Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
01/10/2005 Minutes
Town of Gorham
JANUARY 10, 2005
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
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR               AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
THOMAS HUGHES                           
CLARK NEILY                             
MICHAEL PARKER                          
SUSAN ROBIE
MARK STELMACK

The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and read the 8 item Agenda.  Mr. Shields called the roll with all members present.  

1.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  DECEMBER 6, 2004

        Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the December 6, 2004 minutes as written and distributed.
        Discussion:     Ms. Fossum indicated that Mr. Stelmack’s name had inadvertently been omitted as having been present at the last meeting, and certain typographic errors in the heading were corrected after the draft minutes had been provided to the Board.  Two other typographic errors in the heading were pointed out by Mr. Stelmack, and Mr. Parker noted that on the second page, the two references to the “Gambo Power Mills” should be corrected to read “Gambo Powder Mills.”
        Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie abstaining as not having been present at the December 6, 2004 meeting).


2.       FINAL SUBDIVISION – “LINE ROAD SUBDIVISION” / “LEAVITT DRIVE” – off LINE ROAD – by BRIAN LEAVITT Request for final approval of a 5-lot residential subdivision and private way on 9.87 acres.  Zoned SR; M74/L6 & 5.002.

Brian Yergatian, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and referred the Board to the concerns about stormwater downgrading of the property expressed at an earlier meeting by one of the abutters, Dick Pratt, saying that as a result of those concerns, it was now proposed to install a field inlet catch basin and storm drain to direct the stormwater exiting the site into the detention pond.  He said that the detention pond is also proposed to be enlarged.  He said that these two changes would result in a net decrease in stormwater both at the 12” culvert and at the outlet to the detention pond.  Mr. Yergatian said the original problem with nitrate plumes exceeding the allowed limit at the perimeter boundary of the site had been resolved by designing another system which has necessitated moving the drinking well to the rear of the property.  He said that other changes to the plan include specifying a seed mixture for the detention pond.  He also said that the legal documents have been finalized.  Mr. Yergatian requested final approval of the subdivision and approval of the private way.

Mr. Shields made the staff report, commenting that the drainage issues have been carefully studied and the applicant’s engineer has redesigned the proposed drainage so that there will be a decrease in volume of stormwater at both study points.  Mr. Shields said that both staff and the review engineer are comfortable with the stormwater leaving the site, and the change in the septic system on nitrates also eliminates any concerns of staff.  He said that the legal documents have been reviewed and are satisfactory.  Mr. Shields said that the applicant will provide a letter of credit from Gorham Savings Bank prior to the start of construction.  He said that the applicant is in accord with the 14 conditions of approval and the application is ready for final approval of both the 5-lot subdivision and the private way.

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

Mr. Stelmack asked if staff had any indication that Mr. Pratt, who appeared to be the abutter most concerned at the last meeting about potential runoff, is satisfied with the changes to the drainage.  Mr. Shields said staff has not heard from Mr. Pratt, whose concern staff believes involved another area of runoff and not the runoff dealing with the study points.  Mr. Shields said that while the applicant’s engineer believed that the runoff of concern to Mr. Pratt was not involved with the site, they still went ahead and redesigned it.

        Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant final subdivision approval of Brian Leavitt’s request for Line Road subdivision, a proposed 5-lot residential subdivision on 9.87 acres off Line Road, and approval of Leavitt Drive, a private way, with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.


Mr. Grant announced that Item 4, “Preliminary and Final Subdivision, ‘Autumn Brook Subdivision’ Amendment, off Brookwood Drive, by David R. Tukey,” has been postponed at the request of the applicant until he is ready to come back before the Board.


Mr. Grant recused himself from participation in Item 3 and asked Mr. Boyce, Vice Chairman, to assume the Chair.

3.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – “SANBORN MEADOWS” - off MIGHTY STREET – by BOYINGTON ASSOCIATES, LLC - Request for preliminary approval of a proposed 14-lot residential subdivision and proposed public road on 32.06 acres.  Zoned R; M83/L11.

