Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
09/12/2004 Minutes
Town of Gorham
SEPTEMBER 13, 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                           NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
CLARK NEILY                             BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MICHAL PARKER                           
SUSAN ROBIE
MARK STELMACK

Member Absent:
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR               

The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and read the 7 item Agenda.  The Clerk called the roll, noting that Douglas Boyce, Vice Chairman, was absent.

1.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 2004 and August 16, 2004.

Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 2004, as written and distributed.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Mark Stelmack abstaining as having been absent, Douglas Boyce absent).  [7:08 p.m.]

Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of August 16, 2004, as written and distributed.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).  [7:09 p.m.]


2.      PRIVATE WAY AMENDMENT – “WIGHT LANE” – off GREAT FALLS ROAD – GILBERT HOMES, INC., DONALD GILBERT, PRES.
        Request for approval of a 1,090’ extension and upgrade to Wight Lane. Zoned SR/MH; M92/L23.005-.008

William Thompson, project manager with BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant.  He explained that the land division on this parcel occurred by Court order, but the lots need to have approved frontage, which will be provided by the private way being requested.  He said that the first phase of Wight Lane was approved in 2000, is 550 feet in length and is narrower than required by today’s standards.  Mr. Thompson said the existing section will be widened to an 18 foot gravel road with 2 foot shoulders, giving a 22 foot travel area.  The new extension, with a “T” turnaround, will be constructed in accordance with today’s standards.  He said that there is a road maintenance declaration in place that will include all of the lots acquired by Gilbert Homes, and there is a homeowners’ association in place, which information has been added as note 22 to the plan.  The association will own the 50 foot strip known as Wight Lane.  

Ms. Fossum made the staff comments, confirming that indeed there was a Court order, and said that the application was ready for approval.

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

The Town Attorney commented that one of the terms of the Court order was that everyone in the Wight family who got a lot also got an easement to cross over the road, and note 21 on the plan stating that ownership of the private way will be with the Wight Lane Homeowners Association is probably technically not correct; that ownership of the underlying fee is not known but the Homeowners Association will take care of the road to the end of the section that is being built.  She said that it is assumed that the underlying fee is owned by the abutting property owners each to the center line, and they have sufficient right to cross over it and use it for access purposes.  In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Ms. Burns said that the right, title and interest to build is secured through the easement granted through the Court order.  She also said that creation of a subdivision is exempt because of the Court order.  Mr. Thompson concurred that there are two existing lots and 4 new ones to be created, and told Mr. Hughes that the road length will be 1650 feet in length.  Mr. Stelmack asked for confirmation that Ms. Burns’ suggestion of eliminating Plan Note 21 should be done; Ms. Burns said that it should be eliminated and Note 7 addresses her concerns that the road maintenance will not be the Town’s responsibility.  Mr. Thompson said the applicant is in accord with removal of Note 21.   

Ms. Fossum suggested that Condition of Approval #7 be changed from “That prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for any of the lots…” to :”That prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the lots…”  Mr. Thompson indicated he understood the change.

        Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion that the Board modify Condition of Approval #7 to read “That prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the lots served by the private way, the Town’s Inspecting Engineer shall certify to the Code Enforcement Officer that the private way has been constructed in accordance with Chapter II, Section V, and the approved Private Way Plan.”  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).  [7:25 p.m.]

        Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant Gilbert Homes’ request for approval of a private way amendment to allow extension of Wight Lane to serve 2 – 6 lots, located off Great Falls Road, with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and corrected at the meeting and discussed with the applicant.

        Discussion:             Mr. Stelmack brought to the Board’s attention the Town Attorney’s memo of August 31, in which she suggested that the Board include a condition of approval requiring a reference to the private way declaration in each of the deeds of the Gilbert Homes lots.  Ms. Burns confirmed that should be an additional condition of approval.  

        Mark Stelmack MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to amend the main motion to approve Gilbert Homes’ request that requires that the deeds for the Gilbert Homes lots include a reference to the private way declaration.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes.  [7:26 p.m.]
        Main Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes.  [7:27 p.m.]


