Town of Gorham
February 2, 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 BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
CLARK NEILY
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A Minutes of January 5, 2004:
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of January 5, 2004, as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:02 p.m.]
B. Minutes of January 12, 2004:
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of January 12, 2004, as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. {7:03 p.m.]
2. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – “ST. ANTHONY’S WOODS” – off NEW PORTLAND ROAD, LOWELL ROAD & LONGFELLOW STREET – ROGER ST. PIERRE
Request for preliminary subdivision approval for an 8-lot residential development on 24 acres. Zoned R/MH; M11/L1.
Bill Thompson, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Roger St. Pierre, and introduced Michael Cooper. Mr. Thompson discussed the plan as it had first appeared before the Board in 2002 and then again in 2003. He said that the project proposes to extend approximately 1400 feet of sewer line and 500 feet of water line within New Portland Road, as well as 700 feet of sewer line and 400 feet of water line installed within Longfellow Street, which would require approval of an inter-municipal agreement between the City of Westbrook and the Town of Gorham and approval of the Portland Water District. Mr. Thompson said that the parcel is within the Rural Zone, and the maximum density the parcel can support is 12 lots, with a projected phase 2 coming in off Longfellow Road with a private road to
serve the remaining density within the center Lot 8 of 16.51 acres, which at present is to be retained by the applicant. Mr. Thompson said that New Portland Road is a low speed road, with a posted speed of 30 miles per hour, and in the interest of being sensitive to curb cuts, the proposal would have two new curb cuts on the 1200 feet of roadway controlled by Mr. St. Pierre on New Portland Road, which would be a shared driveway between Lots 3 and 4, and a single curb cut for Lot 2. He said that the Lot 1 driveway would be on Lowell Road, and three lots would have their own curb cuts on Longfellow Road.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the Board needs to consider certain threshold questions presented by this application. He mentioned the Fire Chief’s request for public water brought to the corner of Lowell and New Portland Road with two hydrants in between to serve the 4 lots on that frontage. Mr. Shields said that even though the plans meet PUC regulations, the Portland Water District would like to see the developer “close the gap” of some 300 feet in the water lines between Lots 5 and 8 in the project because of the PWD’s concern about water quality resulting from two stagnant ends. Mr. Shields also said that the applicant is proposing to extend 2100 feet of sewer line and 900 feet of water line along two different public rights of way, requiring
inter-municipal agreement between Westbrook and Gorham, and that it might be more economically feasible to extend along only one of those routes and develop an internal road system for the subdivision. Mr. Shields discussed the calculations first made for the project under the Rural Land Management system and the calculations now under Net Residential Density. Mr. Thompson confirmed that the density calculations (1,019,304 square feet) do not include Lot Q, the development parcel without Lot Q is 23.391 acres, and the allowable density is 12 additional lots. Mr. Shields said that Lot 8 of 16.51 acres could be further subdivided in the future, but that would need Planning Board approval. Mr. Shields quoted the language of the Zoning Code (“The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be used to calculate the net residential density of the site or the maximum number of dwelling units that can be placed on a parcel. Individual lots in a subdivision may
vary in size as long as the subdivision conforms to the overall net residential density of the parcel, no lot for a single-family home is smaller than 40,000 square feet in area, and the individual lots are laid out to reflect the development suitability of the parcel.”) and asked the Board to consider whether or not this application meets the intent of the ordinance and the Zoning Code language, and whether this is the best, safest and most cost effective form of development for this site. He said that the water and sewer line extensions will be very costly, and suggested that perhaps the applicant should consider cluster development with an internal subdivision road with open space at the Longfellow and New Portland Road perimeters.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Diana Libby, New Portland Road and Bartlett Road, asked Mr. Thompson to show on the plan where the two proposed curb cuts were to be on New Portland Road, as well as showing her the proposed water and sewer line locations.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED
Mr. Parker said that staff’s views seem to represent a significant departure from what is being submitted, and has staff expressed those views to the applicant but still gotten the current plan without an internal road. Mr. Shields said that the applicant wants to move forward with this project, which was ready for approval a year and a half ago. Mr. Shields further said that the applicant is aware of staff’s concerns. Mr. Shiers said he is at odds with the application and does not believe that it conforms to the Code requirements for the Rural District, particularly the 60,000 sf requirement. Mr. Shiers said he understood that under another district’s requirements, this project could have been much denser, with the center lot being smaller, and that if this project were presented
as a cluster subdivision, it might be better for the applicant. Mr. Hughes asked the applicant what the reason is for not having an internal road, saying he did not agree that New Portland Road was a “slow speed road,” and the State is asking that curb cuts be minimized. Michael Cooper responded that the costs involved make an internal road prohibitive based on the allowable density to recover those costs. Mr. Cooper said that discussions have been held in the past about the rural zone classification of the parcel even though water and sewer have been available to the site, that they do not like this plan but it seems to be all that is available to them under the Town’s Zoning Ordinance if Mr. St. Pierre is going to at least get the cost of the development back from this subdivision. Mr. Cooper said that he believed that the site as it is presently zoned can only contribute to the sprawl that is such a problem in Gorham. Mr. Cooper
said that the site should be zoned for a higher density and that the applicant would like to work with the Board to properly develop the parcel.
