Town of Gorham
SEPTEMBER 20, 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 D. SHIELD, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
MICHAL PARKER BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
SUSAN ROBIE
MARK STELMACK
Member Absent:
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and read the three item Agenda. The Clerk called the roll, noting that Douglas Boyce, Vice Chairman, was absent.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 13, 2004
Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to postpone approval of the September 13, 2004 minutes. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Douglas Boyce absent). [7:01 p.m.]
Due to the potential lengthy public hearing associated with Item 2, Mr. Parker suggested taking Item 3, Site Plan application of Norway Savings Bank, out of order.
Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to take Item 3 out of order. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [7:02 p.m.]
3. SITE PLAN – 65 MAIN STREET - “NORWAY SAVINGS BANK-GORHAM BRANCH” - CSC, INC. dba NORWAY SAVINGS BANK
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
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, 65 Main Street. Zoned VC; M102/L99&100.
Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Bob Harmon, President and CEO of Norway Savings Bank, Ed Williams, Senior Vice President of Norway Savings Bank, and Ed Theriault of Theriault/Landmann Associates, the architects associated with the project. Mr. Frank explained what has been accomplished to comply with the Board’s comments and requirements from the last meeting, saying that the photometric plans have been submitted, reviewed by DeWan Associates and found acceptable, and a concrete sidewalk and esplanade and granite curbing will be provided along Elm Street to the driveway on the adjacent lot. Mr. Frank said that meetings were held with the abutting property owner (Cook’s Hardware); while unfortunately it was not possible to arrive at a specific
agreement for additional parking spaces, they have changed the site plan somewhat to propose a fence along the property line up to the vegetation buffer in an attempt to minimize through pedestrian traffic, and have eliminated one of the drive-through service lanes with two additional parallel parking spaces added. He said that the revised proposal is showing only one single freestanding sign on the front lawn area on Main Street, with the tenant’s signage incorporated with the bank’s. Mr. Frank told the Board that the plans have been reviewed and modifications suggested by Peter Hedrich of Gorrill-Palmer Engineers for purposes of vehicular safety and circulation, to which the applicants have responded. He said that striping at the intersection of Route 25 and Water Street will be modified so that the center lane out of Water Street will be a straight lane and a left turn lane, thereby aligning the lanes coming out of Elm Street, and the right lane on
Water Street will be a right turn only. Mr. Frank called the Board’s attention to the landscaping plan, saying that DeWan Associates’ suggested modifications have been made and the plan now meets with DeWan’s approval. He said that the sidewalk would be painted across the proposed driveway.
Mr. Theriault discussed changes to the street facades, roof lines and building materials, telling the Board that as a result of meetings held with an outside architectural peer review, the plans have been modified and approved which create a “traditional New England building form,” He said that present plans call for some of the stone work to be kept, cedar clapboard siding will be used and simulated shingles on top, the windows have been changed to a more traditional look, the colors selected are colonial white for the trim and the cedar shake area will be a light beige and somewhat darker for the clapboard siding.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that this application has been prepared for final approval. He presented the past history of the application, saying that the original three curb cuts on the site will now be reduced to one, concrete sidewalk with granite curbing will be installed along Elm Street, along with striping across the driveway instead of a different material. Mr. Shields remarked about the modifications that have been made to the photometric and landscaping plans. Mr. Shields touched on the lack of agreement between the applicant and Cook’s Hardware about shared parking. He also commented about the question of the left turn lane into Elm Street for traffic heading west on Route 25, saying that the traffic engineer representing the Town believes that a left turn arrow at
that intersection into Elm would cause additional delays for eastbound traffic on Main Street and is therefore undesirable. Mr. Shields also discussed the building modifications proposed by the applicant as a result of meetings held since the last Board meeting with staff, the applicants’ architect, Terry DeWan and the review consultant, Alan Kuniholm of PDT Architects.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Hughes commended the applicants for the modfications made to the plan last submitted, saying he particularly approved of the fence along the property line as a measure to ensure pedestrian safety. Mr. Grant expressed serious concern that the parking at the site is not adequate to serve the bank’s employees, customers, and the tenant’s employees and customers. Mr. Grant said he believes that the parking is inadequate based on the standards outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Neily concurred, saying it was obvious that people using the bank and the insurance company tenant will park in Cook’s parking lot due to the insufficient parking available at the site and said he has seen no solution to that problem. Mr. Neily asked if a condition of approval could be crafted prohibiting
encroachment on Cook’s parking area. Both Mr. Frank and Mr. Stelmack spoke about the enforcement difficulties of such a condition. Ms. Robie commended the Bank for the modifications they have proposed architecturally but said she supported Mr. Grant in his concern about the number of parking spaces, saying that the parking spaces at Cook’s are the most logical solution to the problem.
