on Lot 1.  Mr. Shields commented that there may be some items necessary for discussion in connection with the Net Residential Density Calculations and the 20 to 33 percent slopes.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Nancy Taber identified herself as the present owner of the Watts property, and asked about the future right of way to undeveloped properties.  Mr. Shields replied that the right of way runs adjacent to her property line, and if accepted by the Town would give legal road frontage to develop her property.  Mrs. Taber said that the land is currently under tree growth and she has no plans to develop any of her land.  Mrs. Taber asked if a buffer zone would be possible.  The Chairman replied that there is no requirement in the Code to buffer single homes from single homes.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.

Mr. Grant asked the Board if the members were satisfied that the requirement for providing access to abutting land has been met; no one disagreed.

Ms. Robie commented that the Ordinance requires that 20% slopes and above be shown on the plans and included in the Net Residential Density Calculations, and it does not appear that this has been done.  Mr. Perry confirmed that the 20% slopes are not shown or deducted on the plan before the Board.  Ms. Robie asked if there were a possibility that when that is done the number of lots becomes marginal; Mr. Perry concurred that this might be so and that he would contact staff about any changes in the calculations.  Ms. Robie said that she has real concern about Lots 1 and 2, given the nature of the soils and wetland, and if there has to be a reduction in the number of lots, she would prefer that it happen in that area.  Mr. Perry said he understood and concurred.  Mr. Parker asked if Lot 2, because of its trapezoidal shape, has adequate road frontage.  Mr. Shields said Lot 2 has enough frontage.  Ms. Fossum said that lot frontage is measured along the street line, except in Suburban Residential on a turning circle.  Mr. Shields asked if the Board concurred that the 20 to 33% slopes should be removed from the density calculations; Mr. Grant read that portion of the Code dealing with the required deductions, No. 7, as follows:  “Sloped areas of 20 to 33% shall also be deducted unless the developer can demonstrate to the Planning Board’s satisfaction that these slopes will be used as part of the overall plan for the development and that they are stable for structures.”  Mr. Shields said that the Board lately has seen plans which show the 20 to 33% slopes information and what will be developed on those slopes so the Board can discuss the issue.  Mr. Grant said the information should be on the plan, and asked if the Board was concerned enough about the omission to hold up granting preliminary approval.  Mr. Parker said he believed that before the applicant received preliminary approval, the presentation should show the slopes and what the applicant intends to do on those slopes.  After discussion, the Board agreed that preliminary approval should be postponed until the applicant has made the necessary changes on the plans and the calculations have been adjusted accordingly.

Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to postpone preliminary plan approval on Chase Custom Homes & Finance’s proposed “Nottingham Woods,” an 8-lot residential subdivision on 17.3 acres off Wood Road, zoned Rural Residential Map 54/Lot 12 until the applicant is ready to come back before the Board.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Richard Shiers absent).  [7:30 p.m.]


3.      SUBDIVISION PLAN / SITE PLAN – “MORRILL PLACE” – off 42 MORRILL AVENUE – PINES OF PORTLAND, INC.
Discussion of proposed sidewalk alternatives along Morrill Avenue and Ball Park Road for a 20-unit (10 duplexes) condominium development on 7.5 acres on land of Phinney. Zoned UR; Map 106/Lot 19; Map 25/Lot 6.

Jeff Perry, Sebago Technics, spoke about the site walk held on February 5, 2004, at which time the Board viewed the preliminary layout plan for each of the three sidewalk alternatives (south side of Morrill, north side of Morrill and Ball Park Road), with Ball Park Road being the developer’s preferred plan for reasons related to the width of Morrill Avenue.  He said that his interpretation of what was said at the site walk was that regardless of the width of the right of way, a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue was not desirable, and the most viable sidewalk location would be on the westerly side or Robie Park side of Ball Park Road, the right of way on Ball Park Road is 50 feet, the road is crowned with very little shoulder and stormwater sheds directly into the Park into grassy areas.  He said that the west side of Ball Park appears to have adequate width between the edge of the pavement and the right of way to install a sidewalk, and the only remaining question would be how far to extend the sidewalk.  He said that the developers are willing to do the survey, design and installation of the sidewalk on Ball Park Road if that is the intent of the Board.

Ms. Fossum made the staff comments, saying that when this was last before the Board on January 12, 2004, one of the major questions was the actual width of the right of way on Morrill Avenue, and the applicant’s surveyor presented a letter concluding that the only right of way width that can be established with any certainty is the two rod width.  Thereafter, staff met with the applicant to discuss the feasibility of placing a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue within that two-rod right of way, either on the north or the south side, with the applicant staking it for the February 5 site walk.  