Richard Meek, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the project as being a 14-lot subdivision on 30.68 acres, based on a request from staff to remove from the plan the existing Vetrano house lot to the northeast, with the net residential calculations being updated accordingly.  Mr. Meek said that each lot will be served by private wells, private on-site septic systems, underground utilities and a proposal rural access public way, with lot sizes varying from 60,000 to 183,881 square feet and all having at least 200 feet of street frontage.  He said that stormwater management will be through drainage swales along the roadway and collected in two dry detention basins which will drain completely after each storm event, one in lot 9 and one in lot 7.  Mr. Meek said that they understand that MDOT has done a redesign of Route 114 from the Town of Gorham center to Standish, and while they have not seen the exact plan for the intersection of 114 and Mighty Street, they believe that MDOT has addressed the sight distance concerns.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that it is obvious that there is a sight distance problem at the Mighty Street/114 intersection, which has been looked at several times by the Planning Board for projects approved over the past 15 years.  He said that the traffic review looked at six different locations, including the Mighty Street/Route 114 intersection, for accident history data and found that there are no intersections within several miles identified as a High Crash Location (HCL).  He said that staff will meet with the applicant’s engineer and review MDOT plans to determine what is proposed for that intersection.  Mr. Shields also said that because of the site’s open field condition and the proximity of the development’s cul-de-sac to the Vetrano property, staff has asked the applicant’s engineer to look at buffering and landscaping, with staff recommending that the developer be responsible for planting a minimum of two trees per lot as well as providing a landscape buffer between Lot 6 and the Vetrano property.  Finally, Mr. Shields spoke about the condition of Mighty Street, saying that from the corner near Mr. Grant’s house down to the intersection, the street has a very good base material but the pavement is breaking up or “spidering,” as the Public Works Director calls it.  Mr. Shields said that based on discussions with the Public Works Director, it is important to keep in mind that any more impact on the roadway could worsen its condition, and if it needs repair, a decision needs to be made as to what portion of the street should be repaired.  Mr. Shields said that the Public Works Director has made some suggestions which can be provided to the Board.  

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

Mr. Neily asked for clarification and more information about the costs involved in working on a section of Mighty Street.  Mr. Shields replied that the base of the road is in excellent shape with good drainage, and essentially Public Works would require that the pavement be reclaimed, relay it, and pave over it.  He said that the question is what section of the road would the Board expect the applicant to be responsible for, if in fact it felt the applicant was responsible for any of it.  Mr. Meek said that the portion of the road impacted by this proposal is about 1000 feet from Murray Drive to the intersection with 114.  Mr. Boyce asked what the existing pavement width is; Mr. Shields said he would get that information and anything else the Board wants from the Public Works Director.  Mr. Hughes said that this one section of the road is simply the tip of the iceberg as other sections of Mighty Street are worse, and he believes the developer is not responsible for this problem.  Mr. Neily said that it is not unreasonable to give consideration to requiring the developer to fix a modest section of the road, not to the other end of the road, but in the area impacted by the proposed project.  Mr. Stelmack agreed with Mr. Neily, saying that it is consistent to ask this applicant to do what other developers have been asked to do.   Ms. Robie agreed with Mr. Neily and Mr. Stelmack.  Mr. Parker said he would like to know what the cost would be to the developer for reclaiming and repaving the section of road where this development fronts, from the corner of Lot 1 to the intersection of Route 114, saying that while the applicant did not cause the problem, the road should be upgraded as part of this development.  Mr. Parker commented that the pit owner will also have some responsibility for other parts of the road if and when he returns before the Board.  Mr. Boyce concurred that the developer should pay for some upgrade to Mighty Street, and agreed with Mr. Parker about the section of roadway that should be considered.  Mr. Boyce said that staff, the applicant and Public Works should work together to secure some estimate of cost.

Mr. Boyce also commented that insofar as the intersection of 114 and Mighty Street is concerned, either the MDOT will have it in their design as part of their work or the Board will wait for the gravel pit application to come back before the Board as that was a condition on its current and existing permit, and in his opinion, this applicant should not be expected to perform that improvement.  