3.      PRIVATE WAY AMENDMENT – “DUCATI DRIVE” – off 361A FORT HILL ROAD – DANA H. FRIEND
        Request for approval of an amendment to relocate the hammerhead turn around. Zoned R/Shoreland Overlay District; M64/L10.001

William Thompson, BH2M Engineers, presented the application on behalf of Les Berry, stating that the private way was originally approved in 1993 and amended in 2001.  He said that the site distance on Fort Hill Road has been re-measured and demonstrates that the private way does meet the minimum requirement of 500 feet, the original turnaround area will revert back to the existing lot and a turnaround



will be constructed at the end of the private way.  He said that the applicant wishes to use the existing driveway for the new lot.  Mr. Thompson replied to Mr. Grant that the granite monumentation has not yet been set.

Ms. Fossum presented the staff comments, saying that of the two major issues remaining, the one of site distance has been resolved, and the other involves the loaming and seeding of the existing driveway.

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

Mr. Thompson replied to Mr. Parker that there will be an easement granted across the applicant’s lot to use the existing driveway for the new lot.  Mr. Thompson said that the applicant wants to use what is there.  Ms. Fossum asked what the loam and seed plan note refers to; Mr. Thompson said that refers to whatever remains after the house is sited.  Ms. Fossum asked if the turnaround by the Michaud lot has been constructed, Mr. Thompson replied that he was not sure.  Mr. Parker said his memory was that it was staked out but not built.  Mr. Hughes asked what the earlier site distance measurement error was.  Mr. Thompson referred to an August 22 letter which states that the viewing height did not account for a higher elevation due to paving at the entrance, and the 4-1/4 foot object was on the shoulder and not in the travel lane.  

        Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant Dana Friend’s request for approval of an amendment to the Ducati Drive private way located off Fort Hill Road with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).  [7:40 p.m.]


4.      AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE – USE OF PUBLIC WATER & EXTENSION
PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 PM
Discuss proposed ordinance amendments to the Land Use & Development Code relating to when public water must be used and/or the public water system extended to serve new development.

Inasmuch as Mark Eyerman was scheduled to present this item and was not yet present, it was suggested that discussion on this item be delayed until 8:30 p.m. and that the Board skip this item until his arrival..

        Clark Neily MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion that discussion on Item 4 be postponed until the arrival of Mark Eyerman.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes.  (Mr. Boyce absent).  [7:41 p.m.]


5.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “RIVERWOOD” – off PARTRIDGE LANE & SEBAGO LAKE ROAD – CRAIG & DIANNE REYNOLDS
Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Riverwood Subdivision to create additional lots.  Zoned R; M72/L25.001.

Craig Reynolds, applicant, asked the Board for direction in his and his wife’s request for approval to create additional lots.  

Ms. Fossum gave the staff comments, saying that Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds own land in a 3-lot subdivision first approved in the late 1980s, and the Planning Board is permitted to consider requests for subdivision amendments.  However, in this subdivision, the property owners’ restrictions state that no lot shall be further subdivided, with another restriction saying that the restrictions can be amended only upon unanimous consent of all the lot owners of the subdivision.  She further said that in 1988 the Planning Board placed a note on the plan that Covenants 2, 3, 11, 12 and 15 of the declaration of restrictions are enforceable by the Town of Gorham, which has created some confusion, with Covenant 15 stating that there shall be no further subdivision, but the Planning Board cannot amend the Covenants, only the lot owners can do so.  She said that if this applicant can secure unanimous consent from all the lot owners in the subdivision to allow for further subdivision, the applicant can come back before the Board to have an application processed.

Mr. Reynolds commented about the past history of amendments to this subdivision and asked why these restrictions have now come into play.  Ms. Burns explained to Mr. Reynolds that the Court has ruled that under plan note 7, the Town has an obligation to enforce certain restrictions in the Declaration of Covenants, one of which is Covenant 15, which says that “No lots shall be further subdivided.”  She said that the Town has to enforce that note as it exists; if the Declaration is amended, then the Town enforces the amended Covenant.  She said that the Town has no role in the amendment, but the procedure for amendment is set forth in Covenant 16.  Mr. Reynolds asked Ms. Burns to explain some of the amendments of the past two years; Ms. Burns replied that some of the amendments to the subdivision plan either did not constitute amendments to the Covenants or were not covered by the Covenants.  She said there are two different types of amendments:  one is amendment to the subdivision, regulated under the subdivision law and under the Town’s ordinance and the second thing, covered by Covenant 16, is amendment to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and for what Mr. Reynolds is proposing, both things must happen.  He needs to have approval for a subdivision amendment, which will be heard before the Planning Board, but he also needs to amend Covenant 15, which says lots cannot be further subdivided which needs to occur under Covenant 16.  In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Burns said that the amending of Plan Note 7 did not create an additional lot and did not amend the Covenants themselves.