Mr. Grant spoke of a letter received from the Public Works Director, Robert Burns, stating that a sidewalk could be installed on Morrill Avenue but it would be tight and would require considerable work trimming trees, etc.  Mr. Hughes commented that of the three options, Ball Park Road seems to be the most logical, and said he would want to see granite curbing on that sidewalk.  Mr. Hughes also commented that the internal sidewalk out of the proposed development would be more safely placed on the left as traffic would be exiting to the right.  Mr. Perry concurred.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Lisa Bolduc, 7 Sylvan Road, said that this is a safety issues created by the traffic on Morrill Avenue, and suggested that the developer work with the Town to modify the infrastructure to improve the safety issues.  She said that a number of projects have exacerbated the safety concerns without dealing with the issue.  Ms. Bolduc said that a sidewalk on Ball Park Road would solve nothing.

Peggy Clements, 10 Morrill Avenue, asked to what existing sidewalk a sidewalk on Ball Park Road would be intended to connect.  Mr. Grant explained the route that would be involved which would connect to the sidewalk in front of the new Community Center.  Ms. Clements suggested that a sidewalk coming out of the development be a raised sidewalk to make it more obvious to moving traffic, as well as a painted crosswalk.  Ms. Clements commented about the foot traffic on Morrill Avenue which she believes will continue irrespective of a sidewalk on Ball Park Road.  In response to a direct question from the Chairman, Ms. Clements said she would favor a sidewalk in front of her home and would be willing to give up part of her property for that purpose.  Mr. Grant suggested that the residents of Morrill Avenue who would be willing to have a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue should contact the Town Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.

Ms. Robie asked the Public Works Director, Bob Burns, to comment about a sidewalk being installed on Morrill Avenue.  Mr. Burns said that if the Planning Board were to waive the esplanade requirement, there could be the possibility of fitting a five-foot wide sidewalk against a curb and maintaining two 11-foot lanes and a 4-foot sidewalk, with closed section drainage.  He said he believes that Morrill is a narrow road, and said although he proposed an option that could fit within the 33 foot existing right of way, it is not necessarily a perfect design as it has issues as well.  Mr. Burns said all the trees on the north side would be lost as a result, and even if it were put on the south side, the required paving would kill the trees as well, and the utility poles would all have to be moved.  Mr. Burns concurred with a comment from Mr. Grant that one cannot use the full 33-foot right of way without impacting the trees.  In response to a question from Ms. Robie, Mr. Burns said that raised sidewalks could be warranted if there is indeed cut-through traffic and speeding issues, and Public Works could look into the matter to see if those conditions exist.

Mr. Grant asked the Board for comments.  Mr. Hughes said Ball Park Road is the only practical alternative for a sidewalk.  Mr. Neily concurred.  Ms. Robie also concurred, but said the Town might be better served if the developer spent his money on raised crosswalks, rather than side walks. Mr. Neily asked if the Registry of Deeds could be checked to determine if action was taken in 1955 to establish a width of Morrill Avenue that is different than a two-rod road.  Ms. Fossum said that certainly they could ask for someone to do that research at the Registry of Deeds.  Ms. Robie commented that a sidewalk would provide additional safety but would not alleviate the major safety problems on Morrill Avenue.  Ms. Fossum said that a raised crosswalk is a possibility from a traffic safety perspective that is within the Board’s jurisdiction, but would be dependent upon a finding that the traffic is cut through traffic.  Mr. Grant said that this project would add only a minute amount of traffic to the overall picture.  Mr. Neily commented that it appears there is a majority of the Board who think that there should be a sidewalk connecting in to Ball Park Road.  Mr. Grant restated the Board’s desire to have a sidewalk with granite curbing on the west side of Ball Park Road and that it line up with the curbing at the Baxter Library.  [8:05 p.m.]


4.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE – SUBDIVISION / PRIVATE WAY PLAN – off 80 LONGFELLOW ROAD – NICHOLAS J. PORTLOCK
Discussion of a proposed 8-lot subdivision on a 17.45-acre site at 80 Longfellow Road Zoned R; M11/L17.

Les Berry, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant, and said that the boundary line and topo surveys have been done, and the soils and wetlands have been mapped.  Mr. Berry commented that the two lots previously sold in 1998, leaving this parcel as the “third lot” as a homestead exemption, could perhaps be added to this plan inasmuch as Mr. Portlock has purchased those lots and it could therefore become a 10-lot subdivision instead of an 8-lot subdivision.  Mr. Berry said that perhaps the Town Attorney could opine on the issue.  In reply to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Berry said the parcel is almost ½ mile down to Lowell Road and there is no water in this area.

Ms. Robie asked Mr. Berry to include the 20% slopes.  Mr. Berry replied that they have not yet made their calculations but the slopes will be included before the applicant returns for preliminary approval.

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

The Chairman directed that a site walk be scheduled.  [8:08 p.m.]


5.      PRIVATE WAY PLAN – “HARDING BRIDGE ROAD EXTENSION” – off 129 HARDING BRIDGE ROAD – KENNETH & CAROLYN GRONDIN
Request for private way approval for a 400-foot private way serving two new lots on land of Johnson. Zoned Rural Shoreland Overlay-Resource Protection Zone; M50/L13.

Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants, saying that Kenneth Grondin was also present.  Mr. McCullough said that the applicant is presently before the Appeals Board to seek a variance for the front yard setback on the existing house on the property.  He explained that Harding Bridge Road was abandoned and the house has 50 feet of frontage on that old road.  He said that there is a public easement over the road, but the Town has discontinued its interest in it.  He said that regardless of what happens with the Appeal, they wish to move forward with the private way approval.  Mr. McCullough explained that if the appeal goes through they would get the front yard setback, and if it does not go through, the applicant will either remove a portion or relocate the house.  He described the private way as 344 feet in length with a turn around, one lot and the existing lot on one side, and the remainder of the parcel on the other.  He said the applicant hopes to move forward with a subdivision with the remainder of the parcel, which would come back to the Board under subdivision review in the near future.  Mr. McCullough referred to Condition of Approval #4, requiring that before the issuance of any building permit for any of the new lots served by the private way, the appeal before the ZBA must be approved or the house must be modified so that it is not non-conforming, and asked the Board to consider allowing the applicant to move forward with the project by amending COA #4 so that it specifies a certificate of occupancy rather than a building permit.  He said this would permit the applicant to give Mr. Johnson time to move out of the house and the applicant time to make adjustments to the house whether the ZBA appeal is granted or not.

Ms. Fossum said that staff’s concern was that the purchaser of the new building lot might be able to build the home on the lot quickly and be ready for and in need of an occupancy permit before the applicant for the private way is able to work out the Johnson house situation.  Mr. McCullough confirmed that they will be selling the one lot before their appeal issue is resolved, and depending on the ZBA decision, the applicant is prepared to either remove a portion of the house or relocate it in its entirety, but the applicant’s concern is to give Mr. Johnson time to vacate the house and allow the purchaser of the new lot to go forward.  

Mr. Hughes asked if the person living in the house was the owner or was renting; Mr. McCullough replied that the occupant was Mr. Johnson, who owns the entire parcel that the applicant is purchasing.  Mr. Neily said he was satisfied that the applicant can resolve the issue and is prepared to support it.  Mr. Grant commented that he believed changing COA #4 to a certificate of occupancy rather than a building permit would not be a problem.  Mr. Parker said it seemed to be a reasonable solution among reasonable people and hopefully would not prevent the purchaser of the new lot from occupying his home.  Mr. Parker said he did not like the precedent it might establish.

Ms. Fossum said that ordinarily a developer could not move forward without the ZBA approval and the Code Officer requested that a condition be placed on this that the applicant must obtain a variance from the ZBA prior to moving forward with the project at all.  She said that COA #4 was therefore somewhat of a compromise to that request.  Mr. McCullough said that he believes this is a resolvable issue, either they get the appeal or they don’t, and if they don’t, the applicant needs time to permit Mr. Johnson to move out before the house is then modified.  Mr. Grant asked how, if the new house lot took its frontage off the private way, construction on the new house could begin before the private way is built.  Mr. McCullough said that it will be bonded and under construction as the construction work begins on the new lot.  

None of the Board members indicated any problem with the proposed change to Condition of Approval #4 to read as follows:  “That prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy permit for the new lot served by the private way, the applicant must obtain a variance from the ZBA or remove any and all structures that would be located within the required setbacks from the private way.

Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant Kenneth and Carolyn Grondin’s request for approval 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 as discussed within this meeting, and discussed with the applicant.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Richard Shiers absent).  [8:15 p.m.]


Michael Parker asked for permission to return to Agenda Item 3 to discuss a letter received by Ms. Robie asking that the Morrill Place development site be re-examined by another soils scientist.  Mr. Grant replied that it was inappropriate to bring this item up again inasmuch as the applicants and their engineers had left.


6.      ADJOURNMENT

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Richard Shiers absent).  [8:19 p.m.]

Respectfully submitted,


__________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
__________________________, 2004
5.      PRIVATE WAY PLAN – “HARDING BRIDGE ROAD EXTENSION” – off 129 HARDING BRIDGE ROAD – KENNETH & CAROLYN GRONDIN

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 prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy permit for the new lot served by the private way, the applicant must obtain a variance from the ZBA or remove any and all structures that would be located within the required setbacks from the private way;

5.      That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Fire Chief and Police Chief;

6.      That the applicant’s engineer shall certify that the streets or ways have been constructed in accordance with the specifications of the Town of Gorham’s Land Use and Development Code and in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Board. Furthermore the applicant’s engineer will be responsible for providing record drawings accurately reflecting these improvements as required by the Code;

7.      That prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for any of the lots served by the private way, the Town’s Inspecting Engineer shall certify to the Code Enforcement Officer that the private way has been constructed in accordance with Chapter II, Section V, and the approved Private Way Plan; and

8.      That the private way plan and the approved maintenance agreement 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 maintenance agreement shall be returned to the Town Planner.