Mr. Meek introduced Rod Boyington, who gave a quick number of $40,000 to reclaim with 4 inches of pavement, or basically do a shim, a ¾ inch 9-1/2 meter overlay, which is about $10 per foot or $10,000.  Mr. Boyington said that he believes that the overlay would be all that would be warranted from their entrance at Murray Drive down to the corner of 114.  He said that another option to consider would be to provide a $10,000 bond to the Town to put toward the entire re-do of Mighty Street.  Mr. Boyce asked if Mr. Boyington has spoken with the Public Works Director, which Mr. Boyington has not done.  Mr. Boyce said he did not believe a shim and overlay would necessarily hold up, and in reply to a question from Mr. Boyington, Mr. Boyce said it would be because of the other uses of the road.  Mr. Boyce said this issue would have to be dealt with when the gravel pit owner comes back before the Board.  Mr. Boyce said that at this time he would feel more comfortable if Mr. Boyington, staff and Public Works had a chance to make sure that they have the same scope in mind and to discuss what is reasonable for the project before coming back to the Board.  Mr. Neily said he would like to see a written report from the Public Works Director on what needs to be done and what he estimates the costs will be.  Mr. Hughes said it would be wasting money to do part of the road to the developer’s standards when it is known that better standards will be required for the pit trucks.  Mr. Stelmack concurred with Mr. Hughes and commented that any assessment of what is needed for the road prepared by the applicant, staff and Public Works will include the gravel pit traffic as well.  

Mr. Stelmack said Note 20 on the plan saying that the lot owners shall choose two trees to have planted on their lots does not make it clear that the trees will be the developer’s responsibility, and asked if a simple solution to the issue could be rephrasing the plan Note to the satisfaction of staff.  Mr. Shields said that other plans have shown the trees on the plan and would defer to the Public Works Director as to the placement of the trees.  Mr. Meek said the applicant has no problem with adding those trees to the satisfaction of staff.  Mr. Stelmack said he would like to see a minimum specification as to tree height of 5 feet and type of tree.  Mr. Shields said that typically the standard is the caliper of an inch and a half to two inches, which are trees 6 to 8 feet high.  

Mr. Boyce asked if the applicant has offered anything in the way of screening for Vetrano property between Lot 6 and Lot A.  Mr. Meek said that in the case of screening residential from residential they would like more specifics on the Planning Board’s wishes.  Mr. Boyce asked for staff comments as to whose concern the Board is being asked to consider.  Mr. Shields replied that it is staff’s concern, that in the past the Board has not made a practice of screening residential from residential, and in those cases it usually involved wooded properties where buffering is not appropriate.  Mr. Shields said that in this case, the Vetrano property will overlook the cul-de-sac, and staff has made the suggestion, but the abutter has not made any such request.  Mr. Boyce said he believes that due to the topography, it would be difficult to plant any screening on the applicant’s property that would achieve much significant screening for a long time, that he is not convinced that much can be done unless the Vetranos want the applicant to do something on their own property, and until the Vetranos ask for something, he is not inclined to impose any requirement on the applicant.  Mr. Hughes asked if it is about 180 feet to the Vetranos from the cul-de-sac, Mr. Shields concurred.  Mr. Shields commented that the elevation from the Vetranos’ rear property line to the road is about a 2 to 4 foot height on the finished product, and a line of 6-foot high pines planted along the cul-de-sac will take care of any headlight glare to the back of the Vetranos’ house.  Ms. Fossum suggested that typically some type of conifer hedge or evergreens are used to screen headlights.  Mr. Parker said he liked the idea of planting two trees of each lot and the idea of a buffer to protect the existing lot from the cul-de-sac, and said he would like to see at final approval a proposal to buffer the Vetrano lot and specific information about the trees to be planted and their locations.  Mr. Stelmack suggested a row of hedges on the property line due north of the cul-de-sac between the Vetranos’ house and the cul-de-sac and a 90 degree bend of another row of hedges on the 81.6 foot long property line in case a house is built on Lot 6.  Mr. Boyce said that the Board will expect the applicant to present a buffering plan in that area when they return for final approval.

