Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
01/24/2005 Minutes

Town of Gorham
JANUARY 24, 2005
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine

Members Present:                                Staff Present:  
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR               DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
THOMAS HUGHES                           AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY                             BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MICHAEL PARKER                          
SUSAN ROBIE
MARK STELMACK
Members Absent:
HAROLD GRANT, CHAIRMAN

The Vice-Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and read the 9 item Agenda.  The Clerk called the role, noting that Harold Grant, Chairman, was absent.

1.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  JANUARY 10, 2005

        Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to postpone review and approval of the minutes of the January 10, 2005 meeting.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent).  [7:01 p.m.]



2.      STREET ACCEPTANCE REPORTS – “ICHABOD LANE” and “HORSEMAN DRIVE” – by GILBERT HOMES, INC.  “Ichabod Lane” and “Horseman Drive” in the Stonefield Subdivision, Phase II, as offered by Gilbert Homes, Inc.  Zoned R, M51/L8, M50/L6.

Ms. Fossum explained that the applicant is requesting street acceptance prior to final paving for Ichabod Lane and Horseman Drive, both located off Sleepy Hollow Drive, the legal documents are in order, and both the Public Works Director and the Town’s inspecting engineer have completed their final inspections and indicate that both streets are in order for acceptance.  Ms. Fossum suggested that the Board add two conditions:  one to make the Board’s recommendation subject to a final written approval by the Fire Chief, as there is no record of his approval, even though it appears everything is in order; and the second condition is that the final determination of the amount of the required road improvement account to cover the cost of the final paving and the maintenance bond for these roads is to be finalized by the Public Works Director.  Ms. Fossum said the staff suggests that the Board recommend approval of these two streets to the Town Council.  

Mr. Neily asked Mr. Burns, the Public Works Director, how he feels about accepting a road before final paving is done, saying that a prior Public Works Director preferred to wait on final paving until the road had gone through one winter season.  Mr. Burns said that he agreed with the previous Public Works Director, stating that it is a good way to see how the road is constructed if it sits through a winter and that any deficiencies that may have occurred during construction of the road will be found on base paving.  Ms. Fossum replied to a query from Mr. Parker that it is base paving that needs to winter over for a full year.

        Mark Stelmack MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to recommend acceptance of Ichabod Lane and Horseman Drive off Sleepy Hollow Drive in the Stonefield Subdivision, Phase II, prior to placement of the final surface coat of paving, as offered by Gilbert Homes, subject to (1) approval of the Fire Chief, and (2) final determination of the amount of the required maintenance bond and road improvement account.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent).  [7:10 p.m.]



2.      SITE PLAN – INDUSTRIAL FACILITY – 11 GORHAM INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY – by ATLANTIC HARDWOODS, INC.  PUBLIC HEARING.  Request for approval of a 20,000 square foot industrial facility on 2.35 acres in the Grondin Commercial Subdivision.  Zoned I, M12/L26.006

Owens McCullough, Sebago Technics., appeared on behalf of the applicant, saying that the applicant proposes to use 7500 square feet of this facility to store materials and to lease the remainder of the space to various other contractors, such as plumbers, electricians, and other service type businesses.  He said that no retail is proposed for the site, and as Atlantic Hardwoods grows over time, they will occupy more of the space.  Mr. McCullough said that the site would be accessed by two driveways leading off from the 30 foot paved access road that has been constructed by Grondin.  He said that parking for employees and visitors is located on the front side of the building, with specific parking spaces assigned to each of the leased areas, and said that the facility will have at-grade doors in the back of the building for service vehicles to enter directly into the building.  

Mr. Boyce asked if the applicant has responded to the Assistant Planner’s memo of January 14; Mr. Shields replied that the applicant’s engineer and he have spoken, and staff still asks that lighting be added to the entrance locations as this facility and the one next door to it should have some illumination of the access drive.  Mr. Shields told Mr. Hughes that the lighting is the only issue he is still concerned about from his January 14 memo.  Ms. Robie said that in the past the Board has made certain lighting requirements and asked if such specificity will also be required for this site.  Mr. McCullough agreed that the applicant will provide lighting at the entrance if the Board feels it should do so, and asked if the conduit can be placed now as the facility is built with a pedestal and light at both entrances, and then a decision can be made after the building lighting is in effect to see if the entrance lighting still needs to be added.  Mr. McCullough suggested that it be shown on the plan with a note that the lighting will be reviewed with staff prior to installation.  Ms. Fossum said that staff will do a compliance review and the lighting can be reviewed at that time.  Mr. McCullough said that the conduit will be run under the pavement over toward where light poles will be placed.  Mr. Neily commented that Mr. McCullough knows what the Board wants in the way of lighting that will not impact other areas.

Mr. Shields said the most important aspect to him about this proposal deals with the tenants’ spaces, which is why Condition of Approval #6 has been added, requiring that there be separate requests for Certificates of Occupancy by each proposed tenant, with the Fire Chief and the Code Enforcement Officer receiving the required information.  Mr. Shields said another concern was to be sure there was adequate parking for any tenant and that not too much office space is proposed by a prospective tenant.