Mr. Grant asked if the applicant has ever tried to get the site rezoned in the past. Mr. Cooper replied that Mr. St. Pierre has talked to the Town about a rezoning adjustment as recently as two years ago, and if the Planning Board agreed that this proposal would contribute to sprawl, they would pull the proposal off the table in order to work with staff, the Town Manager and the Ordinance Committee in an attempt to develop some rational way to zone the property as an asset to the Town rather than simply meeting the minimum standards for an inappropriate zoning classification for the parcel. Mr. Grant asked staff if they were aware of any official investigation into the rezoning of the parcel. Mr. Shields replied that Mr. St. Pierre has received a negative response of not wanting to rezone this
piece of property. Mr. St. Pierre replied that that occurred over ten years ago, and said he received the impression that the desire was to rezone his land to industrial instead of residential. Mr. Shields said that there are other options that could work such as lots with 100-foot frontages and an internal road, with 20,000 to 30,000 square foot lots, which is permitted under the cluster provisions of the Ordinance. Mr. Shields said that the Board has the right, if they think it is a better form of development, to reduce the standards in the Rural zone, so long as it does not exceed the 12 lots permitted as well, particularly as this parcel is right next to the City of Westbrook with 5000 square foot lots abutting it. Mr. Cooper said that while some of the development costs could be cut by going with the smaller lots and smaller frontage, those lots cannot be sold for the value that can be obtained for the larger lots, and 12 lots cannot offset the cost of
the internal road system.
Mr. Grant commented that he believed the proposed curb cuts on New Portland Road are not a good idea and probably cannot be approved from a safety standpoint. He said he did not understand why this parcel is still zoned rural. Mr. Boyce said he was pleased to hear the applicant say that there is an opportunity to look at a more dense zoning for this parcel, and that given its location near Westbrook, a more dense development is not inappropriate. Mr. Boyce asked staff if the Board should make a strong recommendation in favor of a rezoning recommendation to the Town Council. Ms. Fossum replied that it would be up to the applicant to make the request to go before the Council and explore the option of rezoning, following the current procedure which allows an applicant to simply write a letter of
inquiry to the Town Manager requesting an initial meeting with the Council to get a sense of how the Council might feel about such a rezoning. Ms. Fossum said she believed it would be appropriate at that point for Planning staff to forward the Planning Board members’ comments to the Council in advance of having an actual referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Cooper said he believed that Mr. St. Pierre is reluctant to go before the Council unless the Planning Board agrees that it is appropriate to consider this parcel for rezoning, and that he does not feel the Council will consider a rezoning unless the Board agrees that it should go in that direction.
Mr. Grant explained to the public that the Planning Board can send a recommendation to the Council to rezone, and after the Council has heard the applicant, it can decide to send it back to the Planning Board for it to be done. Ms. Robie said she agreed with the applicant that the property does not lend itself to the development that is proposed, and would be better off in a different zone. She said that if it remains in this zone, the only alternative that she could feel comfortable with would be some type of high-density cluster development. Ms. Robie said she would be supportive of a recommendation to rezone the parcel. Mr. Grant said that the zone change would most probably be to Urban Residential, and for watered and sewered lots, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. Mr. Cooper
said that such a change would allow them to make this a viable project. Mr. Parker asked if contract zoning would be feasible in this instance, and said he does not believe that the proposal fits as it now stands. Ms. Robie said that whatever the plan, the safety issue on New Portland Road is important, that there should not be any additional curb cuts for individual lots, and that “closing the gap” in the water lines should be part of any future proposal. Mr. Cooper said if a plan is developed with an internal roadway system, the location of the proposed lines will probably change so that the issue may have to be revisited, although he believes that it is not the private individual’s obligation to build the infrastructure because it is currently inadequate, but that of the Portland Water District. Mr. Cooper said he believed that only if the developer cannot provide adequate water service should he be obligated to close the gap. Mr.