Mr. Frank said they believe that the plan exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Ed Williams, senior vice president of Norway Savings Bank, said that they have 15 spaces, 2 spaces in excess of ordinance requirements. He said there will probably never be more than 4 employees at the bank, and they have an agreement with the tenant that they will only use 3 spaces. Mr. Williams further indicated that the cost proposed by Cook’s Hardware for park spaces in their lot was, in the Bank’s opinion, much too high, saying that they would prefer to negotiate for additional parking after approval of the plan by the Board. Mr. Williams also indicated that he would not jeopardize the future of the project by providing inadequate parking for his employees.
Mr. Hughes asked staff if the proposal meets the ordinance or not. At Mr. Stelmack’s request, Mr. Shields replied that the proposal exceeds the minimum requirements, and explained that the appropriate guidelines were considered in arriving at the decision that the proposed parking exceeds the minimum requirements. He commented that Mr. Grant enumerated a possible number of bank and tenant employees by considering a floor plan by assuming that someone will occupy every teller station and every office at the same time. However, Mr. Shields said that the Bank determined how many people would be working at the site at any one time and how many spaces would be allocated for the tenant’s use, coming up with a total of 7 required spaces out of the 15 to be provided. Mr. Williams confirmed that
the maximum number of bank employees will be 4 at any one time and the tenant will be given 3 spaces for its use, leaving 8 spaces for use by the public. Based on the information given to staff by the Bank, Mr. Shields made his decision to recommend approval to the Board. He also commented that more and more banking is done through the drive-through window capability. Ms. Fossum commented that only the required parking needs to be within 100 feet of the site, that additional parking can be arranged for off-site by the insurance tenant. Mr. Shields concurred, saying that it is a matter of required parking versus desired parking. Mr. Shields also commented that the Master Plan for the downtown area envisions a flow between businesses, which the proposed fence along the property will discourage. Mr. Williams said that Mr. Cook agreed with the concept of the fence.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant site plan approval of Norway Savings Bank’s proposed expansion and parking lot improvements at 65 Main Street, with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes (Robie, Hughes, Parker, Stelmack), 2 nays (Grant and Neily) (Mr. Boyce absent). [7:55 p.m.]
2. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - SOUTH GORHAM – PETITION TO REZONE
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment to rezone areas of South Gorham from Suburban Residential and Rural to Roadside Commercial. These areas include the following parcels shown on the Tax Maps as: Map 3, Lots 22 and 22.002; Map 4, Lots 1.003, a part of 1.006, 5, a part of Lot 6 [now 4/6.008], 6.001, 6.003, 6.004 [now Map 4/6.401 & Map 4/6.402], 6.005 [now Map 4/6.403], 6.006 [now Map 4/6.404], a part of 6.007 and 9; Map 6, Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 35. Zoned SR/R.
Hans Hansen, 74 County Road, described the history of the citizen initiative and expressed his belief that the Town will accrue more tax and financial benefits from such proposed Roadside Commercial areas than from residential developments which cost the Town more to support. He indicated that the proposed build out of small businesses and shops would take some five to ten years.
Ms. Fossum presented the staff remarks and described the two areas of South Gorham under consideration in the proposed rezoning initiative, calling the Board’s attention to one parcel which had been included in error on the map provided to the Board and the public. She discussed the history of zoning amendments for this area of South Gorham, including one initiated by Mr. Hansen in 2001 which the Planning Board recommended that the Council not go forward with and which was not adopted by the Council. Ms. Fossum enumerated the parcels by tax number, current owner’s last name, and current zoning district which are included in the present rezoning initiative as follows:
Map/Lot Original Renumbered Lots Currently Zoned Current Owner
Map 3 / Lot 22 R/SR Hansen
Map 3 / Lot 22.002 R McFarland
Map 4 / Lot 1.003 R Plowman
Map 4 / Lot 5 R Hoyt
Map 4 / Lot 6 Lots 6.007 & 6.008 R Garand; Bruni;
Map 4 / Lot 6.001 R Ordway
Map 4 / Lot 6.004 Lots 6.401 & 6.402 R Boylen; Berube
Map 4 / Lot 6.005 Lot 6.403 R Berube
Map 4 / Lot 6.006 Lot 6.404 R Allie & Ruck
Map 4 / Lot 9 R Frick
Map 6 / Lot 27 SR Burke
Map 6 / Lot 28 SR Green
Map 6 / Lot 29 R Tapley
Map 6 / Lot 30 R Chadbourne
Map 6 / Lot 31 R Frick
Map 6 / Lot 35 R / SR Burnham
Ms. Fossum said that both the Planning Board and the Town Council are required by the Town’s Charter and State statutes to hold public hearings on this issue, with the Planning Board making an advisory recommendation to the Town Council, which has scheduled its public hearing for Thursday, September 23, with the petition question appearing on the November 2, 2004, ballot. Ms. Fossum described the proposed Roadside Commercial District as permitting a wide range of retail commercial uses through the borrowing provisions of the ordinance, including light industrial uses and auto-oriented businesses such as auto repair shops, gas stations, and the like. In reviewing the proposed rezoning, the Board must review its consistency with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. To that end, Ms. Fossum quoted the
following from Chapter III, page 7 of the Comprehensive Plan:
“d. The Town should support the concept of neighborhood commercial centers in other ‘population pockets’ to serve the day-to-day needs of local residents. To this end, the Town’s land use regulations should allow small-scale retail and service uses in designated areas consistent with the character of these neighborhoods.”