In response to a question from Mr. Boyce, Mr. McCullough replied that at this time the applicant has not yet decided what to do about signage, as this is a destination site and not a sales site, so advertising is not important.  Mr. McCullough said insofar as tenants might be concerned, if their usages are warehousing, they might not need signage either.  Mr. Neily said he is in favor of expanding the Industrial Park but also asked staff for confirmation that the Fire Chief and the Code Enforcement Officer could turn down any tenant they do not believe is desirable.  

Mr. Stelmack asked if the access road will ever have a name.  Mr. Shields replied that staff needs to talk to Grondin, the tax assessor, the Fire Chief and the Police Chief in order to deal with a possible issue of public safety and how to describe the location of the applicant’s site.  Mr. Shields said the access road is built to a public road standard but is not a public road as it does not sit inside a right-of-way, it only sits inside an easement.  

Mr. McCullough described to Mr. Parker how tractor-trailer deliveries are accomplished through the use of a forklift, and also pointed out the 29 parking spaces to be provided.  Mr. Shields commented that one parking space is required for 250 square feet of office space, and one space is required for 1000 square feet of warehouse, and as Atlantic Hardwoods takes over more pure warehouse space, the ratio of required parking decreases .  

Ms. Fossum and Mr. Shields suggested adding Condition #6 to the plan, and Ms. Robie suggested adding the entrance lighting on the plan so that it can be a flag that review will be necessary, and if the lighting is not required, a de minimis change can be made to remove it.

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

        Clark Neily MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant Atlantic Hardwood’s request for approval of a proposed 20,000 square foot building and associated site improvements on Lot #6 of the Grondin Commercial Subdivision off the Gorham Industrial Parkway with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant this evening.
        Discussion:     Ms. Robie asked for confirmation that the motion includes putting Condition of Approval #6 and the lighting on the plan.  Mr. Neily confirmed that it did.
        Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes.  (Harold Grant absent).  [7:40 p.m.]



Mr. Boyce commented that while the Agenda is lengthy, a number of the items involve pre-application discussions and said the Board will try to cover all the items.  He said that the Board does have a 10:00 o’clock rule, and at some point around 9:00 o’clock, the Board will take a break and then decide whether to extend beyond that time with new items.



4.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – ‘TALL PINES PHASE II’ – off BUCK STREET/SPILLER ROAD – by GILBERT HOMES, INC.  Request for preliminary approval of a proposed 15-lot residential subdivision with 1 public road on 28.42 acres.  Zoned SR; M77/L48, 48.001, and 48.002; M79/L16.009.

Bill Thompson, BH2M, and Andy Morrell appeared on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Thompson said that Phase I was approved and developed by Woodland Development Partnership in 2002 on land of Proctor, with the remaining land of Proctor’s Estate now being proposed to be developed by Gilbert Homes, a partner of Woodland Development.  He said that the proposal is for 15 single-family homes with private wells, private on-site septic systems, underground utilities and a proposed public (rural access) way.  Mr. Thompson said that Phase II will trigger a DEP site location permit which will be submitted following preliminary approval by the Planning Board to secure the DEP permit before returning for final.  Mr. Thompson said that the peer reviews and staff comments have recommended a connector back out to Buck Street, which the applicant does not believe is necessary, as he believes the residents will loop back out to Spiller Road instead of using Buck Street.  Mr. Thompson compared this project with another of the applicant’s developments, Stonefields II, discussing both project’s two entrance points.  He said they believe that this project stands on its own with the looped road system.  

Mr. Morrell discussed some of the engineering aspects of the project, saying that the 15 lots will be served by drilled wells, individual subsurface wastewater disposal systems and underground electric.  He referred to Phase I of the project that had existing monitoring wells on site because of some potential contamination of the site in 1987.  He said that monitoring of the wells indicated some coliform bacteria existed in the shallow groundwater, which was determined not to be a health risk, but it was recommended for Phase I that the water supply wells be drilled down to bedrock.  He said this requirement will be incorporated into these plans as well.  It was also recommended that an additional monitoring well be drilled on site, down to bedrock, which was done with no coliform bacteria being found.  Mr. Morrell said it was concluded that drilled wells in these locations are more than adequate for potable drinking water and meet all of the State’s drinking water standards.  He said a 1560-foot rural access roadway is being proposed which will connect from the turnaround on Phase I and loop back over to Spiller Road, and there will be a 560-foot rural access extending from the end of the existing Phase I Boulder Drive.  Stormwater management will be handled with vegetative ditches and there is a wet detention pond in the rear portion of Lot 18.  He said that Jenny Lind Drive, the new roadway, will drain to that wet pond and be released to the west.

Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that staff now requires that applicants secure MDEP Site Location Permits before submitting applications for final approval from the Planning Board.  He said that staff’s primary concern involves the Buck Street/Boulder Drive intersection, with the concept of continuing Boulder Drive out to Buck Street having been reviewed extensively, but the applicant does not prefer to make this connection, proposing instead to construct the final section of Boulder Drive to a gravel section and making it an emergency access only with a breakaway crash gate.  He said that the cost of making the connection is not great, but the reconstruction of Buck Street could be a large cost to the developer for the small amount of traffic that the 3 or 4 lots at the end of Boulder Drive would cause.  Mr. Shields said that staff would recommend preliminary approval pending the outcome of the Buck Street/Boulder Drive issue.