Neily said he is concerned about changing the zoning of the parcel because of the Town’s policy of having dense development toward the center of the Town, and rezoning this parcel to a denser development would add tremendously to the use of municipal services of the Town and Town school facilities. Mr. Hughes said he could not support this application as it currently stands because of the lack of an internal road and the current zoning, and said he would be in favor of recommending rezoning the parcel. Mr. Boyce asked the staff about the options of rezoning or a contract zone. Mr. Grant said he did not believe a contract zone is designed to allow density increases. Ms. Fossum said that a contract zone application involves a more complex process than if a property owner requests a simple zone change to an existing fixed zone, and that with the contract zone there would have to be a public benefit that the developer could emphasize. Mr. Boyce
asked staff if rezoning to a denser development is a good idea, concurring with Mr. Neily’s point about the distance of the development from the center of Town and the school system. Ms. Fossum agreed that Mr. Neily had raised some interesting points, that there is no guarantee that these units won’t draw heavily upon the Town’s services, that she did not believe the Comprehensive Plan recommended rezoning for that parcel to a higher density, and that under the cluster provisions in the Ordinance it is feasible for this to be redesigned with lesser impacts on New Portland Road and to meet the requirements of the Ordinance under the Rural zoning.
Mr. Shiers said he was neutral on the question of rezoning and his position tonight is that the applicant has submitted a subdivision plan that does not meet the Land Use Development Code in the Rural Zone. Mr. Grant asked the Board if any member felt that the application is appropriate and would support it. No one assented. Mr. Grant asked how many Board members would recommend that the applicant go to the Town Council for a rezoning of the parcel. Mr. Parker said he believed the Chairman’s question was appropriate and he would recommend that the applicant ask the Council for rezoning. Mr. Shiers stated he was neutral on this issue. Mr. Neily said he was not in favor of recommending rezoning. Ms. Robie, Mr. Boyce, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Hughes all concurred with Mr. Parker that
they would send a recommendation to the Town Council to consider rezoning of the parcel. Mr. Cooper said the applicant would prefer to have the application tabled until he is ready to return before the Board. Mr. Grant said that if the rezoning request failed, he believed that the Board and the Planning staff felt the applicant’s other option should be to consider clustering.
Susan Robie MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to table the application until the applicant is ready to return. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:09 p.m.]
3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - “SPRINGBROOK FARM” – off 17 DINGLEY SPRINGS ROAD – RISBARA BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Request for preliminary subdivision approval for a 17-lot residential cluster subdivision [16 new house lots and 1 existing single family] and 1,500-foot road on 59 +/- acres on land of Mason. The project is located within the Public Water Supply Source Water Protection Area for “Dingley Springs Estates”. Zoned R/Manufactured Housing - Shoreland Zoning; Map 81/Lot 29.
Rocky Risbara told the Board that he believes the current plan is best for the site. He introduced Nancy St. Clair, Sebago Technics, who presented an in-depth narrative about the project, referring the Board to the project’s past history and comparing a traditional layout with the clustered plan now being presented as the preferred option. Ms. St. Clair also talked about the unique involvement of the landowners and their input into the proposal. She said that the individual lots vary in size, and the current proposal leaves the most valuable part of the parcel undeveloped, creating a green buffer around the perimeter of the property. She said that the building “windows” for the lots in the field area are such that the areas suitable for the homes would be no further back than 200
feet from the front right of way line, providing a more orderly layout of those homes in the field, which would represent 9 of the total 17 in the subdivision. Ms. St. Clair mentioned that there would be two street trees per lot for the lots in the field area to provide for additional buffering. She said that because the existing farmhouse lot has sufficient frontage on Dingley Springs Road to be further subdivided, they have added a plan note indicating that the lot cannot be further subdivided. Ms. St. Clair asked the Board for consideration of a waiver of the requirement for access to adjacent properties, pointing out that parcels to the east of the site have frontages along Route 114; on the west side of the property there is a piece of land that is open space, dedicated as part of the adjacent subdivision, with a substantial parcel of land abutting that land with frontage on Shaw’s Mill Road; and access from the property to the north would require a
crossing of the Little River.
