Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
12/06/2004 Minutes
Town of Gorham
DECEMBER 6, 2004
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 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                             NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
MICHAEL PARKER                          BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MARK STELMACK
Members Absent:
DOUGLAS BOYCE
SUSAN ROBIE

The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and read the nine-item Agenda.  The Clerk called the roll, noting that Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie were absent.

The Planner asked that the Board consider waiving the rules to vote on an administrative item to postpone the currently scheduled January 3, 2005 Planning Board meeting to January 10, 2005, due to timing constraints caused by the holidays.

        Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to postpone the Planning Board meeting from January 3, 2005 to January 10, 2005.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [7:03 p.m.]

1.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  NOVEMBER 1, 2004.

        Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of November 1, 2004, as written and distributed.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [7:05 p.m.]


2.      AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE – GRAVEL PIT BUFFERING
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendments to Chap. II, Sec. I. C. 5) a) relating to buffering along pedestrian trails, public recreation areas and access road adjacent to and located within gravel pits.

Ms. Fossum introduced the proposed amendment, explaining that the item had been forwarded to the Planning Board by the Town Council, and its purpose is to clarify that the buffer area requirements of the gravel pit ordinance do not apply to public pedestrian trails that cross through gravel pits, to private access roads created by the pit owner and to adjacent recreational areas leased or granted by easement for public use by the pit owner, provided that a slope of no more than 3:1 shall be maintained adjacent to the pedestrian trail and access road.  She said that the amendment would help to facilitate public recreational use.

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

In response to a query from Mr. Parker, Ms. Fossum said that this would clarify that there is no buffer setback required if a pedestrian trail or easement is granted to the Town by a pit owner.  Mr. Grant commented that this has to do with the Shaw Pit at White Rock and the Shaw Park that has been created.  Ms. Burns said that conversations with the Code Enforcement Officer revealed that it was his interpretation that currently the ordinance does not require a setback, but staff and some members of the Town Council felt that the ordinance was not as clear as it might be, and that something that is being added to the ordinance by this amendment is the requirement of the 3:1 slope.  Mr. Parker expressed concern about the preservation of the trail and the remains of the Gambo Powder Mill.  Ms. Fossum said that this does not fall into the same category as the Gambo Powder Mill site is owned in fee by the Sebago Lake/Gorham Land Trust, whereas this is a trail and easement through a property owner’s parcel versus something adjacent to a separately owned parcel.  

Mr. Neily commented that Mr. Shaw was not required to provide this recreational area, and said he would most emphatically endorse anything that aids that finally being accomplished.. Mr. Grant and Mr. Hughes concurred.  Mr. Stelmack asked if the 3:1 slope requirement is a safety feature.  Ms. Fossum explained that this would eliminate steep dropoffs or precipice.  Mr. Parker said he believed that the language dealing with the slope should be changed to read “no steeper than” rather than “no greater than.”

        Michael Parker MOVED that the language dealing with the 3:1 slope be modified to “no steeper than a 3:1 slope.”  
        Discussion:  Ms. Fossum commented that the language is consistent with the way slopes are commonly expressed.
        Motion FAILED for lack of a second.  [7:08.p.m.]

        Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter II, Section I. C.5) a) relating to buffer areas along public pedestrian trails, public recreational areas and access road.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [7:09 p.m.]


3.      SITE PLAN – “CO-GENERATION FACILITY” – off SCHOOL STREET/UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE GORHAM CAMPUS – UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM
PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval of a 2,760 sf combined heat and power plant that will provide electricity and hot water for the campus. Zoned UR; M40/L13-18; M41/L35-36; M101/L6-7; M102/L1-3 and M105/L36.

David Early, Executive Director of Facilities Management at the University of Southern Maine, appeared and introduced Todd Gammon, OEST Engineers, Kevin Davis of Industry Energy Associates, and Steve Kelly of Haley & Aldrich, environmental and geotechnical engineers.  Mr. Gammon presented a general overview of the project and Mr. Davis gave a physical description of the building.  