Mr. Boyce said he had not seen the correspondence from the Public Works Director to which Mr. Shields referred.  Therefore, Mr. Shields read Bob Burns’ memorandum of December 14, 2004, into the record as follows:

        “In review of the Tall Pines Phase II preliminary plans, I have the following comments:

        It would appear logical to extend Boulder Drive to intersect with Buck Street, rather than leave an emergency entrance.  This would create a more efficient snow plowing scenario for Public Works, as t-turnarounds and cul-de-sacs slow snow plowing efforts.  A negative point to this however, would be that this neighborhood would likely experience an amount of cut-thru traffic.  How large this amount would be, or could become is unknown.  In my mind, the positive and negative points regarding this connection are equal.  It appears that with the second road that connects with Boulder Drive within the development, that the second access point will then exist for emergency events.

        If the connection is made to Buck Street, then Buck Street should be improved.  Currently a 0.2 mile section of this road consists of a 24-foot wide gravel roadway (travel lanes and shoulders) that is poorly drained.  Historical knowledge indicates that this section was never paved due to these poor drainage conditions which exist due to the presence of ledge at or near the ground surface.  I would recommend that this section be reconstructed to the rural access road standard, and the ditching be improved on the remainder of the road to promote proper drainage.”

Mr. Neily commented that he believes the Fire Chief would recommend connecting into Buck Street.  Mr. Shields concurred, saying that the Fire Chief has written to that effect, which staff will provide to the Board.  

Mr. Hughes asked if they make the connection, would all of the 1050 feet of Buck Street need to be paved, or could the connection be made without doing the paving.  Ms. Fossum said that would be one of the Board’s options for consideration, but added that staff has not evaluated the actual scope of improvements that would be required along Buck Street as lately those types of evaluations have been performed by outside engineering consultants.  She said that if the Board does indeed require the developer to extend the road through to Buck, staff would recommend that a report from the outside consultant be obtained of the scope and cost of improvements which the Board could then evaluate.  Mr. Neily asked staff to get an estimate of the cost of paving, not reconstructing, the 1050 feet, saying that the road appears to be stabilized now.  Mr. Hughes said there are two accesses into the subdivision as it is now, which should satisfy the Fire Chief, and said he thought that just extending to Buck Street would make the plowing easier as well.  Mr. Boyce concurred with Mr. Hughes, saying that the Board would want to take advantage of connecting to an existing public street which is so easily within reach.  

Ms. Robie said she agreed with the Planning Director’s suggestion of having the street go to Buck Street, and then recommended a condition of approval to the preliminary approval of obtaining an estimate of the cost of bringing the existing rural access road (Buck Street) up to standard for further discussion.  Mr. Parker asked the applicant if there were any other reasons why they did not wish to extend their proposed road to Buck Street.  Mr. Thompson replied that there were not, and asked for clarification if the Board was suggesting improvement of their proposed roadway to Buck Street to a full roadway standard, and not a gravel connector, with no improvement to Buck Street.  Mr. Boyce summarized the view expressed by the Planning Director and supported by Ms. Robie that Buck Street be looked at to evaluate its condition and determine what logical improvements might be warranted on the section of Buck Street from the project entrance to Spiller Road, and defer decision on financial participation until that information has been secured.  

Mr. Parker asked the Public Works Director if the road is extended, what is the minimum improvement needed in Buck Street to support it.  Mr. Burns replied that minimum improvement will require some type of drainage improvements, investigation of the gravel subbase of the road, and paving of the road with 4 inches of blacktop.  In response to a question from Mr. Stelmack about settling for something less than pavement in light of Buck Street’s classification as a rural access standard calling for gravel, Mr. Burns replied it is possible that there could be ledge to deal with, which could be quite costly, and perhaps there could be some kind of middle ground with the applicant participating in blasting and with gravel, so that the road would then be brought to a standard that would allow the Town to pave it at some point.  Mr. Burns said that the drainage improvements would include culverts and ditches, and there are wetlands concerns that would have to be looked at closely.  Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Burns what the consequences would be if the proposed road were extended to Buck Street with no improvements whatsoever to Buck Street, and if that would be better than the current hammerhead.  Mr. Burns replied it would probably be worse, as he would be reluctant to see more traffic utilizing that road in its current condition.  Mr. Burns said that a through road would be a benefit from the standpoint of plowing snow.  Mr. Parker asked Mr. Burns to specify what a minimum estimate might be; Mr. Burns said that a meeting could be held to discuss the issue and said that additional investigation should be made focusing on the road drainage.  Ms. Fossum confirmed that she would propose that an outside consultant, the Public Works Director, staff and the applicant meet to consider the matter.  Mr. Parker said he would like to see the road go through to Buck Street, and a reasonable estimate for the minimum upgrade to Buck Street would assist him in making a decision on whether the road should cut through.  Mr. Boyce agreed with Mr. Parker that (1) the Board would look to the applicant to provide a paved roadway extension out to Buck Street, and (2) the applicant should work with staff in evaluating that section of Buck Street.  The rest of the Board concurred.

Mr. Stelmack asked Mr. Thompson about the source of the contamination involving the monitoring wells.  Mr. Thompson replied that of three existing wells from 1987, 2 showed slight contamination at a shallow level, but the drilled well done as part of the 2001 study showed no contamination in bedrock.  Mr. Thompson said that the monitoring wells will not impede this construction.  Mr. Stelmack asked that Plan Note #20 be changed to specify a “certified” hydrogeologist, which Mr. Thompson said would be no problem.