Ms. Robie asked how long the road is; Mr. Meek replied that the road is 1450 feet as measured from the intersection of Might Street to the far end of the cul-de-sac and not around the cul-de-sac.  Ms. Robie said she appreciated the change to cul-de-sac from a hammerhead, but she is disappointed that the applicant did not take advantage of the size of the property to put in a road that looped out, as there is enough land to do it and legally not make it a dead end road.  She said that the creation of another dead end road contributes to the Town’s infrastructure costs that will never be recovered from the development and that a dead end road presents many public safety issues.  Mr. Meek replied said he appreciated Ms. Robie’s position but said that the property is encumbered by the 100 foot CMP easement and in order to loop the road, it is possible that some of CMP’s requirements might be violated, and that access to some of the rear property would not be as good with a looped road.  

Mr. Parker asked the applicant about a possible snowmobile trail crossing this development, and asked Mr. Meek to show it on the plan.  Mr. Meek said the current owners of the property did not allow access for a snowmobile trail on the property.  Mr. Boyington said that one crosses the property, but no official permission was ever granted by the current owners, that snowmobiles use the CMP easement and cross toward 114.  Mr. Boyington said that the trail currently runs along the bottom of Lot 9, touches Lot 8 and comes out on 114.  Mr. Shields said that this is similar to other trails in that area, and if Mr. Sanborn says he has not granted a formal easement, then he has just been kind enough to let people use the property without stopping them.  Mr. Shields said that there are enough trails so taking a trail through a residential subdivision is probably not that good of an idea.  Mr. Boyington said there is good potential that snowmobile trails will still exist, but they do not wish to encumber the lots with an easement.  Mr. Boyce said this is a question that should be asked at site walks and at sketch plan submissions.  Mr. Parker said that snowmobilers need to be present at meetings to express their interest.  

Ms. Robie asked where the steep slopes are that were subtracted from the net acreage; Mr. Meek replied that there are small areas of such slopes in Lot 7.  Ms. Robie inquired whether a grading plan is required for Lot 7 as well as a specific house envelope shown.  Mr. Shields replied that there are some 20 to 33% slopes in that area which is the location of the pond and the grading is part of the infrastructure.  Ms. Robie asked to see an envelope where the house is to be built; Mr. Shields pointed out on the plan a flat area in Lot 7 where the house could be placed.  Ms. Robie asked that the plan show the appropriate area.  Mr. Meek said that would be incorporated into the plans before final.  Mr. Meek explained to Mr. Stelmack where the rest of the 20-33% slopes were located.

Mr. Boyce summarized the issues discussed by the Board as follows:  the applicant will work with staff and Public works on identifying the scope and cost of improvements to that section of Mighty Street which this development will impact and barring such agreement, the Board will need to discuss it further when the applicant returns for final approval; the applicant will add two trees along the road to each lot and will also propose a buffering plan between Lot 6 and Lot A.  Mr. Shields asked for clarification of where the Board expects the reconstruction project on Mighty Street to start and finish.  Mr. Boyce said the Board would like the applicant to look at the whole section involving the extent of the subdivision.  

        Michael Parker MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to grant Boyington Associates’ request for preliminary plan approval of the proposed “Sanborn Meadows” Subdivision, a 14-lot residential subdivision on 30.68 + acres off Mighty Street, zoned Rural Residential.  Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Harold Grant recused).


Mr. Grant resumed the chair.

4.      PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION – “AUTUMN BROOK SUBDIVISION” AMENDMENT – off BROOKWOOD DRIVE – by DAVID R TUKEY  Request for preliminary and final approval of a proposed amendment for a lot line change for land transfer.  Zoned SR-MH; M96/L1.402 & 1.003.

POSTPONED at the applicant’s request.