Mr. Shields commented that the plans are in very good shape and there were only a few items for the Board to consider. He asked Ms. St. Clair to identify what restrictions will apply to public use on the conservation easement, and also asked if the same kinds of use will be permitted here as are permitted on the abutting property open space. Mr. Risbara said that the snowmobile trail, which just clips the back corner of the property, is not shown on this plan, but it is their intention to allow that to continue. However on their piece, he said that they do not propose to allow public access, but limit access to the homeowners. In response to a query from Mr. Grant, Mr. Risbara said that they will address the snowmobile issue before coming back for final approval, and there will be language in
the association documents allowing snowmobiles. Mr. Risbara confirmed that it is not their intention to have this piece open to public access. In reply to Mr. Boyce, Mr. Risbara pointed out where the existing snowmobile bridge is located at the edge of the property, and the easement crossing Lot 8 is to permit access to a trail in the wetlands area. Mr. Risbara confirmed that the subdivision road is intended to be public and the use of trails and open space will be private. Mr. Risbara said it was their intent that the Gorham-Sebago Lake Land Trust be a third party holder of a conservation easement on the site, and not actually have public access.
Mr. Shields referred the Board to the need to determine if the cluster plan is the better form of development for the subdivision and if the applicant has met the required criteria for a cluster subdivision, as well as determining whether the requirement for access to adjoining undeveloped land should be waived.
Mr. Grant commented that there have been three proposed subdivisions in this area that have come before the Board in the recent past, that Dingley Springs Estates has had additional regulatory burdens imposed on their public water supply management, and that the State proposes to do work on Route 114 this summer, which would mean that there would be a 5 year ban on opening Route 114 afterward to install a water main. He said that in light of these circumstances, meetings have been held with the various developers, the Planning Staff, Town Manager and others to discuss bringing public water to this area.
Ms. Fossum said a meeting was held on January 21, 2004, with the Economic Development Subcommittee of the Town Council, staff, this applicant, Tom Greer, developer John Hawkes, another developer involved in this neighborhood, Portland Water District, and Mark Eyerman. She said that there are a number of hurdles to the extension of water in this area, such as timing for this developer, the timing of the MDOT road improvement project, and the fact that the Town Council would have to vote to fund the project up front and then collect an impact fee after the fact. She said that the full Council would discuss the matter on February 3, 2004, at which point perhaps a better sense can be gained of whether they believe that Town staff should devote the energy and resources to try to get this done in order to work it in
with the MDOT schedule this summer. Mr. Neily asked if any cost estimates were discussed at the meeting. Ms. Fossum replied that cost figures were provided by the Portland Water District; although she did not have that information immediately available, it appeared that if all three developers were ready to go at the same time, it would be financially feasible, but the bigger hurdle is timing with the MDOT project. Mr. Neily said that there would be a cost certain to each developer for each individual well, and he would like to see what the difference might be between the cumulative cost of some 50 to 60 wells versus the cost of extending public water. Mr. Grant said his sense is that the chance of extending public water will not happen.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Steve Fermanis, President of Dingley Springs Water Association, said that Dingley Springs Estates has an annual meeting scheduled for February 8, at which time the issue of water will be discussed and whether or not the 35 homes in the area will vote to try to secure public water for themselves. He said that the numbers they have seen to bring water down Shaw’s Mill Road from Standish to Dingley Springs Estates are in the $300,000 to $500,000 range. Mr. Fermanis said the residents of the development would prefer to go with public water rather than complying with the 1996 Clean Air and Water Act regulations imposed by the State and the Federal government. He said they have until September of 2004 to obtain the services of a licensed operator for their system, which could cost from $5000 to $15,000
per year. Mr. Fermanis reminded everyone that it is not just the cost of the well that should be considered, but it is also the cost of a sprinkler system in those homes unless the development is augmented with a detention pond for fire protection. Mr. Fermanis said that under Public Law 761 the residents of Dingley Springs Estates are legal abutters because of the 2500 foot radius of their well into which this development falls, and he interprets the Public Law to mean that no blasting is permitted during the course of construction of the development. He suggested that the deeds recognize that the land the homes are within the watershed area of Dingley Springs Estates because anything such as replacing a septic system after construction is completed must be approved by Dingley Springs Estates. In answer to a question from Mr. Grant, Ms. Fossum said that the Town Attorney has indicated that the Town cannot enforce deed covenants, and believes the better plan
is to put a note on the subdivision plan, which would be enforceable by the Town, identifying the Public Law to which the property owners are subject and listing those actions which are prohibited. Mr. Fermanis asked that the watershed area should also be noted on the Town’s zoning ordinance and tax maps. Ms. Fossum said that the State has provided a map which shows the limits around each of the six public water supplies within the Town of Gorham, and coordinating that information with the Town’s maps would be a useful tool which could certainly be explored.