Continuing, Ms. Fossum read from Chapter IV, page three:
“B. Outlying Neighborhood Areas
These are areas which have traditionally served as neighborhood centers and which have established patterns of development. In concept, these areas should function as small-scale villages which provide pedestrian pockets and limited commercial services. Limited additional development which supports the neighborhood environment should be encouraged in these areas, and opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation should be fostered. These areas are not sewered but should have soils that are generally suited for on-site sewage disposal. The Town’s land use regulations should exclude uses in these areas which generate large volumes of traffic or which are incompatible with a neighborhood environment.
1. Neighborhood Center Subareas
These areas should function as the hubs of the various neighborhoods and this role should be encouraged. The Town should allow a mix of land uses in these centers, including residential uses, services, small scale retail uses that primarily meet local needs, and specialty commercial uses that are appropriate to the area.”
Finally, Ms. Fossum quoted from Chapter V of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Implementation Strategy, as follows:
“Creation of new zoning districts for outlying neighborhood centers. In concept, these areas should function as small scale villages that provide pedestrian pockets and limited commercial services. These districts should be applied in the areas shown on the land use plan.”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
James Bruni, appearing on behalf of his mother, spoke in support of the proposed rezoning, and inquired whether the Town has set up any roadside commercial neighborhood centers. Ms. Fossum answered affirmatively, referencing a Roadside Commercial rezoning in West Gorham, and more recently a rezoning approved on lower Main Street which abuts an existing Roadside Commercial district.
Jeff O’Donal, Burnham Road, spoke against the proposal, expressing his concern that existing Town guidelines will not be followed. He said that the Town Council has rejected rezoning in this area twice, and cited sections of the Comprehensive Plan to support his belief that the area under consideration is not suitable to such a rezoning as is currently proposed. Mr. O’Donal described the character of various parcels of property in the area devoted to agriculture and forestry, which meet a rural definition, and expressed his belief that this area of South Gorham is not compatible to a Roadside Commercial rezoning.
Royce F. O’Donal, 8 Mitchell Hill Road, opposed the proposed rezoning, giving as his reasons the current traffic conditions on Route 114 and Route 22, the fact that the Comprehensive Plan clearly states that public utilities need to be in place, and the possible negative impact on the Stroudwater River of such rezoning.
Darcy Nicely, 8 Rustic Ridge Drive, opposed the proposed rezoning, citing traffic problems and keeping the approaches into Gorham attractive, and expressed her opinion that only the lot owners of the parcels to be rezoned will benefit.
Bob Boylen, 4 Brookdale Drive, asked why his newly constructed home is included in the proposed rezoning to Roadside Commercial, and what recourse he might have to alter the rezoning. Mr. Grant explained that when Mr. Hansen originally began seeking signatures on the rezoning petition, the parcels where Mr. Boylen’s home is located were originally zoned under a contract zone as a business park, and then the zoning was restored back to Rural when Mr. Hansen had the contract zone repealed by the Town Council. Ms. Burns explained that if the referendum is approved by the voters on November 2, Mr. Boylen can approach the Town Council for a zoning change back to Rural.
Al Frick, 95 County Road, spoke in support of the proposal, stating that this is an appropriate vision and a way of revisiting the zoning issue for this area of South Gorham, that the contract zoning process is at best piecemeal, and that traffic flow can be an asset for businesses on Route 22 and Route 114.