Mr. Shields gave the staff report, saying that the project will result in a net loss of 6 parking spaces, which is not significant considering the 100+ new spaces which have been created on campus over the past few years.  He said that the applicant has contracted with Haley & Aldrich to monitor and collection material from the recovery well, that Haley & Aldrich have also referred to MDEP recommendations that will be implemented, and that the applicant will move forward under those recommendations.  With respect to the sound issues, Mr. Shields said that the University will be bound by the requirements of DEP, which are stricter than those of the Town.  He said that staff has been working with an outside consultant, Scott Bodwell of Resource Systems Engineering, in reviewing the plans and specifications, and Mr. Bodwell suggested certain Conditions of Approval, which are included as Condition of Approval 7, which deal with the requirements on the University before the facility is built, the design criteria that must be met, and what criteria must be satisfied after the facility is constructed..  Mr. Shields also referred the Board to the Special Exception Criteria on which the Board must make findings.  Mr. Early answered a query from Mr. Grant that the applicant agrees with the Conditions of Approval.  Mr. Neily asked Mr. Shields if anyone had checked with Wellesley College to see if they have had any problems with the similar facility there; Mr. Shields replied that no checking has been done with Wellesley.  

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

Mr. Stelmack referred to the OEST Associates letter dated December 2, 2004 stating that a submission of a full report from Haley & Aldrich on the site contamination will be required and should be a condition to the Town’s permit, and asked if that is to be a condition of approval.  Ms. Fossum confirmed that it should be added, and commented as well that the seven requirements listed in the Fire Chief’s memo of October 15, 2004, should also be included as Conditions of Approval.  Mr. Early said he is familiar with the Fire Chief’s requirements and is in agreement with them.  

Mr. Grant polled the Board and the members concurred that the 6 Special Exception Criteria should be voted on in a single action.

Finding 1.      The proposed use will not create or aggravate hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks, both off_site and on_site, serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles on such roads;

Finding 2.      The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results;

Finding 3.      The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;

Finding 4.      The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or unreasonably restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties;

Finding 5.      The proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid wastes generated by the use;

Finding 6.      The proposed use will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat, and, if located in a shoreland zone, will conserve (a) shoreland vegetation; (b) visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (c) actual points of access to waters; and (d) natural beauty.

Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant approval of the proposed Special Exception Use to construct a new 2,760 SF Co-Generation facility with associated site improvements, zoned Urban Residential, under the Special Exception standards of Chapter I in the Land Use and Development Code and the Conditions that have been discussed and approved.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [7:13]

Mr. Grant confirmed with Ms. Fossum that there now will be 16 Conditions of Approval instead of the 8 originally listed in the Agenda Memo, which shall consist as the following:  the  items listed in the Fire Chief’s memo of October 15, 2004 will be incorporated as Conditions of Approval 8 through 14, and that the report required by the December 2, 2004 OEST letter will become Condition of Approval 15, and that current Condition of Approval #8 will become Condition # 16.  

        Mark Stelmack MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant the University of Southern Maine’s request for approval of a proposed 2,760 square foot Co-Generation Facility and associated site improvements with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [7:40 p.m.]


4.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION –“LINE ROAD SUBDIVISION” - off 39 LINE ROAD – BRIAN LEAVITT
        Request for preliminary approval of a proposed 5-lot residential subdivision with a 550’ private way on 9.87 acres way. Zoned SR; M74/L6.

Brian Yergatian, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and discussed certain plan revisions dealing with the provision of a 20 foot natural buffer at the rear of the subdivision, with a plan note limiting cutting in that buffer to diseased or dead vegetation, and a revision to the building envelope on Lot 3 to restrict development in a corner of the lot.  He said that at the request of the Town’s review engineer, there is now a complete lot grading plan for the entire development and a gang mailbox has been removed.  

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the existing farmhouse is at the beginning of the development, it is not on one of the lots and is not included in the subdivision.  He said that one of the biggest issues raised at the sitewalk was the question of drainage, and the plans have been looked at closely by staff and the peer reviewer to assure that no adjacent properties would be affected by the proposed plan.  He said that staff is confident that the discharge rate after development will not exceed the current levels, that it will be contained and discharged mechanically through the pond or into the wetland area.  He said that the Leavitt Drive private way plans are satisfactory and that staff recommends preliminary approval.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   
Dick Pratt, 96 Files Road, spoke about the drainage problems which currently impact his property and the potential for a more severe impact that could be caused by this development.  Mr. Pratt referred to an earlier development by the applicant that drained a portion of the wetlands which he believes continue to impact drainage on his property.  Mr. Pratt asked why a new road is necessary to service the lots of this development when most of the lots could in his opinion be reached by existing roads.  Mr. Yergatian said they believe that the bulk of the water is coming from Mr. Pratt’s land across Elliott Road, through an 18” culvert located under the road, which then drains into the fire pond on Mr. Leavitt’s property.  As to Mr. Pratt’s second point, Mr. Yergatian said that from a safety standpoint it is more desirable to have 5 lots access from one common point.  Mr. Pratt returned to the podium to disagree with Mr. Yergatian’s comments.  