5.      PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION – “HAMLIN SUBDIVISION” / “FRANKLIN PRIVATE WAY” – off SEBAGO LAKE ROAD – by DENNWOOD BUILDERS, INC., RICK LOCKWOOD, PROPRIETOR   Request for preliminary and final approval of proposed amendments to create two additional lots and a private way extension.  Zoned SR; M89/L34.

Thomas Greer, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of Dennwood Builders and gave a brief overview of the plan to amend the Robert Hamlin Subdivision.  Mr. Greer said that the Board now has a complete plan of the project, which will divide the 12.571 acres in Lot 1of the existing subdivision into 3 lots, pointed out the two existing homes in the Hamlin Subdivision and indicated where the private way will cross.  He discussed the history of the parcel and said that when the project is completed, there will be 4 deeds, one each for three lots and one for the private way, which will be retained by the owner of the last lot in.  He said that there are various easements and rights-of-way on the plan now that will be extinguished when the project is complete.  He said that a foundation has been started on the first lot, but there is a stop work order on it and the Code Enforcement Officer has asked to see a surveyor location plan which is not included in the subdivision plans as they believe it to be correctly sited and meets the setbacks.  Mr. Greer said that this is an issue between the builder and the Code Enforcement Office.  He said the existing private way is approved and they propose to extend it about 400 feet, with an upgrade to be made to the first 300 or 400 feet so that it meets current standards.  Mr. Greer said that the third lot in has enough building area to permit dividing of the lot, but if is developed, it will come back before the Board with a different applicant and be a separate project altogether.  Mr. Greer described the proposed stormwater management.  He said that the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval.

Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that the original 1988 Hamlin Subdivision was for 3 lots, predicated on the maximum number of lots allowed on a private way under the Code at that time.  Mr. Shields explained that the private way construction standard has been changed from 3 lots to 2 to 6 lots so the addition of new lots means that the first 300 feet of private way now needs to be constructed to the current full standard of a 2 to 6 lot private way, with its construction from beginning to end to be certified by the developer’s engineer.  He said that the paved apron will also have to be reconstructed and certified.  He said that any home built on the Dennwood Lots 1, 1A and 1B will have to be constructed to current Code with sprinkler systems for fire protection.  Mr. Shields confirmed Mr. Greer’s statement that the easements shown on the plans will be extinguished and the end result will be a clean plan, with Mr. Hamlin retaining Lot 1 and the fee interest in the private way from start to finish.  Mr. Shields said staff is satisfied that the legal aspects have been met, the private way standards have been met, and the plan is ready for amended approvals.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Brenda and Stephen Orach, 390 Sebago Lake Road, commented negatively about the way the developer has handled this development with respect to the future impact of this project on their property and their disappointment in having to spend money to protect their property from this development.  
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Greer discussed the configuration of the lots of the original subdivision.  Ms. Robie asked about the statement of the Code Enforcement Officer that “the setback requirement is not certified, then the footings must be removed before the private way is approved or a variance would be required,” noting that Mr. Greer said that the footings do not have to be on the map as that is not an issue for the private way.  Ms. Fossum said that the building footprint does not need to be shown on the plan for purposes of certification, that the Code Officer can require the developer to certify that the foundation that has been poured actually meets the setback requirements, and that the private way approval needs to come first.  Mr. Greer said that Mr. Cushman indicated that before he releases the stop work order and work is allowed to continue on the home, he wants to have a certification from a surveyor saying that the footings meet the setback requirements.  Mr. Greer further indicated that Mr. Cushman’s concern is that the footings do not meet those requirements, and the Zoning Board of Appeals would not be likely to grant a variance for the front setback because the issue was created by the developer’s own actions.  Mr. Greer said he relayed Mr. Cushman’s statements to the developer, and the developer said he had hired a surveyor to lay out the setbacks the first time and is comfortable that they are alright, and the developer will provide that information to the Code Enforcement Officer so he can release the stop work order.  Mr. Greer said that another concern regarding the building permit is the Fire Chief’s sprinkler requirements, which will also have to be addressed.  