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

        Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to Grant Gilbert Home’s request for preliminary plan approval of the proposed Tall Pines Subdivision, Phase II, a 15-lot residential subdivision on 28.42 + off Spiller Road, zoned Suburban Residential, including the Board’s discussion this evening about the extension of the proposed roadway to Buck Street.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent).  [8:15 p.m.]



5.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN – “SHAW PARK” - off PARTRIDGE LANE - by TOWN OF GORHAM.  Discussion of a proposed community park on the Presumpscot River. Zoned R-SZ/RP; M72/L20.

Cynthia Hazelton, Town of Gorham Recreation Director, presented the proposed park site plan, a 7.5-acre parcel of land, adjacent to the H-Pit Gravel Pit, which is to be gifted to the Town by Shaw Brothers Construction.  She said that the park, to be called Shaw Park, will be used for a wide range of outdoor activities, will be owned by the Town of Gorham and will be operated by the Gorham Recreation Department.  She said the park will contain ball fields and dugout areas, multi-purpose planing fields, concession stands, restrooms, a steward RV site, outdoor classrooms, picnic area, boat access to the river, playgrounds, cartop boat access to the river, and a terraced grass seating area next to the river’s edge.  Ms. Hazelton described how a retirement group connected with RV America travels the country and will bring their RVs to one’s site and set up to become the security of a park during its peak times.  Ms. Hazelton described the 4-1/2 mile route of the Mountain Division Trail in part bordering the proposed park, as well as the connector loop called the Presumpscot River Trail.  She said that access to the park will be via Partridge Lane off Sebago Lake Road with parking to be accommodated through a gravel parking area adjacent to the Mountain Division Trail entrance, and that no ATVs will be permitted on the trail, but snowmobiles are allowed on the Mountain Division Trail.  She said the site will have water, sewer, electricity, and security lighting.  Ms. Hazelton said that a proposal is being prepared for the Town Council on how the park will operate, there will be some fees collected, perhaps a daily pass rate or an annual sticker.   

Ms. Fossum made the staff comments, saying that in this instance most of the Board members have visited this site when the Presumpscot Connector Trail was looked at, so perhaps the site walk can wait until the spring and the applicant can provide on developing the plans.  Mr. Stelmack asked which of the features have actually been constructed; Ms. Hazelton replied that a road is in, a gravel parking area has been established, the field is in place and two dugouts are built.  Mr. Parker asked about swimming, and Ms. Hazelton said she was not recommending that there be a “public swimming area,” as it isn’t in the best application of activity for the Recreation Department to pursue, although there will no doubt be people in the water.  She said that the building on the beach is still under consideration, and they might try to save it as it is to be used as storage for canoes and kayaks for the public to rent.  Ms. Robie asked whether snowmobiles are allowed on the loop between the Mountain Division Trail and the Gambo Bridge; Ms. Hazelton said she did not know if they were allowed on the Presumpscot River Connector.  Mr. Shaw came to the podium to say that snowmobiles cannot go through one-half of the loop, they can come through the Gambo Bridge but cannot cross the 50 foot right-of-way owned by Shaw Brothers.  Mr. Shaw also said it was important that swimming be allowed, and asked the Board to continue to allow a certain amount of flexibility in the construction of the park’s amenities.  Mr. Parker suggested that lighting be focused where it is needed and not to let it intrude.

Mr. Boyce commended Shaw Brothers for their efforts in creating the park, and asked staff if it is anticipated that a more detailed plan will be brought back before the Board.  Ms. Fossum assured him that this will happen.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   
Harold Parks, member of the Board of the Gorham-Sebago Lake Regional Land Trust, and expressed that entity’s concern about the historical significance of the Canal which bordered the river.  He asked the Board to give consideration to what remains of the Canal to insure that the development of the park does not destroy it.  Mr. Neily suggested that Mr. Parks be invited to attend the sitewalk for the park.  Ms. Hazelton pointed out what she believes will be a very small influence the park will have on the Canal.  She told Ms. Robie that there is no plan to expand the water access.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Ms. Stelmack asked that the Canal be shown on the plan with a paragraph explaining the park’s impact on the Canal.  Mr. Parker said that some sort of traffic pattern needs to be considered between boat launchers and swimmers.  [8:50 p.m.]


        Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion not to waive the ten o’clock rule, with no new items to be heard after ten o’clock.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes and 1 nay (Douglas Boyce) and 1 absence (Harold Grant).  [8:51 p.m.]


Stretch Break to 9:00 p.m.



6.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION - off  SOUTH STREET – by CHASE CUSTOM HOMES & FINANCE.  Discussion of a proposed 52-lot residential cluster subdivision with 3 roads on 96 acres.  Zoned SR & R; M21/L10&16.

Les Berry, BH2M, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced John Chase.  Mr. Berry said that the major concern at this time deals with water and sewer, saying that the Portland Water District has done a study for the South Gorham area but that the applicant would like to meet with the Water District, along with staff, to work on an overall South Gorham water and sewer plan.  He said that the site will have an unusual layout due to the presence of various wetlands, and suggested that a site walk should be scheduled when the snow is gone.  