Bill Hebert, Brackett Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing traffic issues, the lack of public water in the area, the Town has an area for business, and this is not a good deal for the neighbors.
Andrew Lambert, 25 Tapley Drive, spoke in opposition, urging viewers at home to vote against the referendum, saying that there are many issues that need to be resolved and this method is not the way to do this.
Two additional parties expressed their opposition in writing, and the Clerk read the following correspondence into the record as follows:
From David W. Wallace, 147 County Road, Gorham, dated September 20, 2004, addressed to Deborah Fossum, Planning Board and Town Council:
“Good Evening:
I am not able to attend the public hearing this evening, but I want to have a few comments entered into the record on the matter of the rezoning of a part of South Gorham to Roadside Commercial.
This matter has been before us quite a number of times over the past approximately 10 years and each time it has been declined by the Town because it will contribute adversely to the traffic and development problems in the area of the intersection of Route 22 and 114. It is not an area that lends itself to commercial development because it is not a destination but rather just a pass-by on the way to somewhere else.
I have three items to note for the Planning Board and the Town Council.
1. The former Brookdale contract zone commercial development us now a residential development by owner/builder Ron Berube and there are three very fine houses on the property with an additional house to be built. The houses are quality homes priced at approximately $400,000. The map sent to abutters outlining the properties to be changed to commercial zone indicates the Brookdale development is part of the proposed change area. This property needs to be removed from consideration for the zoning change. With the fine homes on the property, there is no purpose or need for that property to be changed to commercial.
2. The traffic issues that were part of the basis for the Town to decline the previous zoning change request have not changed. There is not likely to be any change in the near future. For that reason, changing the zoning to commercial for South Gorham still makes no sense. It is still putting the cart before the horse. Trying to have an orderly traffic flow in and out of any business on the South Gorham stretch of Rt. 22 is a nearly impossible situation. Even my limited knowledge of the principles of marketing tells me that South Gorham, with in the confines of the present traffic issues, is not a profitable location for a business to consider.
3. The Comprehensive Plan ‘suggests’ allowing a commercial zone in South Gorham but by no means does the Plan make it a mandatory requirement. The suggested speed limit on County Road is 45 mph but if I try to force my way along at that speed most any time, I am going to crash into someone else. It is likewise with a zone change for South Gorham without first addressing the traffic issues. It will be a head on collision.
In my general opinion as a citizen, it is regrettable that this issue has been forced to a general vote. The vote will be based on personal emotions rather than good research, planning and common sense. It also makes it nearly impossible for the ‘little guy’ like myself to overcome the juggernaut that is jamming this issue down our throats. My piece of property is my retirement investment. The best use of my property for now and the future is rural residential. Changing the zoning to commercial in the South Gorham area will seriously deflate the value of my investment to sustain me in my later years.
I appreciate your consideration in doing that which you can to prevent the zoning change from taking place.
Respectfully submitted,
David E. Wallace.”
From Wayne L. Kuegel and Kathy S. Edelman, 21 Tapley Drive, Gorham, dated September 20, 2004, addressed to the Planning Board:
“Dear Board Members:
Since 1999, we have been attending meetings and providing comments on rezoning requests for the 114/22 overlap. Our input to the Town Council, the Planning Board, the Ordinance Committee, and the Economic Development Committee has been consistent and unwavering, as have the recommendations of all of these entities – to reject this rezoning at the current time. As you know, traffic at the 114/22 intersection is a major concern which the Town has been trying to address for many years with no definite solution yet finalized, much less built. For this and other reasons, we believe rezoning, especially to Roadside Commercial, is inappropriate at this time and should
not be considered until a traffic relief plan is finalized, funded, and a time frame for completion determined. During the past five years, the only change to the traffic situation has been a steady increase in traffic volume.
At one of the first meetings we attended over five years ago, the Ordinance Committee stated that Roadside Commercial, the least restrictive zone type, ‘goes beyond the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan’ for South Gorham. We urge you to adhere to the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, and to continue considering the needs and priorities of the town, rather than those of one individual developer. Rezoning this area before the traffic congestion is addressed may subject Gorham residents as well as residents of surrounding communities (Buxton, Scarborough, etc.) to many years of losing precious time sitting in traffic with no way for the Town to correct the
problem. It seems to us there is far more potential for very serious problems for the Town and its residents if this rezoning is passed than there are if the Town acts cautiously by waiting to fix the current traffic problem before considering any rezoning.
Thank you once again for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Wayne L. Kuegel & Kathy S. Edelman”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED. [9:15 p.m.]
Hans Hansen responded to some of the comments made during the public comment period.
