Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
08/02/2004 Minutes
 Town of Gorham
AUGUST 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
THOMAS HUGHES                           AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY                             BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MICHAEL PARKER                          
SUSAN ROBIE
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE-CHAIR (Arrived at 7:02 p.m.}
Members Absent:
MARK STELMACK

The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.  The Clerk called the roll, noting that Mark Stelmack was absent.  


1.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 12, 2004 & JULY 19, 2004

Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2004 Planning Board meeting.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes.  (Mr. Boyce and Mr. Stelmack absent).. [7:00 p.m.]

Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the July 19, 2004 Planning Board meeting.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes.  (Mr. Boyce and Mr. Stelmack absent).  [7:02 p.m.]



Mr. Boyce arrived at 7:02 p.m.

2.      SITE PLAN – 65 MAIN STREET - “NORWAY SAVINGS BANK-GORHAM BRANCH” - CSC, INC. dba NORWAY SAVINGS BANK
PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval of a site plan for a 1,064 sf building addition w/drive-thru and parking lot improvements at the former Key Bank building, 64 Main Street. Zoned VC; M102/L99&100.

Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Edward Williams, Vice President of Norway Savings Bank, and Clyde Blackwell, the architect.  Mr. Frank gave the Board an overview of the project, stating that it is proposed that the Bank occupy the existing building, a new 1000 square foot building will be constructed to be leased office space, a parking lot with a drive-through service window/canopy will be added, and associated improvements will be made in and around the site.  Mr. Frank said that initially it was proposed that there be a 5 foot setback variance for the new building along Elm Street, the Code Enforcement Officer had recommended a setback of 15 feet, and the Zoning Board of Appeals in April granted the applicant a 5 foot setback reduction in order to be within 10 feet of the front line.  Mr. Frank said that the one way in and one way out entrance/exit plan for the project has been modified, resulting in only one driveway off Elm Street.  Mr. Frank said that traffic will enter from Elm Street via the two-way drive, either park or go through the proposed drive-through, and come back out to exit onto Elm Street.  He said that extensive landscaping is being proposed on the site, specifically to the rear to provide a buffer between the bank and the residential neighborhood.  He said the existing access off Main Street will be closed off, new granite curbing will be installed along Main Street, the driveway will be removed and loamed and seeded, and the sidewalk will be reconstructed.  He said that they are also proposing to reconstruct the sidewalk along Elm Street, retaining the existing asphalt curbing along Elm Street, with new concrete curbing and sidewalks within the project itself.  
Clyde Blackwell, architect with Theriault/Landmann & Associates, discussed the proposed building elevation modifications, noting that the current building is gray stone with a mansard roof.  He said that he focused on maintaining as much as of the existing building as possible, choosing to match existing finishes on the exterior of the building.  He said that in order to minimize the “grayness” of the building, he added a traditional gable to the front and side of the building, which would have painted panels to brighten the building and make it less gray.  He said he felt that the existing arch-topped windows were misplaced on this building and would be replaced to make all the windows more consistent.  He said that on the Elm Street side, the stone panels would be matched, there would be painted panels with windows and a new gable.  He said that on the back of the building, a drive-through with canopy would be added, with three drive-up stations, and the mansard roof would be matched.  To summarize, Mr. Blackwell said existing finishes would be matched as much as possible, using the stone and the slate mansard, and brightening the building with painted panels and new windows.  

Mr. Neily commented that the Main Street Master Plan called for clapboard on buildings, the existing building at this site is not in compliance with the kind of architecture envisioned for the Village Center District, and asked why this had not been brought to the architect’s attention.  Mr. Blackwell said these requirements were only brought to his attention three or four weeks earlier as a result of the peer review by Terry DeWan.  Mr. Frank commented that dealing with an existing building was a delicate balancing act for the engineer and the architect.

Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, giving a synopsis of the proposed plan.  He discussed the setback variance granted on April 22, 2004, by the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Mr. Shields referenced the performance standards in the Village Center District to be met by the applicant, said that the final site report has not yet been prepared but will be prepared prior to final approval pending the outcome of some of the items discussed tonight.  He said that staff is still waiting for final reviews from outside consultants of the revised plans, which are Peter Hedrich on traffic and Terry DeWan Associates on landscape, pedestrian circulation and building architecture.  He said that Terry DeWan has reviewed and suggested revisions to the photometric plans, and staff is awaiting Mr. DeWan’s review of the applicant’s revised plans.  Mr. Shields spoke of the Land Use and Development Code’s drive-through service requirements, stating that the plans do reflect the requirement for a separate stacking lane to accommodate a minimum of 5 vehicles, a defined service window and terminal, a service window that is a minimum of 60 feet from the point of egress on to the nearest street right of way, and a service window canopy compatible with the principal use or existing building.  Mr. Shields that the applicant is proposing to construct a new concrete sidewalk along Elm Street, with the existing Elm Street bituminous curbing and esplanade to remain, with the applicant installing granite radius tip-downs at the new entrance/exit.  He said that for past projects in the downtown area, the Planning Board has asked applicants provide new concrete sidewalks and granite curbing along the street lines that the projects front.  He said that for the purpose of vehicular safety and circulation, the plans were reviewed by Peter Hedrich of Gorrill-Palmer Engineers, and the applicant has made some modifications based on that review, such as lane alignment and re-striping at the Elm Street/Water Street traffic light, and that the applicant needs to meet with MDOT to concur that a Traffic Movement Permit will not be necessary for this facility.  He said that staff is awaiting Terry DeWan’s comments about the applicant’s most recent revised landscaping plan.  Mr. Shields also commented about Mr. Blackwell’s architectural presentation, saying that the applicant has presented what its current proposal is, and staff believes that the Planning Board should discuss the plan in light of the Village District performance standards in order to make suggestions to the applicant.  Mr. Shields concluded by saying that due to the nature of the items that must be resolved, staff does not recommend final action at this time.

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

Ms. Robie suggested that the proposed plan be discussed in terms of the performance standards for the Village Center District to determine whether or not the plan meets those standards.  The rest of the Board concurred, and Mr. Grant asked for comments on the first performance standard, “Access into the Site.”
Mr. Grant commented that this is a difficult site, and the applicant has probably achieved the best solution for the site.  Mr. Neily said that he believed that the site is constricting, with not enough space for vehicles to maneuver and park, and suggested that it would be advisable that the applicant discuss with Philip Cook the possible use of the parking and the second Main Street access entrance at Cook’s Hardware.  Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Neily.  Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Neily and Mr. Grant, and asked if a fence was proposed between the applicant’s property and Cook’s, Mr. Frank replied that no fence was contemplated.  Mr. Hughes suggested that pedestrians will probably park at Cook’s and walk through the drive through area, which poses a safety problem.  Mr. Frank said that extensive landscaping is proposed to prevent that from happening, and also said that while there is no doubt bank officials would be happy to talk to Cook’s, Cook’s itself may have future development plans that would impact its own site, which is why this applicant has provided an access easement to its parking lot.  In response to Mr. Parker, Mr. Williams said that the applicant has not talked to Cook’s.   Mr. Parker indicated he agreed with Messrs. Neily, Grant, and Hughes.  Mr. Grant commented that while the applicant has followed the standards in the Code, he believes that they are more for office use and are not adequate for this type of facility, citing the fact that while 13 parking spaces meet Code, they will probably not be adequate to accommodate the 7 employees of both the bank and its tenant as well as any customers of the two businesses.  Ms. Robie agreed that the developer should speak with Cook’s and commented that from a customer’s point of view, it would be beneficial to be able to park in one place to access all three contiguous businesses.  

The Board commented on Performance Standard #2:  “Egress from the Site.”  Ms. Robie spoke about the difficult left turn across incoming right-turning traffic and said the only acceptable solution appears to be  people coming in through Cook’s and exiting that way.  Mr. Grant said he believes crossing in and out through Cook’s poses hazards due to the large expanse where access can be made.  Mr. Frank commented that there is no traffic control in Cook’s parking lot such as directional islands.

The Board commented on Performance Standard #3:  “Vehicular Circulation between Parking Lots.”  Mr. Boyce remarked that the applicant is showing a possible future easement to the Cook’s Hardware property, which would have to be subject to site plan amendment by the Planning Board.  Mr. Frank said that the applicant has no desire for a through road going through its parking lot but wanted to provide the option to Cook’s in the future.

The Board commented on Performance Standard #4:  “Parking Locations.”  Mr. Parker asked if a long bed pickup truck could maneuver comfortably within the confines.  Mr. Frank replied that this parking is in conformance with the Town’s parking standards.

The Board had no comments on Performance Standard #5:  “Reduction in Off-Street Parking.”  

The Board had no comments on Performance Standard #6:  “Relationship of the Building to the Street.”