Ms. Fossum said that staff would be happy to meet with the developer and the Portland Water District on the water and sewer extension to get that piece of the plan moving along.  She said that this is a proposed cluster development, so the developer will have to present the Planning Board with both a conventional subdivision plan and a cluster design so that an evaluation of which is the better plan can be made by the Board.

Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Berry when the applicant would come before the Board again.  Mr. Berry replied that the Portland Water District discussions could take two to three months, and he would expect that when the snow is gone is a good time to come back to schedule a site walk.  Mr. Berry said they still do not have an updated wetlands or soils mapping, so the official net residential calculations have not yet been done.  Mr. Parker commented that it appeared that the land between this parcel and Heartwood Subdivision probably belongs to another party; Mr. Berry confirmed that, saying that it would be ideal to connect to Starlit Way, but another landowner owns the property between the two parcels.  Mr. Berry said there is a right of way to Crestwood Road.  Mr. Hughes remarked that when the road is designed, it should be made wide enough, especially with short setbacks and short driveways, and asphalt curbing would not be appropriate.  Mr. Berry told Ms. Robie that the proposed by-pass route is not a factor in this plan.  Mr. Neily said there may have to be a larger pump station for this project, and asked what the unique quality of a proposed cluster is on this parcel.  Mr. Berry said that it is necessary to do the site walk to see what the fit will be.  Mr. Boyce asked about sidewalks on South Street and how far south this project is from Heartwood.  Mr. Berry replied that this project is about 1000 feet from Quincy Drive.  Mr. Stelmack asked Mr. Berry how a meeting with the Portland Water District should be conducted; Mr. Berry replied that he believes the staff should be present to represent the Town’s interests.  Ms. Fossum said that it would be to the Town’s benefit to secure public water for this area of the Village.  Mr. Berry said that the impetus to get public water is to get rid of pump stations.  Ms. Robie said she likes the layout, but does not like the idea of three more dead end roads, and suggested that some way to loop internally be figured out.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   Kelly Gotschlich, 327 South Street, spoke about the potential historic aspects of the site, traffic on South Street, public safety issues, and issues involving drainage, sewer and water.  Mr. Berry suggested that abutters call staff and BH2M directly with their concerns.
PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOD CLOSED.  (9:20 p.m.)



7.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION / SITE PLAN – “VILLAGE GREEN CONDOMINIUMS” - off LIBBY AVENUE – by GORHAM VILLAGE GREEN, LLC.    Discussion of a proposed 10-unit residential  condominium development with 1 road on 5.77 acres.  Zoned OR; M109/L10.005.

Les Berry, BH2M, appeared as the applicant for the project, saying that he is in partnership for this project with John Lapointe, and that they also partnered for the project known as Annie’s Woods.  Mr. Berry described the parcel, saying that it was before the Board in 1999 but withdrawn after preliminary approval.  He said that the application is to develop a ten-unit detached condominium development with access off Libby Avenue and served by public water, public sewer, underground utilities and a private roadway system.  Mr. Berry said this project will be limited to persons over 55 years of age and the concept involves a village green with ten houses around it.

Ms. Fossum said staff has no comments at this time.

Mr. Boyce asked for confirmation that the lot having frontage on Route 25 has already been subdivided; Mr. Berry replied that the idea is to sell it as a potential commercial lot.  In response to Mr. Boyce, Mr. Berry said that there is a 80-foot strip, owned in fee by the parcel under consideration tonight which gives the commercial lot a right of way and eliminates the need for a new curb cut into Route 25, over which the Credit Union has the right to pass.  Mr. Berry confirmed that this project does not propose to interconnect with Shepards Way.  Mr. Berry confirmed to Mr. Stelmack that there is no new access proposed to Main Street.  Mr. Berry told Mr. Parker that there will left and right hand versions of house styles.  Mr. Hughes commented that the Fire Chief might have issues about a 20-foot roadway.  Mr. Boyce commented that a letter has been received from Philip and Tammy Wardwell, 119 Libby Avenue, which will become part of the project file.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   
Mike Fleming, 113 Libby Avenue, expressed concern about the temporary wetlands behind his property that may be impacted by this project, and traffic issues on Libby Avenue crossing Route 25.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.

Mr. Boyce directed that staff schedule a site walk.  (9:45 p.m.)



8.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / GRAVEL PIT AMENDMENT – “MIDDLE JAM ROAD PIT” - off MIDDLE JAM ROAD – by R.J. GRONDIN & SONS.  Discussion of a proposed amendment to expand an existing gravel pit with requested buffer reductions. Zoned R; M97/L31 & M98/L1, 2, 6.

