Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
02/14/2005 Minutes
Town of Gorham
FEBRUARY 14, 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
THOMAS HUGHES                           AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY                             BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
MARK STELMACK
Members Absent:
DOUGLAS BOYCE
SUSAN ROBIE

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

1.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 24, 2005 and February 7, 2005.

        Clark Neily MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of January 24, 2005 as written and distributed.  
        Discussion: Mr. Hughes asked that on page 12, at the third paragraph, his quote be corrected to read:  “Mr. Hughes asked if it would be possible to require only right turns out of the site…”
        Motion CARRIED with correction, 5 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [7:01 p.m.]

        Clark Neily MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of February 7, 2005, as written and distributed.  Motion CARRIED, 3 ayes (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent; Thomas Hughes and Michael Parker abstaining as not having been present at the February 7, 2005 meeting).  [7:03 p.m.]


2.      SITE PLAN – “GORHAM MAIN STREET BRANCH” – off 99 MAIN STREET – by BANKNORTH, N.A. – Request for discussion of a 2,470 sq. ft. retail banking office on a .5 acre parcel referred to as Out Parcel “B” at the Hannaford Plaza.  Zoned UC; M102/L155.

David Leasure, Architectural Associates, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Leasure asked the Board for direction and guidance on issues involving the type of lighting and landscape reviews.  In addition, Mr. Leasure asked for guidance about whether a variance is needed if the applicant exceeds the impervious area prescribed by Hannaford Brothers’ DEP permits, which the applicant has done by about some 500 square feet in order to accomplish certain turning radii requirements.  

Mr. Shields made the staff comments, indicating that the impervious issue had not been raised before.  He said that this is not up to the Board to resolve, as staff needs to determine how to address the issue with the applicant and the Town’s review engineer, Les Berry.  Mr. Leasure explained to Mr. Grant that the impervious restriction was raised by Hannaford Brothers’ previously approved plan for this out parcel.  Mr. Shields said there are two issues on which the applicant needed guidance:  the first is if Board members have any concerns they wish to have addressed.  Second, Mr. Shields said that in the matter of lighting, the Town requires the applicant to use a certain kind of lighting fixture more appropriate to the Village than a shoebox type of fixture, Hannaford Brothers would prefer something else, and the applicant had yet a third kind of fixture in mind.  He said that Hannaford and the applicant would like to use some kind of shoe box style fixture, while staff would prefer something more traditional  Mr. Shields said that the review comments from Terry DeWan about the landscaping are not yet available and there may be some revisions pending his comments.  Mr. Shields said that the traffic review has been found acceptable and the all of the final site engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed.  

Mr. Hughes said he would prefer traditional lighting and asked who has the final authority on this issue.  Ms. Fossum said that the applicant has to meet the requirements of both the property owner from whom it is leasing its property and the requirements of the Town’s Land Use Code for lighting in the Urban Commercial District, and the Board has the authority and responsibility to review the plan against the ordinance and accept or reject the applicant’s proposal.  Mr. Shields said that the applicant also needs to work within a cost basis, and staff’s preferences may cost more and require more poles in order to get the same amount of lumens on the site to achieve the same measure of safety that is obtained by the shoe box fixtures presently proposed.  Mr. Stelmack asked what the requirements in the Code are that the applicant has to work with.  Ms. Fossum read from the Performance Standards of the Code, Section X, Urban Commercial District, E, 13, Lighting, beginning with “Exterior lighting shall be compatible with the Village character; exterior lighting shall be designed to provide only the minimum lighting necessary to insure adequate vision, safety and comfort in parking areas and to not cause glare beyond the limits of the property boundaries; lighting shall also conform to the following standards “a” through “p.”  The Board and staff briefly discussed the issues that had been involved with the approval of lighting on the Hannaford site.  