Mr. Grant suggested to Mr. Reynolds that he secure the agreement of the other lot owners in the subdivision to the amendment of Covenant 15, and then return before the Board.  Ms. Fossum replied to a query from Mr. Grant that as this is a pre-application conference, there is no need to table the item.  [7:55 p.m.]


6.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT- “MASON” – off 105 & 111 LIBBY AVENUE – JEFFREY & JANE MASON
Discussion of a proposed subdivision amendment to create one new lot. Zoned UR; M27 / L3.001&3.002.

William Thompson, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicants and presented the proposed amendment, saying that the applicants would like to create a third lot with 80 feet of frontage on Libby Avenue and that with an adjustment to the lot lines within their ownership, the applicants have the area to make one more division to the property.  He said that the original approval in 1988 created two lots and created a private way to serve the lots, and in 1995 the applicants returned for an amendment to keep two separate driveways for those parcels.  Mr. Thompson asked if the 15% deduction in the Net Residential Density calculation requirements would still be required if no roadway were required for subdivision.  Ms. Fossum replied that there is an automatic deduction of 15% whether there are any roads or not, quoting that “15% of the total acreage of the parcel as an estimated allowance for new access roads or parking areas, whether or not the actual area devoted to these uses is greater or less than 15%.”  Mr. Thompson indicated that the 15% deduction would be 7500 square feet on the parcel and this will require that the calculations be reworked.  In response to a question from Ms. Fossum, Mr. Thompson confirmed that it is proposed to adjust the lot lines.  Ms. Burns commented the calculations would involve all of the lots due to the way the third lot is being created.

Ms. Fossum said there were no staff comments at this time.

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

Ms. Robie said that the new lot front setback has to go back 25 feet, 80 feet wide, which is not the case.  She said that this plan would create a keyhole lot, which is specifically prohibited in the Code.  Mr. Grant suggested that the applicants might want to work this issue out with the Code Enforcement Officer.  [8:05 p.m.]


7.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION – off 119 BURNHAM ROAD – RISBARA BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
        Discussion of a proposed 15-lot subdivision off Burnham Road on land of Frinsko. Zoned R; M1/L14.

Rocky Risbara appeared before the Board and presented the proposal, saying that the subdivision will consist of 14 lots, not 15, with the sellers retaining some 11.5 acres for themselves and 13 saleable lots.  He said the concept plan shows lots of 1-1/2 acres up to 4 acres, served by well and septic, with a public road to be offered to the Town.  

Ms. Fossum mentioned a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Marty Flores, abutters on 129 Burnham Road, distributed to the Board just before the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   Marty Flores, 129 Burnham, referenced his letter to the Board, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, asking that the concerns expressed therein be considered in the review of the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Mr. Grant asked Mr. Risbara to establish possible future connections to abutting properties for the Board to review during a sitewalk and to show these on a plan.  Mr. Risbara asked if the Board would like to see lot corners at the road in addition to the centerline of the road, Mr. Grant said that the centerline would be adequate.  Mr. Parker asked that the wetlands be flagged for the sitewalk, Mr. Stelmack asked that the abutting subdivision be shown on the plan, and Ms. Robie said she would like to see where the right of the way to the circle to the right is located.  Mr. Risbara answered a query from Mr. Grant saying that the proposal would be to utilize the existing pond on site for fire protection; Mr. Grant suggested that they consider sprinkling the houses instead.  Ms. Robie suggested that the applicant consider clustering; Mr. Neily, Mr. Grant and Mr. Parker echoed her suggestion.  Jamie Lowery, Sebago Technics, asked if the aerial photograph provided by staff to the Board would be sufficient to indicate abutting properties with the proposed project superimposed on it.  Ms. Robie suggested that a tax map would be more useful, which Ms. Fossum said could be worked out with the applicant.  Mr. Risbara asked to be provided with a copy of the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Flores.  