Jon Whitten, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants.  Mr. Whitten said that the applicants propose to expand the current pit westerly and northerly from approximately 5 acres in size to approximately 11 acres in size, with the expansion to the north proposed as a zero setback by virtue of an agreement with Windham Properties, LLC, which owns the abutting gravel pit recently approved by the Town of Standish.  Windham Properties has approached the applicants with a proposal to reduce the buffer between the two pits and eventually dig through and daylight the two pits together.  The proposed expansion would also require a buffer reduction along an abutting parcel owned by the Ventimiglias.  Mr. Whitten said that the existing entrance off Middle Jam Road will continue to be used during the expansion, and truck traffic will proceed northerly once loaded out Middle Jam Road through to Route 35, with no loaded trucks allowed to proceed southerly on Middle Jam Road.  It is expected that an additional 75,000 cubic yards of material will be removed.  Mr. Whitten said that there are two reclamation drawings of the property; one showing a 3 to 1 reclaimed slope starting at the property line and continuing down about a 50 foot cut; and one drawing showing the two pits being daylighted with the mound between the two pits eliminated.  He said that the applicant is aware that the Town would have concerns that there may be an unsafe and poor visual condition of the unreclaimed pit with a greater than 3 to 1 slope while awaiting Windham Properties’ being able to work with the applicant, and the applicant would like to work with staff to set up some kind of mechanism to guarantee that the applicant will meet the Town’s reclamation standards.  Mr. Whitten said it is proposed that there be a 100 foot buffer around most of the excavation, there is a 100 foot buffer along the roadway, as well as abutting the Bacon property, and would like a waiver to go within 100 feet within the Ventimiglia property.  

Mr. Boyce commented that this will be a difficult property to site walk, and asked the applicant, given that it is requesting buffer reductions, to bring an aerial photo based plan and overlay the property lines of the applicant’s property and the properties of the abutters, as well as the Windham Properties, LLC pit.

Ms. Fossum made the staff report, saying that this pit was registered back in the early 1990s for 5 acres or less, and a full application for gravel pit expansion is required with all of the supporting materials, as well as supporting materials for the requested waivers in the buffer setbacks.  She said that the Standish operator does not have permission to mine into the buffer that it is required to maintain, nor has it sought that permission, which has raised questions about how the two pits could actually operate within those buffer areas, and how this pit could proceed ahead of the pit in Standish.  Ms. Fossum said that the expansion into the buffer would have to wait until the Standish operator has approvals and is actually mining in that buffer area, otherwise there will be a steep escarpment which would not conform with the Town’s ordinance and which would generate safety concerns.  She said that some sort of phasing of the reclamation plan is being considered, with some sort of conditioning to permit the applicant to mine the material in the pit.  Ms. Fossum said it will also be necessary to look at the old mine area where there has been no active reclamation to see what was required by the initial reclamation.

Mr. Neily said that part of the conditions for this application has to be that no loaded trucks are to be permitted to travel south on Middle Jam Road.  Ms. Robie asked that the houses on the Ventimiglia property be shown on future plans.  Mr. Parker asked if the disused pit to the southwest was an approved pit.  Larry Grondin approached the podium and said that pit is not something Grondin has ever operated, it was in that condition when they bought the property years ago.  Mr. Grondin said he believes it was a grandfathered pit.  Mr. Parker said he would like to know what, if any, reclamation conditions had been imposed on the pits.

Mr. Boyce told the audience that there may be a motion to reconsider the ten o’clock termination and suggested that no one leave.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   
August Ventimiglia, co-owner with his brother Timothy of 46 Middle Jam Road, said his major concern is with the buffer zone and what future excavation will do to water tables and their drinking water spring.  Mr. Ventimiglia said he believes that the 200-foot buffer zone has already been encroached upon, and expressed concern about soil erosion as the pit approaches closer.  

Catherine Beaulier, now owns the property of Leona and Bruce Bacon, 70 Middle Jam Road, said that the buffers have been encroached upon and asked what reclamation plans the Grondins have for the pit.  She said that the pit had been owned by her grandfather and she does not want to see daylight to Route 35.  

Irwin Novak, 82 Middle Jam Road, professor of geology at the University of Southern Maine, with an expertise in glacial sand and gravel deposits, and aerial photography and analysis using GPS systems.  Mr. Novak said that the map provided by the Grondins shows that they are well within the 200-foot buffers, and in some cases within the 100-foot buffers, they are proposing.  He said that it appears the Board is being asked to certify after the fact something that has already occurred.  Mr. Novak also suggested the applicant should have to mark boundaries, as well as 100 and 200 foot buffers, in the field.  He also said that a new or recent survey showing contours would also help.  He said the map provided does not show the date when the data was acquired, as opposed to the date of the map itself.  Mr. Novak also commented that the northbound truck traffic will destroy the rest of the road, and said that the Grondin trucks adhere fairly well to speed limits leaving the pit.

Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Grondin if the site walk has to occur in the very near future or can it wait until spring.  Mr. Grondin said they would like to have the site walk occur as soon as possible.  Mr. Boyce said the applicant will need to demark the boundaries and show the 100 and 200 buffer reductions are requested.

Mr. Grondin replied to Mr. Novak’s comments about the buffers, saying that as this is a grandfathered pit, when it was originally permitted it was permissible to go within 100 feet of property lines; the topo on the north side of the property was done within the last few months; the northeast buffer was already excavated when they bought the pit; and they are excavating 20 to 30 feet above the water table so they will not impact any wells.  