Mr. Grant commented that the applicant is asking for both preliminary and final approval, but where this application has so many issues, it might be more advisable to grant preliminary approval and allow other individuals to come forward to speak before granting final approval, such as the Code Enforcement Officer still having an issue.  He said he felt that the Board is taking a risk by granting both approvals, and he would recommend granting only preliminary tonight.   Mr. Boyce disagreed, stating that the Board can reconsider the application if something is discovered later that needs to be addressed.   Mr. Grant pointed out that reconsideration must be done at the next Board meeting.  Mr. Greer said that this is an amendment to an existing subdivision and extension of an existing private way, as opposed to a brand new subdivision application.  Mr. Grant said that he does not believe this application warrants granting both preliminary and final approval at the same time, commenting that it is neither simple nor straightforward.  Ms. Robie and Mr. Neily concurred.  Mr. Shields asked the Chairman to elaborate on the issues to which he had referred so that staff can know if changes need to be made.  Mr. Grant replied that it would be inappropriate to talk about the issues publicly.  

Mr. Parker asked if there is an existing homeowners association for the private way; Ms. Fossum replied that the old private way had a maintenance agreement that allowed for the addition of lots, which has been recorded and is cross referenced on the plan, so there is a provision for the maintenance of the private way.  Ms. Fossum said it has been reviewed by the Town Attorney and found to be satisfactory.  Mr. Parker asked if any calculations were made on the original subdivision for the number of lots that could be built on the parcel.  Mr. Greer said he did not research the 1988 file.  Mr. Parker said he would like to have that information, and would also like to know if the current net residential density calculation is applied to this parcel, would 5 lots be allowed at this time.  Ms. Fossum said that based on the plans note of the recorded 1988 subdivision plan, there was no net residential density calculations done.  She said that the Town Attorney has advised on numerous occasions that net residential density is not a requirement of the suburban residential district unless the developer is proposing to extend public water and sewer or is proposing to cluster.  Mr. Parker said this is an issue which will prevent him from voting in favor of the proposal because he believes the issue needs to be resolved, and that net residential density is clearly appropriate in this instance and he wants to know how many lots can be actually be built on in this parcel of land.  Ms. Fossum asked if the developer would be willing to do that.  Mr. Greer said that under the circumstances he would have a hard time saying no.  

Mr. Grant polled the Board on whether they agree that net residential calculations shall be applied on every zone; the Board concurred.  The Board also concurred on Mr. Parker’s request to have net residential calculations done, and Mr. Greer agreed to perform the calculations.  Mr. Greer confirmed to Mr. Parker that the calculations will be made on the original parcel.

Mr. Grant, Ms. Robie and Mr. Greer discussed frontage issues on the hammerhead and for the large lot on the plan, with Ms. Robie and Mr. Greer disagreeing on how the frontage is calculated.  Mr. Shields said this type of frontage meets the requirements of the ordinance, and that flagpole lots are permitted.  Mr. Grant suggested that Ms. Robie pursue the issue with the Town Attorney or the Code Enforcement Officer.

Mr. Boyce asked if preliminary approval could be granted tonight, with final approval contingent upon the applicant returning with the net residential density calculations for the entire parcel, or is the Board to consider combining preliminary and final at some future date.  Mr. Stelmack said that preliminary approval is probably appropriate and then the Board should await the calculations.  Mr. Parker concurred with Mr. Stelmack, as did Mr. Hughes.

Mark Stelmack MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary approval of Dennwood Builders’ request for an amendment to the “Robert Hamlin” subdivision plan and “Franklin Drive” a private way off Sebago Lake Road.  
        Discussion:  Ms. Fossum said that preliminary approval of the private way could be granted, but that she would not recommend final approval of the private way until the subdivision is granted final approval.  
        Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.


Stretch Break


6.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION - off DAVIS ANNEX – by JUSTIN & KELLY DEARBORN.  Discussion of a proposed 10-lot residential subdivision with two roads on 16 acres. Zoned SR; M38/L3.