Mr. Parker and Mr. Grant asked if staff would be willing to work with the applicant and Hannaford Brothers to resolve the lighting issue so that the applicant can come back to the Board with a new plan.  Ms. Fossum asked if any of the other Board members had strong feelings about the lighting issue.  Mr. Hughes said he had no problem with the shoe box fixtures.  Mr. Stelmack asked if the current proposal violates the Code, Ms. Fossum said it is a somewhat subjective standard, and the Planning Board is the ultimate decision maker.  Mr. Parker commented that other financial institutions have been approved within close proximity to the applicant’s site and asked what their lighting was.  Ms. Fossum replied that one had traditional lighting with lower poles and the other had shoe box fixtures.  Mr. Leasure commented that some of their fixtures are 17 feet 6 inches and others near walkways are 10 feet.  The Board ultimately concurred that they had no objection to the proposed lighting.  

Mr. Grant asked Mr. Leasure to consider installing sprinkler heads next to the curbing by the roadside to water the esplanade, but cautioned that the Public Works Director indicated that the Town would not be liable if a snow plow were to damage a sprinkler head.  Mr. Leasure said he would discuss the issue of cost of site irrigation with the applicant.  

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

None of the Board members had any further issues to discuss.  [7:30 p.m.]


3.      PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – “NONESUCH FARMS” – off 119 BURNHAM ROAD – by RISBARA BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. – Request for discussion of a 14-lot residential subdivision and 1,800‘ road on 30 +/- acres. Zoned R; M1/L14.

Rocco Risbara appeared before the Board, saying that as the Board wished, the connection will be made to the adjoining Bridle Path Subdivision and most of the review engineer’s comments have been addressed.  Mr. Risbara said that the remaining issue is that of the fire pond, that they have met with the Fire Chief, and will attempt to meet all of his requirements.  He asked if the Board would indicate tonight that it would accept the fire pond if all of the requirements have been addressed.

Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, and said that the question of the Saddle Lane connection has been resolved and the applicant has agreed to construct it, but staff believes that a formal easement is necessary to Risbara from the first easement holder, Mr. Frinsko, in order for a section of the roadway to be constructed once it crosses over the property line.  Mr. Shields explained that the lot which the  Frinskos want to keep could not be split off before subdivision approval as it had no legal road frontage, and that the remaining land of Frinsko will stay within the net residential calculations, including soils, hydrology, topo, and boundary survey.  He said that staff will work with the applicant and Mr. Frinsko about other issues, such as excluding the Frinsko lot from covenants and restrictions of the subdivision, prior to the application returning for approval.  Mr. Shields said that the applicant believes it can build the fire pond according to the Town’s requirements and would like the Board’s support on this item tonight.

Mr. Neily asked what the distance is of the right of way in to the fire pond.  Mr. Risbara replied that the distance from the new road to the fire pond is a little over 350 feet.  Mr. Parker said he believes that the Frinsko property should be included in the net residential calculations for the entire parcel so that future maximum subdivision potential is known.  

Mr. Grant asked about a note in SYTDesign’s comment about a clay liner to the fire pond.  Mr. Risbara said they have no intention of installing a clay liner, but as the pond does not meet the 10 foot depth criteria, they plan to raise the level of the pond.  Jamie Lowery. Sebago Technics, told the Board that the Code requirement is for 120,000 gallons of water within the fire pond, and the way the pond is designed and with the level raised, there will be some 1.1 to 1.2 million gallons of water.  Mr. Grant commented that the Board has tried to discourage fire ponds in the recent past, that the Board has encouraged developers to sprinkle homes, and noted that maintenance of fire ponds is a burden to the Town, and quoted from the Preliminary Plan Review section of the Code that “…the Town will not in the future incur extraordinary expense as a result of the development either on or offsite and the environment will not be harmed unduly…”  The Fire Chief commented that the cost of maintaining a fire pond is between $6000 to $10,000.  Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Grant, saying that the impact of having sprinklers could have significant positive impact on one’s insurance carrier and could be a good selling point.  Mr. Parker asked if the fire chief if this is a potentially suitable fire pond.