Mr. Parker asked if any discussion occurred during the January 21 meeting about the alternate route down Shaw’s Mill Road. Ms. Fossum replied that the committee members are aware of that proposal and had available to them the cost estimates for carrying water down that route, but the committee was looking at serving more than just Dingley Springs Estates, such as Blackwood Estates and Springbrook Farms, and found that the most feasible route to serve all the subdivisions plus Dingley Springs Estates is the Route 114 route. Mr. Fermanis said that a survey of the Dingley Springs Estates residents show a 2/3 majority of the responses interested in public water, but not just to the pump house, they are interested in having it come through all the streets so that the residents are no longer responsible for
maintaining the piping in the streets. Mr. Grant commented that the Town can only spend $250,000 without a referendum, so there will probably have to be an impact fee for extension of water. Mr. Fermanis said it would be a shame if Dingley Springs Estates gets water down Shaw’s Mill Road and the developers do not take advantage of it.
Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Fermanis where this development impacts the 2500-foot radius; Ms. St. Clair estimated that it would be in the lower southwesterly quadrant of the property and does not encompass the entire parcel. Mr. Risbara said they are about 1100 feet, or half way up into the property. Ms. Fossum said staff would confirm Mr. Fermanis’ understanding that there can be no blasting if ledge is encountered on the site.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Neily commented that he is distressed that the consensus seems to be not to extend water, and suggested that if there is a delay by MDOT of the Route 114 work perhaps the issue can be revisited.
During a discussion about public access to the site’s open space, Mr. Grant said that the Code is clear that it is the applicant’s choice to keep access private with the homeowners or to make it public. Mr. Risbara confirmed that there have been many discussions on this issue, and their feeling is that access not be for public use. Mr. Risbara said they would try to put some language in their association documents which would insure the use of the snowmobile trail at the corner of the property but also give the homeowners the option of revoking that should it become a problem.
With respect to the applicant’s request for a waiver for the requirement for access to adjacent undeveloped land, Mr. Grant commented that there is no way to get across the wetlands abutting the property, the topography is not suitable for such access, there is development to the west and to the east, and there does not appear to be any meaningful use for future access.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to waive the requirement for access to adjacent undeveloped land due to the topography and wetlands. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:01 p.m.]
Mr. Shiers asked if the applicant has any plans for passive recreation. Mr. Risbara said he believed that the trails on the property satisfy the requirement for passive recreation, and that they have no plans to build any recreation fields.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the criteria necessary to develop a cluster subdivision. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:05 p.m.]
Mr. Neily expressed his alarm at the rapid development the Town is experiencing and questioned whether the Town can provide appropriate municipal services and expanded educational facilities to accommodate such an accelerated growth of residential development. Mr. Neily estimated that the Planning Board will have approved between 200 to 300 new residential units in 2004.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary approval of Risbara Brothers Construction Company’s request for Springbrook Farms Subdivision, a proposed 17-lot cluster subdivision on 59 +/- acres off Dingley Springs Road, with the following condition of approval:
1. That the applicant will secure site location approval and approval of the proposed third party easement from the MDEP, prior to the submission of its application for final approval.
Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:10 p.m.]
Mr. Parker complimented the applicant’s engineer on the narrative presented about the project.
Stretch Break from 9:10 p.m. to 9:20 p.m.
4. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE – SUBDIVISION PLAN – “STONEFIELD PHASE III” – off HARDING BRIDGE ROAD – GILBERT HOMES, INC.
Discussion of a proposed 43-lot residential subdivision on 92.10 acres off Harding Bridge Road. Zoned R/Shoreland Zoning - Resource Protected; Map 50/ Lot 6.