The Board commented on Performance Standard #7:  “Pedestrian Relationships and Facilities.”  Ms. Robie asked for confirmation that the applicant was not going to continue the concrete sidewalk across the driveway.  Mr. Frank said that to do so would be a maintenance headache  and asked the Board for guidance.  Mr. Grant read from the Standard as follows:  “If a sidewalk is interrupted or crossed by a proposed driveway, access road, or other vehicular facility, the sidewalk material or design must be maintained across the driveway or another visually compatible method used to clearly delineate the sidewalk from the drive.”  After a discussion of various options in use throughout the Village such as stamped pavement or brick, Mr. Frank asked if striping would be acceptable and the Board agreed that would be satisfactory.  

The Board had no comments on Performance Standard #8:  “Motor Vehicle Facilities and Services.”

The Board commented on Performance Standard #9:  “Street Facades.”  Mr. Neily said he would encourage this as a chance to return to a traditional Village architecture.  In response to Mr. Parker, Mr. Blackwell said the panels in the gable ends and lower courses would be made of MDO plywood and the panel stiles a prime-trim material.  He told Ms. Robie that tentative colors would be light yellow for the panels, a light green for the stiles, and blue color for the window trim and the doors.  Mr. Boyce asked if the architect gave consideration to composite clapboard materials in lieu of the MDO plywood; Mr. Blackwell said he had not considered that because no one has asked him to do that.

The Board commented on Performance Standard #10:  “Signs.”  Mr. Frank said that there is nothing yet planned for the sign except that they would like to involve the tenant in the sign design.  Ms. Fossum said that the sign must be visually compatible with the building, and the applicant can return to the Board, showing the space where the tenant’s information would be located.  Mr. Neily reminded the applicant that the sign cannot be internally lit.  Mr. Boyce asked who the tenant will be, if that information is available; Mr. Williams replied that negotiations are still ongoing with a potential tenant, an insurance agency which is an independent entity not associated with the Bank.  Mr. Parker asked if there would be two signs for two businesses.  Ms. Fossum replied that both names could be on one sign, and given the size of the site, the site plan review will consider the scale of the proposed signage and its location in the Village.  Mr. Blackwell said that there will one entrance from Main Street, for the bank only, and one at the rear entrance from the parking lot which will serve a common vestibule for both the bank and the tenant.  Mr. Parker said the Board would like to see what the signs will look like and where they will be located.  

The Board commented on Performance Standard #11:  “Roof Lines.”  Mr. Grant read the standard, as follows:  “Roofs shall be designed to maintain the ‘Village Character.’  All new buildings and additions shall have pitched or gabled roofs to the extent practical.  If a pitched roof is not practical, false building fronts shall be used to imitate pitched roofs.  Accessory buildings, canopies, and other structures shall have roof lines that are visually compatible with the roof line of the principal building.”  Mr. Parker said the architect has satisfied this Standard in light of this particular building, establishing the look of pitched roofs and gables.  Mr. Boyce asked if there are any peer review comments on this topic.  Mr. Shields replied that Terry DeWan did not touch on this item.  Mr. Blackwell discussed the canopy of the three drive-throughs, showing what the roofline is proposed to look like, resembling the slate mansard roof of the existing building.  Mr. Grant commented that certain changes to the existing building would be impractical with a major overhaul.  Mr. Parker said he believed that the flat slope-edged canopy roof met the standard as it would be “…visually compatible with the roof line of the existing building.”  Mr. Boyce referred to the 2002 Gorham Village Center District Design Guidelines regarding short-term and long-term recommendations to change a building’s appearance to a more “ traditional New England building form.”  Ms. Fossum asked the architect, Mr. Blackwell, how the peaked entry will look; he replied that he was concerned about adding too much weight to the existing roof to continue the depth further and the peak will look somewhat applied.  Mr. Boyce suggested that an architectural review seems to be appropriate, he would have expected that Terry DeWan would have done an in-depth study, and he would feel more comfortable with a professional review.  Ms. Robie concurred with Mr. Boyce.  Mr. Neily reiterated that “…any additions or alterations should be designed to ultimately change the appearance of the structure to a more traditional New England building form.”  Mr. Hughes indicated that he is not in favor of the expense of an architectural peer review.  Mr. Parker concurred with Mr. Hughes, as did Mr. Grant, who suggested keeping Mr. Boyce’s suggestion in reserve.