Mr. Stelmack and Mr. Yergatian had a brief discussion about the two watersheds shown on the plans and the plans to contain and disperse excess water.  Mr. Yergatian confirmed to Mr. Shields that the 12” culvert on Plan Sheet 3 is for the driveway of the abutting property.

Brian Leavitt came to the podium to discuss the issue of the culvert on Mr. Pratt’s land and the status of the fire pond.

Mr. Stelmack expressed sympathy with Mr. Pratt’s concerns, but said that the Board has been presented with documentation that the engineering experts are satisfied that the drainage issue is being handled in a reasonable manner, that the water on the northwest portion of the subdivision will drain off in an easterly direction, .and that the Board has to rely on the engineering information provided to them.

        Michael Parker MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion  to grant Brian Leavitt’s request for preliminary plan approval of the proposed Line Road subdivision, a 5-lot residential subdivision on 9.87 + acres of land off Line Road, zoned Suburban Residential.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [8:05 p.m.]

Mr. Grant commented that when the applicant returns for final approval, the private way will need to be approved at that time as well.


Ten Minute Stretch Break to 8:15 p.m.

5.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION – off 119 BURNHAM ROAD – RISBARA BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Discussion of a proposed 14-lot residential subdivision and road on 31+/- acres on land of Frinsko. Zoned R; M1/L14.

Rocco Risbara thanked the Board for the site walk, and as a result said that they have submitted another sketch plan, which they prefer, which accurately reflects the location of the wetlands and topography of the site, a dead end cul-de-sac at 1500 feet and 14 new lots.  Mr. Grant confirmed with Mr. Risbara that the plan does not include land that Mr. Frinsko will retain.  He showed the Board an alternate plan to make the connection to Saddle Lane and asked for the Board’s feedback.  He said that the best way to achieve this connection is more of an “s” configuration rather than a straight line in order to avoid as much wetland as possible, and that construction of such a roadway would disturb approximately 3000 square feet of wetland.  Mr. Risbara said he would prefer not to have to build some 420 feet of road which he believes to be unnecessary and not in his best interests nor the best interests of the neighbors on Saddle Lane to promote traffic from one neighborhood to another.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments and said that the land to be retained by Frinsko has not been used in the density calculations, the existing house on Burnham Road will be on Lot #1 and may have to have some modifications made to it in order to obtain the required alignment of the proposed new roadway with Nonesuch Road.  He said that staff, the applicant and the Public Works Director will need to review the plan presented by the applicant for that alignment.

Mr. Shields then commented on the issue of connecting this development to Saddle Lane, referring to that portion of the Ordinance which states: “The Planning Board shall provide for road continuation, to limit unnecessary curb cuts and/or to provide for street access to undeveloped adjoining property, by dedication on a subdivision plan, of a fifty foot wide right of way to the boundary of adjacent property unless the Planning Board determines it is not in the public interest to require access to adjoining land and (1) the topography is not suitable for access to adjoining land, or (2) the project is surrounded by wetlands and no suitable land is available for continuation.”  

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

Mr. Hughes commented that keeping in mind the concerns of the Fire Chief’s, any extra traffic caused by a connection to Saddle Lane is far outweighed by the safety benefits and efficiencies gained by the Town by having two-way access for fire equipment use.  Mr. Parker said that Mr. Hughes’ comments explain why the Code is written the way it is, the safety of both developments will be improved by connecting the two, and the requirements of the Code should be followed.  Mr. Stelmack said that he concurred with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Parker, that the Fire Chief would certainly like to see the two developments connected, and the two exceptions for not providing such a connection of (1) unsuitable topography and (2) excess wetlands do not apply in this case.  Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Hughes, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stelmack, saying it is the Board’s job to apply the Code.  In response to a comment from Mr. Neily about 3000 square feet of wetland being impacted, Mr. Shields said that 3000 square feet is much less than the DEP threshold figure of 4350 square feet, one tenth of one acre, which requires no permitting at all.  Mr. Risbara said that the new “s” configuration will involve less than 3000 square feet.