Mr. Parker said he would prefer to see this property after the snow has gone; Ms. Robie concurred.  Mr. Boyce said that would be preferable, but he personally would do it at anytime.  Mr. Stelmack said the site walk could be done now, and, if necessary, another site walk could be scheduled; Mr. Hughes agreed.  Ms. Robie asked that the applicant mark the 100 foot and 200 foot buffers.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CONTINUED:        
Fred Fauver, former resident at 46 Middle Jam Road, introduced into the record a copy of a letter (attached hereto and made a part hereof) from Deborah Fossum dated August 24, 1990, addressed to Mr. Fauver’s wife when she owned 46 Middle Jam Road, saying that the pit had been determined to be a legal existing pit because, among other things, "The pit is at least 200 feet from abutters’ property lines and 150 feet from any public rights-of-way…”  He suggested that delaying the site walk to a time when there is no snow on the ground would be more productive.  Mr. Fauver spoke with emotion about the amenities of the site and the need to preserve these amenities for the future.

Mary Snell, 82 Middle Jam Road, spoke about the aesthetic qualities of the site, and said that the community needs to think of its future and the impact on the neighbors of expanding the pit, such as the noise pollution that would occur.

Steve Carpenter, 25 Middle Jam Road, introduced a letter into the record (attached hereto and made a part hereof) in opposition to the project.  He also said that a site walk now will be difficult.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.  (10:22 p.m.)

Mr. Boyce said the Board will take a site walk now and if that is not adequate to see everything, another site walk be scheduled for the spring.


Mr. Boyce suggested that the Board reconsider its motion not to waive the ten o’clock rule, noting that such a motion needs to be made by someone who had voted in the majority on the earlier motion.

        Mark Stelmack MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to reconsider the Board’s earlier motion not to waive the ten o’clock rule.
        Discussion:     Ms. Robie commented that she did not believe reconsidering the motion not to waive the ten o’clock rule to be a good idea.  Mr. Hughes said he felt badly about all the people still waiting in the audience, Mr. Boyce concurred.  Mr. Parker commented that the purpose of voting not to go past ten o’clock is to give everyone fair warning that some items might not be considered.
        Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes, 2 nays (Susan Robie and Michael Parker) and 1 absence (Harold Grant).  (10:24 p.m.)

        Clark Neily MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to take up Item 9 on the Agenda.  Motion CARRIED, 4 ayes, 2 nays (Susan Robie and Michael Parker) and 1 absence (Harold Grant).  (10:25 p.m.)



9.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN – “VIP PARTS, TIRES & SERVICE” - off COUNTY ROAD – by VIP, INC.  Discussion of a proposed site plan for a 10,144 SF automotive retail store and six service bays on 1.79 acres at the former Roberts Welding site. Zoned SR; M6/L5&6.

Rick Licht, P.E., Land Use Consultants, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicants and introduced Dan Hourihan.  Mr. Licht said that the most of the site elements of the plan have been changed to reflect the Board’s comments, and the remaining major issue is that of dealing with traffic concerns in and out of the site.  Mr. Licht said that Bill Bray provided the updated traffic study in the Board’s packets and there is a copy of Paul Godfrey’s response as well.  Mr. Licht said that Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bray both agree on the technical merit on a left turn lane being warranted, with Mr. Bray feeling that shoulder widenings would be an appreciable way of mitigating that issue and Mr. Godfrey believing that some sort of left turn treatment should be considered.  Mr. Licht said that technically speaking, the traffic study indicates that one car moving westward at peak hour and turning left into a private driveway theoretically triggers a warrant for a left turn lane, so every house on this corridor would be in the same situation as VIP is in.  Mr. Licht then demonstrated to the Board two drawings, one of which shows a designated left turn lane which pushes all traffic going eastbound toward the project in a through lane, including an 8-foot deceleration lane and an 8-foot acceleration lane, which would address some of the concerns expressed by the Public Works Director.  This first drawing shows two 12-foot travel lanes in either direction, a 12-foot left turn storage lane, and an 8-foot deceleration and acceleration lane coming out of the site, and possibly 2-foot shoulders, or 46 feet of pavement.  Mr. Licht said that staff forwarded this plan to Dave Sherlock at the DOT for his review, and conversations with Mr. Sherlock, Mr. Godfrey and staff have determined that the project simply cannot support a large road project like this and still keep the project viable.  Mr. Godfrey has indicated that he would be willing to see a shortening up some of the stacking lanes and going into taper lanes, but DOT was not agreeable to that suggestion and in fact, they would probably lengthen the taper lanes, making an even larger project.  Mr. Licht said that DOT said that if they had the decision in their hands, they might also suggest a center left turn lane of some 400 to 500 feet, or “suicide lane,” a two-direction turn lane, by pass lanes on either side, shoulders on either side, which Mr. Licht demonstrated to the Board in a second drawing.  He said that either concept is too much for VIP to support and would probably basically kill the project; therefore, Mr. Licht asked if there could be another approach, such as putting funds into an impact fee or a compromise and revisiting the issue of shoulder widenings.

Ms. Fossum gave the staff comments, saying that she can confirm what Mr. Licht has said about the DOT and that David Sherlock at MDOT has reviewed both Bill Bray’s updated traffic numbers and Paul Godfrey’s report.  She said that this area in within the compact area, so it is not a MDOT decision as to what is approved for improvements there, it is the Town’s decision, which Mr. Sherlock underscored.  She said that Mr. Sherlock shared the plans with Randy Dunton, the traffic engineer in this area, who concluded that while it is not their decision, if the Town does require a center turn lane, their preference would be a two-way turn lane, precisely as described by Mr. Licht in the second drawing he demonstrated to the Board.  