Mr. Grant directed that a sitewalk be scheduled.  [8:24]


Stretch Break from 8:24 p.m. to 8:34  p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

With the arrival of Mark Eyerman, Planning Decisions, the Board took up Agenda Item 5.

5.      AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE – USE OF PUBLIC WATER & EXTENSION
PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 PM
Discuss proposed ordinance amendments to the Land Use & Development Code relating to when public water must be used and/or the public water system extended to serve new development.

Mark Eyerman, Planning Decisions, presented an overview background history of the proposed amendment and its purpose of requiring the extension of public water to serve new development insofar as such extensions are feasible and economically viable..

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

Mr. Grant suggested that the Board consider the proposed amendment language provided by Mr. Eyerman, dated September 10, 2004, on a page by page basis.  The Board concurred that its acceptance of any modifications and/or changes to the amendment language would be presented as part of its overall recommendations to the. Town Council.  Proposed additions are underlined; proposed deletions are struck through.

Page 1: Amendment proposed for the purpose of clarity by Town Attorney Natalie Burns to Section IX A, as follows:

“Unless exempted by the Planning Board in accordance with D. below, any new principal building for nonresidential or residential use except one individual one-family or two-family dwelling, for which a building permit is issued after June 1, 2004, except for an individual single-family or two-family dwelling that is located on a lot that is not part of a subdivision that received substantive review after June 1, 2004, or any subdivision approved after June 1, 2004 that had not had substantive Planning Board review as of June 1, 2004, that will allow for the construction of one or more principal buildings, shall be connected to, and shall utilize, the public water system, if the parcel(s) on which such development occurs is located, in whole or in part, in any of the following zoning districts.”  The Board concurred with the change.

Page 2: Accepted by the Board with no changes.

Page 3: Section D, 2 – add word “or” at the end of the paragraph.
        
        Section D, 3 – delete word “or” at the end of the paragraph.

Section E, second paragraph:  Addition of second sentence reading “The Planning Board may require that the analysis be based upon a full build-out scenario for the parcel that assumes that the entire parcel will be developed based upon the allowed zoning density with public water and cluster development, if appropriate, taking into consideration site constraints and town regulations”  Mr. Eyerman explained that the additional sentence was included because this analysis requirement is a policy matter and should be enacted by the Council as policy, rather than being an administrative matter as discussed by the Board during its workshop meeting on September 2, 2004.  The Board concurred with the addition, requesting that Mr. Eyerman explain the reasoning for its inclusion to the Town Council.

Section E, second paragraph, additional language as follows:  “If only a portion of the lot or parcel is being proposed to be developed/subdivided, the analysis shall be based upon a full build-out scenario for the parcel that assumes that the entire parcel will be developed and that the area not currently proposed for development will be developed based upon the allowed zoning density with public water and cluster development, if appropriate, taking into consideration site constraints and town regulations.  The development scenario shall be submitted to the Town Planner and shall be subject to the Planner’s and Planning Board’s approval as a reasonable development scenario for the parcel.”  Last sentence:  Change “..development build-out…to “… development scenario…”  

Page 4: Change to first line of formula to include ledge inflation factor:
        “PWCU = (((((SL X $75) + (NL X $40))/UN) + $1,425) X CCIF) + (((LDG)                            X CCIF) + EX)/UN)”

        Change definition of ledge for clarity:
        “LDG = the estimated current cost for ledge trench at $20 per lineal foot
        times the estimated number of feet of ledge trench or other estimate of
        ledge removal cost approved by the Planning Board based upon field
        knowledge/documentation provided by the applicant”

Add clarifying descriptive language:

“CCIF = ENR CCI Current/ENR CCI 5-04 where ENR CCI Current is the ENR Construction Cost Index for the month in which the calculation is made as published in ENR (Engineering News-Record) magazine and ENR CCI 5-04 is the ENR Construction Cost Index for May 2004”

        Restore multiplying factor of 1.1:      "(($5,500 X 2) + $5,000) X 1.1) X CCIF "

        Add Maine to “…licensed professional engineer” throughout the amendment

Page 5: Capitalize “water district” in all instances throughout the amendment

        Change proposed by Town Attorney in Section F, first paragraph, last sentence:  “and shall be   deeded transferred to the Portland Water District upon completion.”