The Board commented on Performance Standard #12:  “Building Materials.”  Mr. Grant read the Standard:  “Buildings shall be compatible with the ‘village character.’  The exterior surface of all facades that are visible from a public street shall use traditional New England materials or materials which replicate traditional materials such as vinyl clapboard siding, masonry units that replicate shake or clapboard siding, or metal or plastic roofing that simulates shake or shingle roofing.  The use of flat concrete block, corrugated or flat metal, fiberglass, or plastic panels, reflective materials, stucco, or products such as T-111 or plywood on facades visible from public streets is not permitted.”  Mr. Parker said he believed it would be difficult to apply clapboard material to the entire building, but there may be potential to do that on the false gables, and commented that stone siding is a traditional New England siding, even though it may be difficult to add to.  Mr. Blackwell said the existing building is wood frame with a 4” stone siding applied.  Mr. Blackwell said he has a copy of the appropriate sections of the Code.  Mr. Boyce said that the proposed use of plywood is not acceptable, the applicant must choose from the list of acceptable materials, and reiterated his desire for a peer architectural review.  Mr. Grant said that it is rare for staff not to have a favorable recommendation for a project.  Mr. Frank said that the situation is rare, and trying to apply the Code to an existing building has led to some gray areas on which they would like the Board’s input.  Mr. Grant commented that adding on the additional office space has driven the requirement to review the project against the Performance Standards.  A majority of the Board (Mr. Grant, Ms. Robie, Mr. Neily and Mr. Boyce) agreed that an outside peer architectural review is required.  

The Board commented on Performance Standard #13:  “Lighting.”  Mr. Boyce asked if the Board has been provided with the photometric plans reviewed by Mr. DeWan.  Mr. Shields replied that this is a missing piece as Mr. DeWan has not yet completed his review.  Mr. Frank indicated that changes have been made and new additional material will be provided as necessary.  Mr. Shields said that once it is finalized the Board will be provided with catalog cuts and any further information.

Mr. Boyce asked about a possible tenant change that might perhaps impact traffic generation.  Mr. Shields replied that part of the zoning ordinance relating to change of use provides that if this use changes from the realm of professional office, the Code Officer has very specific review criteria to determine if the proposed use is similar, and if it is not the same use, parking arrangements would change and trigger site plan approval, either minor site plan or major.  

Mr. Boyce also asked about the sidewalk and curbing along Elm Street.  Mr. Frank replied that the plan was to reconstruct part of the concrete sidewalk, put in a granite curbed radius entering the site, and leave the existing asphalt curbing on Elm Street.  Mr. Neily said that granite curbing has been required at other sites and in fairness should also be required of this applicant.  Mr. Grant said the granite curbing, esplanade and concrete sidewalk should extend to the adjacent drive, and asked that staff make sure that the esplanade be done properly with a condition of approval that there should be at least 6 inches of loam in the esplanade.  Mr. Parker asked Mr. Frank how much internal concrete curbing there would be and an approximate cost; Mr. Frank replied that there would be 120 to 150 feet, and the difference between vertical granite versus vertical concrete is about $5 difference installed.  He said that a concrete curb can be poured that is integral to a concrete sidewalk.   Mr. Frank asked about the existing esplanade; Mr. Grant replied that if it has to be torn out to install granite curbing, then it must be done properly. Mr. Hughes asked if staff will pick a review architect, Ms. Fossum replied that staff will do so, and the peer architect’s review report will be advisory to the Board using the Performance Standards against the project.  Mr. Boyce said it would be best to see the project return when the peer review architect and staff have a positive recommendation and the Board can endorse the plan.  Mr. Grant said he felt the planning staff should be involved with the peer review architect.  

Ms. Fossum brought up the recommendation in the Gorrill-Palmer traffic report that the Water Street approach be re-striped and an additional striping or arrow should be done on Elm Street, so that the lanes on Water and Elm are better aligned.  Mr. Frank said he will look at the situation, which should be worked out with the Public Works Director.  Ms. Robie asked if the traffic study addressed the left turn off Main Street.  Ms. Fossum said that staff would confer with Peter Hedrich about whether there is anything simple that can be done there.  Mr. Neily reiterated his concern about this facility creating parking on the Cook’s Hardware parking lot.

Mr. Frank listed the issues the Board would like the applicant to address as follows:  talk to abutting property owner; stripe the sidewalk extension across the driveway; definition on the sign; catalog cuts on the lighting and final photometric plan; granite curbing down Elm Street; architectural peer review; re-striping of Water Street; and looking at the timing at the intersection light.  Mr. Grant said that the re-striping of Water Street should include Elm Street with input from the Public Works Director.