Andy Morrell, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicants and said that the proposal is for 10 lots and approximately + 1400 feet of new public roadway, with each lot served by individual subsurface wastewater disposal systems, drilled wells, and underground utilities.  Mr. Morrell said that based upon the recently adopted Public Water Extension ordinance, calculations have been made which indicate that the extension of public water is not required.  He said the calculations were done based on 11 lots as the applicant is attempting to purchase a small piece of abutting property which would permit the creation of the 11th lot.  Mr. Morrell reminded the Board that a previous applicant had appeared for approval of this piece of property, and the Board did a site walk at that time.  Based on that fact, Mr. Morrell asked for a waiver of the site walk requirement.

Staff indicated that there were no comments to make at this time.

Ms. Robie said that when the Board did its site walk, there were no road layouts and the Board walked up an existing logging road along the edge of the property, and she would not be in favor of waiving the site walk requirement.  Mr. Morrell said they have no objections to a site walk should the Board want to have one.  

Mr. Grant commented that the applicant’s water calculation is the first test of the Public Water Extension formula, and while it follows the formula, the applicant’s use of the numbers is not reasonable based on the dirt condition of the road.  Mr. Morrell said that the 1675 feet along Davis Annex has significant amounts of ledge, they provided numbers on the anticipated amounts of ledge, and they believe that the cost of public water exceeds the cost of private wells.  Mr. Grant said if public water is not brought into the project, he cannot support going beyond 1500 feet on Davis Annex as a dirt road going into a subdivision unless Davis Annex is paved.  Mr. Morrell said he believes that the Public Works Director has recommended that Davis Annex remain a gravel road.  Mr. Grant commented that the Public Works Director’s recommendations are not binding on the Planning Board.  As a matter of clarification, Mr. Shields commented that the Board was given the correct second sheet on both sets of water extension calculations, one set of numbers without ledge and one set with ledge, and then described what happened with the first pages of each set and how the calculations were made.  Mr. Grant, Ms. Robie and Mr. Shields then discussed the numbers used in the formula.  

Ms. Robie said the proposal’s design creates two dead end roads at the end of a dirt road, and asked if either of the roads could go anywhere.  She said that having a circle or a cul-de-sac in the development would be better, and from the point of view of public safety, this is not a good design.  Mr. Morrell said they would review that issue before returning for preliminary.  Mr. Neily confirmed that Davis Annex is a public road, although it is a dirt road, and said he would like to see some distances shown on the plan.

Mr. Parker asked if the hammerhead on the west could turn to the right, per the wishes of the Public Works Director.  Mr. Boyce asked if cluster development had been considered, limiting the amount of road.  Mr. Morrell said the applicant would be willing to consider that, but reminded the Board that the site’s configuration might not support a cluster development.  Mr. Hughes asked if a loop road would be possible with a cluster plan.  Mr. Morrell confirmed to Mr. Shields that the road would be a public way.  

Justin Dearborn, the applicant, said a concern he has about running water up Davis Annex is there a 33-foot wide easement right of way owned by the Town, and he is concerned about possible structural blasting damage to the many old trees and homes in the area.  

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

Mr. Stelmack asked for a copy of the engineer’s calculations in the next Board package.  

The Chairman asked that a site walk be scheduled after the Board has received a plan.


7.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION – off DOW ROAD – by LEWIS & WASINA.  Discussion of a proposed 9-lot residential subdivision with one road on 17 acres. Zoned R; M56/L11.

Bruce Lewis, President of Lewis & Wasina, told the Board that the boundary survey is still in process, the topographic survey has been completed, soils mapping is not yet complete so the net density is based on the wetlands, resulting in 9 lots with a proposed public way of somewhat over 800 feet.  He said that the property is located just beyond Finn Parker Road going toward Buxton, sight distance is adequate, and an entrance permit has been secured from the State.  He said there is a narrow strip of wetland across the property, but he does not believe a Tier I permit will be necessary.

Mr. Grant asked Mr. Lewis if he planned to sell the lots or build on them.  Mr. Lewis said it may be a combination of both.  