Fire Chief Robert Lefebvre told the Board that the size of the pond and its amount of water is more than adequate, but there are some issues which must be overcome if it is to meet the Code requirements.  He explained to the Board that the Code requires that there be no more than a 15 foot lift, which is measured from the screen at the suction point to the discharge point of the hydrant, and this pond shows 20 feet of lift.  That is one issue which must be resolved.  He said another concern is the length of the run of the pipe; if it is 300 feet from the pond to the road, it is possible to make it work, but presently depending on how the pipe is laid, it is going uphill.  The Chief then explained how a fire apparatus works, taking water from the pond by removing the air in the pipe by using a small electric vein pump which creates a vacuum, and the water is then forced through the pipe.  The truck operates from the hydrant to the fire, so if the pipe is empty and its run is longer, more air has to be removed.  The Chief said that the pond must meet the certification for ISO, that the 70 fire ponds in Gorham have all been certified within the last year and a half at considerable expense, and now a pond must be certified before it is accepted..  He said that if the pond can meet the first two requirements and be certified, then it would meet the requirements of the Code.  In response to a query from Mr. Neily, the Chief said that all the Town asks for is an easement over the land where the pipe is laid and around the pond, in order to permit maintenance of the pond and the piping and hydrant.  Mr. Stelmack confirmed that the developer is not required to upgrade the area within the easement, so the Town might incur the costs of maintaining the easement area in order to maintain the pond.  Mr. Hughes asked if it were geometrically possible to raise the water enough with a hydrant two feet above ground level so that the lift would still be within the 15 foot criteria.  The Chief replied that the measurement of the water is taken from the lowest surface point of the water that it can be drawn down to, from the screen of the pipe in the bottom of the pond.  Chief Lefebvre indicated that the current schedule would hopefully be to maintain a pond every six to eight years.   Mr. Risbara suggested that perhaps the homeowners’ association could be required to maintain the pond, but the Chief indicated that there is no real authority available to enforce such a requirement.

Mr. Risbara said that the intention is to build a driveway down to the pond for access to the pond, the hydrant will be put out at the street, that there are some engineering issues such as the lift differential to be addressed, but he believes that can be accomplished.  He said they have talked with a company in South Portland about ISO ratings. Mr. Neily said it should be clear to the applicant that the Board would prefer sprinkling, and said his personal preference would be for sprinkling.  Mr. Risbara said that there are potential buyers who do not want sprinkling because of problems such as freeze-ups.  Chief Lefebvre said that residential sprinkling is gaining more credibility with insurance companies.  Mr. Risbara confirmed to Mr. Stelmack that they hope to work with two options to meet the 15 foot lift requirement:  raising the screen and lowering the road.  Mr. Risbara asked the Board to make a determination tonight so that if the fire pond would not be permitted, he need not go to the expense of trying to meet the Town’s requirements for a fire pond.  Mr. Parker referred to the section of the Code about undue expense to the Town and asked staff to get a legal opinion from the Town Attorney that this undue expense is sufficient grounds for denying a properly engineered, ISO approved fire pond before the developer returns for final approval.  Ms. Fossum said that there are two sections of the ordinance that are potentially applicable, and if the legal opinion is that the section referred to in the Chapter II performance standards supersedes the section mentioned by the Chairman in Chapter III about undue expense, and the applicant can demonstrate that the performance standards will be met, would that be adequate for the Board to feel comfortable with the applicant going ahead with the fire pond design.  

Mr. Risbara said he understands the Board’s point of view, he understands that the Board wants a legal opinion, and he will proceed with trying to work out the issues with the pond.  He told the Planner he thought he would be appearing for preliminary approval tonight.  Mr. Parker asked if the applicant could return for both preliminary and final approval if the issue of the fire pond is resolved.  Ms. Fossum told the applicant and the Board that this item is not on tonight’s agenda for preliminary approval, the plans are not ready as the net residential density calculations need to be re-done, and abutters and other interested parties have not been notified that preliminary approval was scheduled for tonight.  She said that the ordinance does have a provision allowing the Board to waive its requirements for two separate meetings and to act on a plan and grant it both preliminary and final approval in one meeting, but she cannot recall this having been done for a subdivision of this size in quite a long time; rather, it has been the Board’s policy to do both approvals only on minor subdivisions.  She said that when preliminary approval is granted, all of the technical engineering and the overall layout of the project is complete, and then the legal documents are reviewed for final.

Mr. Neily commended the developer for its progress in resolving other issues that have arisen in connection with this plan.  Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Risbara if he had ever put in a fire pond and then the owners the option of sprinkling; Mr. Risbara said he had not.  


4.      ADJOURNMENT

        Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes  (Douglas Boyce and Susan Robie absent).  [8:15 p.m.]

Respectfully submitted,


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