Stretch Break from 8:40 to 8:50


Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to continue the public hearing and table Item #2 until the applicant is ready to return.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Stelmack absent).  [8:55 p.m.]



3.      SITE PLAN – off GORHAM INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY -  “HUDSON DISTRIBUTORS” – HUDSON RPM DISTRIBUTORS, LLC
PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval of a site plan for a 9,600 sf industrial building on 1.58 acres to serve as a wholesale magazine and newspaper distribution depot on Lot 5 in the Grondin Commercial Subdivision on land of Grondin. Zoned I; M12/L26.004.

Jim Coffin, Coffin Engineering & Survey, appeared on behalf of the applicant and discussed the changes to the plan since it was last before the Board, saying that an error in the zoning line has been corrected after discussion with staff, another access has been added off Bartlett Road for large trucks, and electrical service will be run to a new pole and then underground.  He said that Grondin has an easement for sewer, grading and drainage along the common property between Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, but it is still not clear who will maintain the easement and drainage.  Mr. Coffin referred to the changes in the landscape plan currently before the Board, and said that there will be 15 parking spaces instead of the required 12..  He asked the Board for a waiver of the 100-foot setback to 50 feet in order to accommodate the new building and improvements.  

Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that the application proposes to use two easements for which staff has not received legal confirmation of the applicant’s right to use.  The first easement is over an internal access drive constructed by Grondin which is not an industrial service road approved by staff; rather, it is a private drive to which easements will be granted to certain applicants such as Hudson Distributors.  Staff would like to know to what specifications the private drive was designed and constructed in order to assure that additional use by Hudson will be adequately served.  The other easement is for the sewer, grading and drainage along the common property between Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6; a sewer agreement is required and documentation is required permitting this applicant’s stormwater to flow to the pond on the adjacent lot.  Mr. Shields said that the legal documents need to be provided to show that this applicant has the legal right to do what it is proposing to do.  Mr. Shields also discussed the landscape plan and the applicant’s request for a waiver of the required 100-foot perimeter setback along Bartlett Road.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:

Timothy Hebert, Hebert Construction, construction manager for the project, spoke of the scheduling hardship that would be caused to the applicant by delaying approval of this project because of the lack of easements.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Mr. Grant asked if the Board could grant approval of this application with a condition of approval that the Mylar would not be signed until the legal easement documents are in hand.  Ms. Fossum said the easements were considered a major enough stumbling block that no conditions of approval have been crafted as yet for this application, adding that staff’s concern is that the applicant does not have the legal right to use this private drive, which would thereby affect circulation in the site, and that she believed it would be equally important for the applicant to have this easement in place before it can close on the property.  Mr. Grant asked the Board members if they believed that the landscaping plan is adequate to reduce the buffer from 100 feet to 50, the Board concurred.

Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion that the proposed landscaping is adequate to reduce the buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Stelmack absent).  [9:16 p.m.]

Mr. Grant advised the applicant that due to staff’s concerns about not having the easements in hand, the Board’s hands are tied and final approval cannot be voted on tonight.  Mr. Boyce commented that he believed that there should not be any exposed light sources visible from Route 25 or any other public street.  Mr. Grant suggested that the applicant bring back some catalog cuts to the next meeting showing what the lighting would look like.  Mr. Coffin commented that Grondin knows that the applicant needs the easements, but due to various factors, the applicant does not know when the easements will be secured.  As well, Mr. Coffin said it is unclear who will be responsible for maintenance of the sewer line. A discussion ensued about the construction of Grondin’s private drive, with Ms. Fossum commenting that the drive was presented as a right of way on the subdivision plan for a future driveway to serve Grondin, and during the construction of the industrial parkway, the private drive was built.  Mr. Shields said staff wants to make sure that the private drive was constructed in such a fashion that additional traffic can adequately be served, and said that the review engineer, Les Berry, is not still not completely satisfied with the plans.  Ms. Robie suggested that some sort of Condition of Approval be drawn up to cover the contingency of the applicant still not having the easements in hand when it appears before the Board at the next meeting.  Mr. Grant suggested that the applicant contact Tom Ellsworth to secure his assistance in working with the Grondins.  

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to postpone the public hearing and table this item until the applicant is ready to return.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Stelmack absent).  [9:30 p.m.]