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

Mr. Parker asked the applicant to explain the southern boundary line and the strange shape of Lot 9.  Mr. Lewis said the property was conveyed about 6 months ago and involves meeting minimum road frontage requirements.  In reply to Mr. Parker, Mr. Lewis said that all the lots will have frontage on the new road.  Ms. Robie asked about the shape of Lot 1, and asked for the length of the front line.  Mr. Lewis replied that the road location might change to minimize the wetland impact, so that he could not answer Ms. Robie’s question now.  

Ms. Robie commented that the Board needs to look at any future extensions to adjoining properties.  Mr. Grant said that the Board needs to look at that on the tax map at the site walk.  Mr. Grant asked the applicant to flag the centerline and the cul-de-sac for the site walk.  

Mr. Grant asked staff to schedule a site walk.


8.      PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / PRIVATE WAY - off SEBAGO LAKE ROAD – by GILBERT HOMES, INC.  Discussion of a proposed private way to serve two lots.  Zoned SR; M53/L36.001.

Andy Morrell, BH2M Engineers, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Gilbert Homes, Inc., saying that the proposal is for two lots with approximately 600 feet of a private way.  He said the lots will be served by on-site septic systems, private drilled wells, and underground utilities.  He said that the sight distance in either direction along Route 237 is more than adequate.  Mr. Grant asked if there was public water at that point on Rte. 237; Mr. Morrell said he did not believe there was.  Mr. Shields said there is public water in that vicinity.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Chad Dudley, abutter on the south side of the proposed road, spoke of his concerns about water runoff from Route 237 if the road is put in.  Mr. Dudley gave the Chairman a map and a letter outlining his concerns.  
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.


9.      ADJOURNMENT

        Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.  

Respectfully submitted,


_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
___________________________, 2005                               
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\Agendas\Minutes\PBMN05FY\PBMN 011005.doc
2.      FINAL SUBDIVISION – “LINE ROAD SUBDIVISION” / “LEAVITT DRIVE” – off LINE ROAD – by BRIAN LEAVITT
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 prior to the commencement of any site improvements, land clearing and/or earth-moving activities associated within the approved subdivision, the applicant shall arrange pre-construction meeting’s with the Planning Department, Review Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;

4.      That prior to the issuance of the first building permit on the private way, an all weather access road will be constructed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director;

5.      That prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits within the subdivision, each structure shall be properly numbered with the number visible from the street year round;

6.      That at least one week prior to the date of the pre-construction meeting, a complete set of the final approved plan set will be delivered to each of the following: (1) Inspecting Engineer, (2) Public Works Director, and (3) Director of Planning:

7.      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;

8.      That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad (version 2000) format to the Town of Gorham Tax Assessor prior to the scheduled pre-construction meeting;

9.      That the private way shall be maintained for emergency vehicles year-round;

10.     That all homes within the subdivision will be sprinkled and the sprinkler plans must be submitted to the State Fire Marshal’s office and the Gorham Fire Department for review and permitting. The plans to Gorham Fire shall be submitted at least two weeks prior to the start of construction of the system in each building;

11.     That the sprinkler test papers shall be forwarded to the Fire Department before a certificate of occupancy is issued;

12.     That prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit 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;

13.     That the applicant shall create a homeowners association or other legal entity acceptable to the Town and shall submit the association documents or declaration creating the association or other legal entity in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.~ The documents or declaration shall specify the rights and responsibilities of each lot owner with respect to the maintenance, repair, and plowing of all streets within the subdivision, and shall state that the homeowners association and/or the lot owners shall be responsible for all costs related to the street.~ The applicant shall be responsible for forming the Association and recording the approved documents in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of the date of approval of the subdivision by the Planning Board; and

14.     That these conditions of approval, the Home Owners Association Documents and Final Plan Mylar shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board’s endorsement of the final plan, and a dated copy of the recorded Decision Document shall be returned to the Town Planner prior to the commencement of construction or conveyance of any lots within the subdivision.