Bill Thompson, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained that this phase of development will continue the same type of housing as has been constructed in Stonefield Subdivision Phases I and II in this area by the developer. He said that this project would be an amendment to the original DEP Site Location Permit. There is existing public water in Phases I and II, and this project would continue the water main bringing it to Harding Bridge Road. The lots would be served by on-site septic systems. All the lots are 60,000 square feet or above, aerial topography has been accomplished, but the density calculations and wetlands mapping still remain to be done. He said that about 4000 feet of roadway is proposed to loop to Harding Bridge Road, with a dead end loop of about
1400 feet of roadway to serve the northeast corner of the parcel. He commented about the Little River and the setback requirements, saying that high intensity soils surveying and nitrate studies will be required. He said the centerline of the roadway is laid out and requested that a site walk be scheduled.
There were no staff comments. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Thompson to point out the abandoned road that goes off the end of Harding Bridge Road, and also pointed out the property on which Mr. Grondin has an option. Mr. Grant said he would like to see tax maps of abutting properties at the sitewalk. Mr. Boyce asked if a flood study has been done; Mr. Thompson said he would check into that.
Mr. Grant directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:26 p.m.]
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE – PRIVATE WAY – off FARRINGTON ROAD – GRONDIN PROPERTIES, LLC
Discussion of a proposed 455’ private way to access land owned by Grondin Properties, LLC and land recently purchased from Mr. Brown. Zoned R / Shoreland Zoning - Resource Protected; M57/L4.
Jon Whitten, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants and said that the main purpose of this private way of 455 feet off Farrington Road is to gain access to what was formerly the Brown property. In an effort to try to gain a permanent access, the Grondins have purchased the Brown property and plan to split the parcel in half, with access to the first half from the Brown Road and access to the second half from the private way as shown on the plan. He said there is a wetland area which is mapped as a Shoreland Zone on the Town maps, with a 250-foot line and a 75-foot road setback, and their right of way is outside the 75-foot setback. Mr. Whitten said he believes that the classification of this parcel as being in the “RP” zone is incorrectly illustrated on the Town maps, and a
report has been prepared for discussion with staff on this question before the applicant returns for preliminary approval.
Mr. Grant asked what the status is on Brown Road. Mr. Whitten replied that the Grondins still have access over Brown Road and are trying to establish a permanent right of way. Mr. Boyce asked what lot this private way is designed to serve; Mr. Whitten pointed out the area on the plan. Mr. Boyce asked if construction vehicles used in the mining operation would use this private way; Mr. Whitten replied that they use Brown Road.
Mr. Grant directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:40 p.m.]
6. APPLICATION CONFERENCE – PRIVATE WAY - “BLUEBERRY LANE” – off 259 NORTH GORHAM ROAD – DOMINIC R. & CRYSTAL R. AUBE SARGENT
Discussion of a proposed 500’ private way to serve 2 lots on 4/12 areas on land of Aube. Zoned SR / Manufactured Housing - Shoreland Zoning; M97/L2.
Mr. Shields confirmed that the acreage in the agenda memo description should be “4-1/2 acres.”
Bob Farthing, Survey, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicants, who are planning to build a home on the land off the North Gorham Road. He explained that the plan is designed to keep the house as close to the top of the hill as possible, and said there is plenty of site distance in both directions on North Gorham Road.
Mr. Shiers said he thought that the name “Blueberry Lane” might already exist. Mr. Farthing said he would check with the Assessor’s office.
Mr. Grant directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:45 p.m.]
7. APPLICATION CONFERENCE – SUBDIVISION (& SITE PLAN) - “GORDON FARMS PHASE II” – off FORT HILL ROAD – SMITH & SMITH CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Discussion of a proposed 24-lot residential subdivision on 58.44 acres. (Phase I, currently under construction, included 14 lots). Zoned R; M45/L23 & M47/L39
Mr. Shields asked that the phrase “Site Plan” be removed from the agenda memo description of this item.
Jon Whitten, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants Smith & Smith Construction. Mr. Whitten explained that this is Phase II of the Gordon Farms Subdivision and consists of 24 lots, an 8100 foot looped roadway through the property, the lots will be 60,000 square feet or larger, public water will be brought into the site, the lots will be served by on site individual septic systems, and it appears that a Tier II DEP permit and a Site Location Permit will be required. Mr. Whitten said that the original site walk in 2002 included the entire roadway and the centerline has not changed since then. Mr. Neily pointed out an error on the plan to Mr. Whitten.
Mr. Grant said that he believed another site walk should be scheduled in the event an abutter may have missed the 2002 site walk. He directed staff to schedule a site walk. [9:44 p.m.]
8. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [9:45 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
February 2, 2004
| 