4.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - off 80 LONGFELLOW ROAD - “STONELEIGH ESTATES” - NICHOLAS J. PORTLOCK
Request for preliminary approval of a proposed 9-lot subdivision on 17.45 acres at 80 Longfellow Road. Zoned R; M11/L17.

Les Berry, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the difference in the current proposed from the original proposal, noting a major change being that public water will be brought in to serve the development, some 1800 feet from Lowell Street to the site.  He said the project will consist of 8 new lots, with the existing farmhouse being on Lot 1, will be served by on-site septic systems, underground utilities and proposed public roads.  He said that stormwater management plan have been modified due to review comments from the Town’s Public Works Director and by peer review.  Mr. Berry said that the Portlocks will be taking on a partner, a local builder, and coming back for final approval under a new applicant name with the combined financial and technical capacity of both partners.  

Mr. Shields said that staff has no further comments.

Ms. Robie applauded the applicant’s decision to bring in public water.

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary plan approval of Nicholas J. Portlock’s proposed Stoneleigh Estates, a 9-lot residential subdivision on 17.45 acres off Longfellow Road.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Stelmack absent).  [9:40 p.m.]



5.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN – off 99 MAIN STREET - “PEOPLES BANK- GORHAM BRANCH” – BANKNORTH, N.A. d/b/a PEOPLES BANK
Discussion of a proposed site plan for a 2,470 sf retail banking office located on out-parcel “B” of the Hannaford Brothers Plaza. Zoned UC; M102/L155.

Mr. Boyce asked that as an employee of Hannaford Brothers, he be excused from participation in the discussion of this next item.

Thomas Hughes MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion that Douglas Boyce be excused from participation in the discussion of Item 5.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Mr. Stelmack absent, Mr. Boyce abstaining).  [9:45 p.m.]

David Leasure of Architectural Associates, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the proposed structure as a typical New England structure with clapboard siding, with a mixture of hip roofs and gables.  He said the proposal includes a serpentine fieldstone wall some 24 to 36” around a “pocket” park in front of the building along Main Street, with a concrete sidewalk.  He said the vehicular entrance is a one-way entrance through the parcel, with 11 parking spaces, 3 of which are for employees, and 8 shared spaces through the Bank’s lease arrangement with Hannaford, for a total of 16 spaces.  Pedestrian access will be from Main Street with a second entrance at the rear.

Mr. Grant directed that a site walk be scheduled.  (9:45 p.m.)




6.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN  off 180 MAIN STREET – DAVID R. BROWN & RICHARD REISS, PRES. CERTAINTECH BUILDERS
Discussion of a proposed 6-unit apartment building; and a 10-unit condominium development on 6.18 acres. Zoned UR/OR; M100/L6.

Les Berry, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the existing building on the site as a 6-unit apartment building on a 6.18 acre parcel.  The original proposed plan calls for the apartment building to be on a 60,000 square foot lot, with a 12-car parking lot to its rear, and a private way accessing the condominium project in the back of the parcel.  However, Mr. Berry said that it has recently been learned that there is also an 8-room rooming house in the existing building, which would make the 12-car parking lot inadequate.  Mr. Berry said that the Code Enforcement Officer has advised them that the 8-room rooming house represents one unit, so this building becomes a 7 unit building, requiring 70,000 square feet with at least a 20-car parking lot.  Mr. Berry discussed the Net Residential Density calculations, stating that the parcel would support 17 units.  Mr. Berry mentioned a 33-inch storm drain on the property, for which he could not find any Town easement showing ownership of the pipe.

The Board discussed the imposition of front and side yard setbacks on abutting property.  Mr. Boyce asked if the applicant putting in a private way renders his abutter nonconforming.. Ms. Fossum replied that the abutter’s structure does become nonconforming, but the abutter can secure a variance.  Mr. Shields commented about the concerns of the Fire Chief’s that if the driveway and parking lot of the apartment building/rooming house takes its frontage from the private way, then it in combination with the proposed new ten units represents more units allowed to take frontage off a private way.  Mr. Boyce commented about the impact on traffic on Main Street of this development, and the Board discussed the issue of the distance of the proposed road to the intersection of Main Street and Gray Road (Route 202) being less than the required 200 feet.  Mr. Berry said he would look into the intersection proximity and the number of units in the proposal.



7.      ADJOURNMENT

Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Stelmack absent).  [10:01 p.m.]


Respectfully submitted,



______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
_________________________, 2004