Mr. Grant commented that the Board cannot change what will appear on the referendum, the Board will either recommend it for adoption to the Town Council or not recommend it for adoption.
Mr. Neily remarked that he had spent some 14 years as a member and 2 years as Chairman of PACTS, the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation committee, deciding where to spend federal and state highway funds where they were needed the most to alleviate traffic problems and had thus spent many years studying traffic problems in the Greater Portland area. He said that traffic is the number one problem and that he had recently read that 21,000 cars pass through the area daily. He commented about the traffic impacts of different types of businesses, saying that the Roadside Commercial district allows some good businesses that will not cause traffic problems, but it also allows other businesses that will add to the existing traffic problems. He said he believes that no zone change should occur until
the traffic issues are resolved.
Ms. Robie said that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the Roadside Commercial zone is too liberal inasmuch as it allows auto-oriented uses such as used car lots, auto repair shops and light industrial uses. She said that once the zone is changed to Roadside Commercial, the Board must approve any application that meets the Code requirements and may not exclude uses that are permitted in the district because the Board does not feel they are appropriate to the area. Ms. Robie suggested that a more suitable remedy in the Ordinance would be a contract zone request, which would permit individual property owners to come before the Board. She said that there are adverse impacts on standards that the Board utilizes in reviews, which would involve the adverse impact this
proposal would have on traffic, and said her personal opinion is not to recommend adoption of the proposal.
Mr. Grant commented that sometimes people think that an idea is good, but it turns out to be a problem in the future. He said that for most of the parcels, a true Roadside Commercial use will require a significant infrastructure investment, that traffic in the area is already failing at several locations in the area and a developer would have to address that in order to get a project approved. He also said that there are many acres on Route 25 that are zoned Roadside Commercial but very few people have taken advantage of it as people who own those properties have had a hard time selling them.
Mr. Parker said that he supports the creation of business and agrees that homes do not pay in taxes for all the services used. He commented that the Board recently reviewed a proposal to expand the Industrial Park, as well as an expansion of the Roadside Commercial district in the same area, but that this, however, was more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan than is the proposal for South Gorham. He said that there is no public water and sewer in this area., and these are two major routes in the Town which are not walking routes for the neighborhoods. He commented that this is more of a sprawl-type proposal that would allow large scale development on the outskirts of Town, and said that the traffic problems cited in the prior rezoning request still exist.
Mr. Hughes said that if this were before the Planning Board for the usual process, he would vote against it because: Brookdale should not be included and the traffic problems are serious. Mr. Hughes said he probably would not vote against it based on the Comprehensive Plan because it is a fluid document that allows a great deal of flexibility. Referring to the tax numbers presented by Mr. Hansen, he said he recognized that residential taxes do not pay for all of the infrastructure, but said that the Town is working to fill that gap in part through the adoption of impact fees.
Mr. Stelmack said that the Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for zoning and development in the Town, and is disappointed that Mr. Hansen did not address this. He said that the Roadside Commercial zone misses the mark as the Comprehensive Plan calls for small-scale businesses that serve the neighborhood in this area while the Roadside Commercial district allows car lots and other large-scale uses. Mr. Stelmack also comment that if the proposed areas for rezoning are plotted as compared to the map in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed areas both fall outside the suggested perimeter, so even if this met the use test, which he believes it does not, it doesn’t meet the area recommendations.
Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion not to recommend adoption of the proposal to rezone areas of South Gorham from Suburban Residential and Rural to Roadside Commercial as presented on the citizen initiated petition. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [9:34 p.m.]
4. ADJOURNMENT
Michael Parker MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent). [9:34 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
___________________________, 2004
3. SITE PLAN – 65 MAIN STREET - “NORWAY SAVINGS BANK-GORHAM BRANCH” - CSC, INC. dba NORWAY SAVINGS BANK
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
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, 65 Main Street. Zoned VC; M102/L99&100.
Approved
Conditions of Approval:
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project prior to commencement of the project;
3. That all construction and site alterations shall be done in accordance with the “Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices,” Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District, Department of Environmental Protection, dated March, 1991;
4. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town Tax Assessor prior to the pre-construction meeting;
5. That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated with the approved site plan, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting through the Planning Office, with the selected Review Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director, to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
6. That the site improvements shall be completed as shown on the approved plans prior to the issuance of a temporary or final occupancy permit for the building or a performance guarantee covering the remaining site improvements shall be established through the Planning Department; and
7. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board’s endorsement of the final plan, and a dated copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planner prior to the commencement of any improvements on the site.
| 