Mr. Boyce and Mr. Licht had a discussion about the differences between the two plans.  Mr. Parker had questions about certain aspects of the two plans.  Mr. Neily commented that he was not sure the whole approach was right, saying that he has had 14 years of experience with PACTS, the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation committee, two years as PACTS Chairman, during which time the State spent money in the compact area based on PACTS’ recommendations dealing with various traffic problems that had been created.  Mr. Neily said he believed that the Towns of Gorham and Scarborough, O’Donal’s, as well as VIP, and law makers in Augusta should be able to work together to achieve a solution that provides another strip of road, a third lane, on the stretch from Burnham Road down to of the 114 and 22 intersection in Scarborough.  Mr. Neily said he has seen it happen and would like to see it happen again on a broad basis.  Mr. Hughes asked if it would be possible to require only right turns out of the site during the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. in the evening and 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. in the morning.  Ms. Robie agreed with Mr. Hughes, and said that both of these plans are much too expensive for this project, and have a fatal flaw in that they do not consider what will happen to O’Donal’s.  Mr. Licht said that their position is that the entire corridor must be considered, rather than just a snapshot at this particular site.  

Mr. Hourihan said he could not answer the question about limiting left hand turns out of the site this evening.  Ms. Robie said she believed that the applicant has done a good job with the site, and it is unfortunate that there is a very real problem with turning left.  Mr. Stelmack said he agreed that the two plans do not appear to be feasible, and he agreed with Mr. Hughes and Ms. Robie that restricting left turns out of the site is a good option.  Mr. Hourihan said he would be willing to put funds into escrow and work with O’Donal’s if they can get approval for their project.  Mr. Boyce said he believes the cost of doing either of the two plans is astronomical and beyond what the project can support, that he is not sure the property is viable for commercial use that would generate this kind of traffic, that he does not see a remedy to apply, and that an impact fee is only good if you can identify was is to be remedied.  

The Public Works Director commented that restricting left turns could work, but he would be concerned about sending traffic to other intersections that may themselves be failing, and the issue needs more study.  He also said he does not believe that limiting times would be effective, and that there would have to be a physical barrier such as a median in the center of the road to restrict vehicles from mounting it and taking a left hand turn.  Mr. Hughes asked if there could be a curbing angled out to the right instead of a median in the road.  Mr. Burns replied that there would have to be something like that as well as a “porkchop” or median to restrict left turns.  Mr. Burns concurred with Mr. Hughes that turning left into the site probably is not the most critical problem.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Royce O’Donal, 8 Mitchell Hill Road, remarked that an additional lane could cause problems, referring to the added lane at the signal beyond the nursery at Route 22 and 114, and the accidents that have occurred there as a result of that lane.  He referred to a gully across the road from the VIP site which could pose a problem for a car pushed that way by an accident.  Mr. O’Donal read from the ZBA traffic study about the number of peak trips from the site compared with the trips from the former use.

David Verrier, 3 County Road, said that this business is not appropriate in this area and the project is unsafe due to traffic problems.

Jean Robinson, 25 County Road, said that a right turn only is a good idea but said she did not believe it would work.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Mr. Boyce said he would have a hard time supporting anything that falls short of the design standard that DOT would use for a DOT road.  Ms. Robie suggested that Mr. Boyce poll the Board.  Mr. Parker said he believes the applicant has done well with the site, and if the road can be widened to permit a left turn out of traffic and have a right turn exit only, he could vote for the project if traffic engineers concur.  Mr. Hughes said he agreed with Mr. Parker.  Mr. Neily said the applicant has done a tremendous job in trying to meet all the different standards, but he said he hopes the applicant will reconsider using this site, as he believes that it is a mistake to try to use it when there are so many other better places for the applicant to consider.  Ms. Robie said she agrees with Mr. Parker.  Mr. Stelmack said he concurred with Mr. Neily’s assessment, saying he would not want to serve on a board which approved a project that turned into a hazard and put people’s lives in danger, and he would like to see an assessment by Paul Godfrey of restricting left hand turns at certain times of the day and, alternatively, right turns only before he makes a final judgment.  Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Stelmack if he would consider the restrictions along with the widening of the shoulders; Mr. Stelmack replied that he would leave that determination  to Mr. Godfrey.  

Mr. Boyce suggested that the applicant get some ideas on something they can afford that the experts can agree is an appropriate solution.  Mr. Licht said they would get some evaluation on making a left turn with some provision using highway geometrics and perhaps shoulder widenings.  



10.     ADJOURNMENT
        
        Michael Parker MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant absent).  [11:20 p.m.]

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
__________________________, 2005


P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\Agendas\Minutes\PBMN05FY\PBMN012405sec draft.doc

2.      SITE PLAN – INDUSTRIAL FACILITY – 11 GORHAM INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY – by ATLANTIC HARDWOODS, INC.  

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 minimis 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 Planner prior to the pre-construction meeting;

5.      That all buildings shall meet all applicable sections of the 101 Life Safety Code;

6.       That the developer and/or management company apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for each new tenant of the individual spaces and submit the required information for that permit to the Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Chief;

7.      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;

8.      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; and

9.      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.