Page 6: Additional language proposed by Mark Eyerman to handle coordination of a waiver request vis-à-vis Planning Board approval to include site plans as well as subdivision plans:  “and prior to the approval of the final plan by the Planning Board.  The request shall set forth the specific hardship that will result from compliance with the requirement.  In granting a waiver, the Town Council may impose conditions relative to the future use and development of the property or the provision of private fire protection water supplies.  If a waiver is granted, any conditions imposed by the Council shall become conditions of approval of the plan if the plan is approved by the Planning Board and the conditions shall be listed on the approved plan.”

The Board concurred with Mr. Eyerman’s changes.

The Town Attorney proposed the following new Section IX.H to deal with the question raised by Board members about impact fee areas:

“Where a development is located in an area subject to an impact fee for the extension of public water service, the owner or developer shall be required to conduct the determination of unreasonable cost under Subsection E of this Section and shall include the cost of the impact fee in its calculations.  Where the extension of public water service has occurred prior to the review of the development by the Planning Board, the applicant shall substitute the impact fee amount per unit for the water main extension cost required under this Section.  Where the owner or developer will extend public water service in any area subject to a public water extension impact fee, the owner or developer shall not be required to pay the impact fee otherwise due.  In all other circumstances, the owner or developer will remain responsible for the payment of the public water impact fee.”

The Board approved the new Section proposed by the Town Attorney.

The Chairman re-opened the public comment period in order to permit a late arrival to the hearing to comment:

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD RE-OPENED:
Steve Furmanis asked how the 3000 foot distance requirement from a Portland Water District water main was reached, and complimented Mr. Eyerman and the Board for their efforts regarding the proposed amendment.  Mr. Grant suggested that Mr. Furmanis address his remarks about the 3000 foot requirement before the Town Council.  Mr. Eyerman commented that as a compromise, the 3000 foot limit was added in Section B, and then Section C was added, which would allow the Planning Board to require that extension of the water main be accomplished, even though it does not comply will B, if the Board finds that it is financially reasonable and consistent with the long range plans of the Town to do so.  In response to a comment by Mr. Furmanis about the benefits of public water, Mr. Eyerman spoke of the broader public interests served by the extension of public water.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Michael Parker MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of proposed ordinance amendments to Chapters II and IV of the Land Use and Development Code relating to when public water must be used and/or the public water system extended to serve new development by renumbering the current Chapter II, Section IX as Section X and creating a new “Section IX – The Provision of Public Water Supply;” and by amending Chapter II, Section V. G. 9) and amending Chapter IV Section IX, H., with changes as recommended by the Planning Board in workshop and during discussion following the Public Hearing held September 13, 2004.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).  [10:03 p.m.]  


8.      ADJOURNMENT

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Boyce absent).  [10:04 p.m.]

Respectfully submitted,



___________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
__________________________, 2004

P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\Agendas\Minutes\PBMN05FY\PBMN091304.doc

2.      PRIVATE WAY AMENDMENT – “WIGHT LANE” – off GREAT FALLS ROAD – GILBERT HOMES, INC., DONALD GILBERT, PRES.
Approved
Conditions of Approval:

1.      That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicants and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;

2.      That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;

3.      That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant will establish a performance guarantee with the Planning Department to cover the cost of re-constructing the paved apron;

4.      That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities, representatives of the developer, general contractor, site contractor, and the site design engineer shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the Town Planner and other staff members to review the proposed commencement date of the project, the overall schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site plan requirements;

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

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

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

8.      That the deeds for the Gilbert Homes lots include a reference to the private way declaration; and

9.      That the private way plan and the approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan and a copy of the recorded maintenance agreement shall be returned to the Town Planner.
3.      PRIVATE WAY AMENDMENT – “DUCATI DRIVE” – off 361A FORT HILL ROAD – DANA H. FRIEND
Approved
Conditions of Approval:

1.      That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicants and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;

2.      That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;

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

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

5.      That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities, representatives of the developer, general contractor, site contractor, and the site design engineer shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the Town Planner and other staff members to review the proposed commencement date of the project, the overall schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site plan requirements;

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

7.      That the private way plan and the approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan and a copy of the recorded maintenance agreement shall be returned to the Town Planner.