Mr. Grant commented that the connection to Saddle Lane appears to be the only appropriate direction; no one on the Board disagreed.  Mr. Shields asked for clarification from the Board if they were directing the applicant to provide the right-of-way to Saddle Lane or to construct the roadway.  Mr. Grant replied that the road should be constructed because there is a road there to be connected to and that this is a condition required by the Town.  Mr. Risbara said he understood that the Board wants the road because of fire safety concerns.  [8:35 p.m.]


6.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION – off FARRINGTON ROAD – VAN HERTEL
Discussion of a proposed 14-lot residential subdivision on 27.3 acres.  Zoned R; M57/L10.

William Thompson, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant and said that the wetlands mapping has been done on the project area, as well as a boundary line survey.  He said the net residential calculations have been done with the information currently available, and the calculations will support 14 lots ranging from 1 to 4 acres in size.  He said there is no public water available within the requirements of the new Town ordinance, so the lots will be supported by private wells and on site septic systems.  Mr. Thompson said that it is proposed that there will be shared driveways on Farrington Road and one curb cut for the proposed roadway.  He referred to Lot 9 obtaining legal frontage off Route 25 but with a driveway easement coming back into the interior subdivision roadway.  He said that sight distance is adequate for the entrance design.  

Mr. Shields commented that staff would like the opportunity to discuss some different options with the developer that might take care of the items discussed in the agenda memo, such as frontage lots off Farrington Road and Route 25, and a connection to abutting lands.

Mr. Grant said that perhaps the applicant should consider meeting with staff to consider different options.  He suggested that the share driveway should be added to the net residential calculations; Mr. Thompson said it will be updated and may also need updating after the high intensity soils survey is done.  Mr. Hughes asked what the fire protection will be; Mr. Thompson said that sprinkling the houses will be proposed.  Mr. Thompson also confirmed that Van Hertel is a part of “Country Properties.”

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED
James Meacham, abutter at 21 Alexander Drive, expressed interest in being at the site walk and commented about the proposed road grading and its impact on the wetland on the site.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

The Chairman directed that a sitewalk be scheduled.  [8:45 p.m.]


7.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN  - 12-16 BARTLETT ROAD/GRONDIN COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION – CLEAN-O-RAMA, PG, LLC
Discussion of a proposed 30,000 sf industrial facility on 3.08 acres. Zoned I; M12/L26.004 &. 005.

James Vamvakias appeared on behalf of the applicants, saying that they hope to accomplish three things:  (1) introduce the project; (2) get input from the Board; and (3) secure a reduction of the required buffer along Bartlett Road from 100 feet to 50 feet in order to accommodate the proposed project.  Mr. Vamvakias introduced Greg Sferes and Phil Sferes, owners, and Phil Dowdy, architect, and Peter D’Alfonso.  

Mr. Sferes told the Board that Clean-O-Rama began in 1964 in Little Falls, and have occupied the present building at 9 Hutcherson Drive in the Industrial Park for 16 years, which they have now outgrown.  He said the business distributes industrial janitorial supplies, serving schools, hospitals and nursing homes in New Hampshire and Maine.  Mr. Sferes explained that they are seeking approval for a 20,000 square foot building, having scaled down from the originally proposed 30,000 square foot building.  

Mr. Vamvakias explained that the reduction in size is because the applicants no longer intend to provide any leased space.  He said that in order to get the building on the site, it will be necessary to reduce the 100 foot setback to 50 feet, and indicated that the applicants understand they will be responsible for providing landscaping and buffering of the setback.

Mr. Grant commented that the Board had reduced the 100 foot buffer to 50 feet for a previous applicant on this site, and saw no reason why the Board would not do it for this project.  The Board concurred that the 100 foot buffer could be reduced to 50 feet.  

Mr. Shields commented that the plan also requires subdivision amendment.  Mr. Vamvakias said they were aware of that requirement, that their schedule called for applying in January in order to appear before the Board at its February meeting, and with the Board’s approval they would like to start construction some time early summer and occupy the building before the end of the year.

Mr. Grant commented that a sitewalk should be scheduled for this applicant as well as the applicant who is to follow.  Ms. Fossum confirmed that sitewalks have been tentatively set for December 21.


8.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN – 11 GORHAM INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY/GRONDIN COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION – ATLANTIC HARDWOODS, INC.
Discussion of a proposed 20,000 sf industrial facility on 2.35 acres. Zoned I; M12/L26.006.

Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants and introduced Jack McInerny of Atlantic Hardwoods.  Mr. McCullough explained the application, saying that this lot is next to the site of the previous application.  He said that Atlantic Hardwoods is a retail and commercial sales and installation company for hardwood products, that they currently own a retail and materials processing facility in Portland and need an additional facility for storage of materials.  He said that Atlantic Hardwoods is looking to initially occupy about 7500 square feet of the proposed 20,000 square foot building, and have the ability to lease the rest of the building in 2500 square foot increments to potential tenants, with Atlantic Hardwoods occupying more of the building over time.  He said that Lot 6 includes the detention pond for the entire Industrial Park, which will remain undisturbed, and access to the facility will be across the access easement of the paved road that the Grondins have built.  Mr. McCullough said that the building will have parking along the front, with circulation to the back to at-grade drive-in doors.  He said that Atlantic Hardwoods will have 2 or 3 panel delivery trucks per day on site and occasionally there will be tractor trailer movement about once a week.  He said there will 3 to 4 employees at the facility.  Mr. McCullough also commented about the proposed sitewalk on December 21 at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Shields commented that Mr. McCullough has provided the construction detail on the access road built by the Grondins, which staff initially had thought would be used by the Grondins alone.

Mr. Stelmack asked if the drainage from Lots 4 and 5 would flow in an open ditch to the detention pond.  Mr. McCullough pointed out that Lots 4 and 5 will have two options to drain their surface water.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   
Tom Ellsworth, President of the Gorham Economic Development Corporation, commented that Clean-O-Rama is an example of a retention effort made to keep tenants in the Industrial Park, and said that Atlantic Hardwoods will be an excellent addition to the Park.  Mr. Hughes asked about the current Clean-O-Rama building to be vacated; Mr. Ellsworth did not know what will happen with that building.  Mr. Neily commented that an effort needs to be made to attract tenants to the industrial area site at Libby Avenue and New Portland Road.  Mr. Ellsworth said that marketing efforts and strategies are underway to assist the developer in attracting tenants to that site.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Mr. Grant told both Clean-O-Rama and Atlantic Hardwoods that the Planning Board is anxious to work with them and will meet them more than half way to expedite their applications.  


9.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION – off 229 BUCK STREET – BENJAMIN & SANDY SMITH
Discussion of a proposed 14-lot residential subdivision on 72 acres. Zoned R/SR-SZ; M79/L3.

Mr. Neily explained that he is an abutter to this project and asked to be recused from participation.

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to recuse Mr. Neily from participation in this item.  Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent; Mr. Neily abstaining).  [9:10 p.m.]

Steve Sterns, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicants, and presented first a conventional layout for 23 lots with two roadways.  He then presented a cluster plan with 21 lots, which is what the applicants would prefer with 14 lots in this phase.  He said that the wetlands have been mapped but the high intensity soils survey has yet to be done.  Mr. Grant asked Mr. Sterns about how the density calculations had been prepared.  Mr. Sterns said he believed that the 20 acre parcel to be retained by the applicant had been included.  Mr. Shields commented that the Smiths have already built their house on that property, which is being included within the subdivision.  

Mr. Grant expressed his belief that this property has many issues with wetlands, etc., and said he has a number of questions about whether a cluster approach would be appropriate.  Mr. Hughes commented that the open area left in a cluster subdivision is supposed to usable, and the land proposed to be left in this cluster subdivision does not appear to be suitable for recreation.  He said that he is not sure that this application meets the provisions in the Code.  Mr. Stelmack asked Mr. Sterns to point out and describe the reserved area under the cluster requirements.  Mr. Sterns pointed out the reserved area on the west side of Branch Brook and said there is a great deal of wetland on the east site.  Mr. Sterns said he could not describe the reserved land as he has not walked the site.  Mr. Grant said he would like to have someone from DEP evaluate this site.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   
Allen Rumery, 212 Buck Street, spoke about the volume of traffic on Buck Street, which he described as a winding, narrow, dark, unmarked road; commented that the site under discussion is heavy wetland and a wildlife area; and asked what impact construction will have on the quality of well water of abutters.

Ed LeBlanc, 197 Buck Street, commented about the wetlands on this property, and the fact that there is another brook on the other side of Branch Brook.  

Mr. Grant remarked that he has seen Route 25 flooded due to beaver dam activity.  Mr. Stelmack asked Mr. Sterns for confirmation that the pre-application tonight involves 14 lots in the first phase of a cluster development plan.

Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that in order to be assured that the applicant can achieve no greater density, he would expect that the Board would want to see a plan with suitable septic systems and building envelopes on a conventional plan.  He pointed out that there have been cluster subdivisions in the past few years that have not been unique in any way, and it would be nice to see something unusual in return for getting cluster approval.  Mr. Grant commented that certain shoreland flood zone maps have been redone by the federal government because they were not accurate, and said that this area may not be depicted accurately either.  Mr. Shields said that the applicant will have to follow certain FEMA guidelines such as establishing minimum first floor elevations, doing a watershed study and full topography, and performing calculations using Buck Street as a backup relating to restricted flow.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CONTINUED:        
Mr. LeBlanc returned to the podium to express his concern once more about the wet condition of the property.  Deana Verrill commented that the Board should wear boots at their sitewalk.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.

Mr. Parker asked for a more refined net residential density to more accurately reflect what is actually feasible on the property before going on a sitewalk.  Mr. Grant suggested that it would be better to schedule the sitewalk a sitewalk as soon as possible to see current conditions before there is heavy snowfall to mask the conditions.


10.     ADJOURNMENT

Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent, Clark Neily recused)  [9:35 p.m.]


Respectfully submitted,


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


P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\Agendas\Minutes\PBMN05FY\PBMN120604.doc3.  SITE PLAN – “CO-GENERATION FACILITY” – off SCHOOL STREET/UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE GORHAM CAMPUS – UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM

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;

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 start of construction;

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 with the selected Review Engineer, Portland Water District, 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 request for either temporary or final occupancy permits for the building; or a performance guarantee, covering the remaining site improvements shall be established through the Planning Department;

7.      That prior to construction, the applicant shall submit sound level calculations that demonstrate that the proposed Co-Generation Facility will not exceed sound level limits as set forth by Chapter 375.10 of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection Site Law Regulations. As applied to this project, the Maine DEP sound level limits are as follows (ref. Section C.1.a.ii of Maine DEP Chapter 375.10):

60 dBA during daytime hours and 50 dBA during nighttime hours at the properties identified by the Town of Gorham tax maps as Map 45, Lots 1.012, 1.024, 1.013 and Map 101, Lots 101-11, 101-10 and 101-9.

75 dBA during all hours at all other USM property boundaries.

Calculations shall include the sound power or pressure level of each principal noise source (e.g. engine casing, air inlet and exhaust); sound level reduction or insertion loss of any planned noise controls (e.g. silencer, insulation, enclosure); and the resulting individual and combined sound levels at the referenced adjacent property lines. The combined sound level shall not exceed the specified sound level limit at the referenced abutting properties. This shall include simultaneous full operation of both co-generation combustion units.

In addition, specifications and/or calculations shall be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed Co-Generation Facility will not generate a tonal sound as defined by Section G.24 of Maine DEP Chapter 375.10; otherwise, sound level calculations shall demonstrate that combined sound levels from the Co-Generation Facility will be a minimum of 5 dBA below the specified limits.

Outdoor construction activity associated with the proposed Co-Generation Facility shall occur only during daytime hours (7 am to 7 p.m.).

Within 60 days of facility startup, the applicant shall measure sound levels during full operation of the Co-Generation Facility and submit the results to the Town of Gorham. In the event that sound level limits are exceeded, the applicant shall propose and implement noise control measures to reduce sound levels as needed to meet the limits. Follow up measurements shall be completed, and submitted to the Town of Gorham, as necessary to demonstrate that the sound level limits have been met. Sound level measurements shall be conducted in accordance with Section H of Maine DEP Chapter 375.10;

8.      That the building shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code and NFPA Fire Prevention Code 1;

9.      That the building construction plans shall be submitted to the State Marshal’s Office and the Gorham Fire Department for review and permitting, and the plans for the Fire Department shall be submitted at the time the building permit is issued.;

10.     That a new permit and approval must be obtained from the State Fire Marshal’s Office for the new location of the fuel tanks, pumps, and canopy, and the new location for the fuel tanks, pumps, and canopy shall be subject to the Fire Chief’s approval;

11.     That bollards shall be placed to protect all gas meters mounted on the exterior of any building;

12.     That the chain link fence should be moved back to give a minimum of 15 feet of clearance from the building;

13.     That the building construction plans will be reviewed by a Fire Protection Engineer and any requirements of the Fire Protection Engineer will be met;

14.     That the roadway leading to the rear of the field house and ice arena shall remain open at all times during construction;

15.     That a full report from Haley & Aldrich will be provided to the Town outlining their plans for the monitoring and pumping of the existing recovery well; and

16.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 issuance of any building permits or commencement of any improvements on the site.