Town of Gorham
APRIL 7, 2008
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Municipal Center Council Chambers
75 South Street, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
SUSAN ROBIE, CHAIRWOMAN DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR THOMAS POIRIER, Assistant Planner
THOMAS FICKETT NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
THOMAS HUGHES BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
MARK STELMACK
EDWARD ZELMANOW
Members Absent:
MICHAEL PARKER
The Chairwoman called the meeting to order at 6:00 and read the Agenda. The Clerk called the roll, noting that Michael Parker was absent.
1. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 3, 2008, MINUTES
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to approve the March 3, 2008 minutes as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:05 p.m.]
2 REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD
A. Introduction of Reappointed Members
Michael Parker and Thomas Hughes have each been reappointed for a new three-year term of office.
B. Election of Officers
The Clerk called for nominations for the position of Chairman.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED the nomination of Susan Robie for the position of Chairwoman. Thomas Hughes MOVED and March Stelmack SECONDED a motion to close the nominations. Motion to close the nominations CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). The motion nominating Ms. Robie as Chairwoman CARRIED, 5 ayes , 1 abstention (Susan Robie) and 1 absence (Michael Parker).
The Chairwoman called for nominations for the position of Vice Chairman.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED the nomination of Douglas Boyce for Vice Chairman. Thomas Hughes MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to close the nominations. Motion to close the nominations CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). The motion nominating Mr. Boyce as Vice Chairman CARRIED 5 ayes , 1 abstention (Douglas Boyce) and 1 absence (Michael Parker).
C. Committee Appointments
1. Private Way Subcommittee: Parker, Fickett, and Hughes.
2. Sign Ordinance Subcommittee: Boyce, Robie and Zelmanow.
3. Ordinance Subcommittee: Robie, Stelmack, and Boyce.
Mr. Hughes suggested that the name of the Private Way Subcommittee be changed to “Streets and Ways Subcommittee” and to expand the committee’s role due to the correlation between the two, as well as issues involving widths and curbing.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion to rename the Private Way Subcommittee to the “Streets and Ways Subcommittee” and to expand the committee’s function. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:10 p.m.]
3. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Streets and Ways Subcommittee: No report.
B. Ordinance Review Committee: Ms. Robie reported that the Committee is reviewing letters to be sent to the Town Council, reviewing some changes to administrative planning processes such as some sunset provisions and modifications involving the tracking of applications. The Committee also has a proposal to remove the Planning Board from the street acceptance process.
C. Sign Ordinance Subcommittee: Mrs. Robie reported that this a final version of the Ordinance is being submitted to the Town Council, with a target date of the Council’s May meeting.
4. MINOR SITE PLAN REPORT
Ms. Fossum reported that one new minor site plan application has been received during the month of March, from Shaw Earthworks to develop a contractor’s site in the New Portland Parkway Industrial Subdivision. One pending application was finalized, that of John Woods, also a contractor’s site in the New Portland Parkway Industrial Subdivision. There are three additional minor site plan applications currently under review.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “DOUGLAS KNOLL/MARYANN DRIVE” – off WATERHOUSE ROAD & SOUTH STREET – by DESIGN DWELLINGS, INC.
Request for approval of an amendment to the subdivision plan to allow the use of wood chips in place of stone dust in the construction of the pedestrian access to the open space area by Design Dwellings, Inc. Zoned R; M22/L4.
Mr. Fickett commented that the original plan incorrectly shows Waterhouse Road as Waterhouse “DRIVE,” which should be correctly.
No member of the Board and no one from the public wished to remove the item from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Fossum confirmed that Conditions of Approval have been posted and provided to the applicant; Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, indicated that he believes the applicant is comfortable with the Conditions.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to approve Item A on the Consent Agenda with the proposed conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes. [6:16 p.m.]
Thomas Fickett MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to take Items 7 and 8 out of order, before Item 6, as these two items will take less time than Item 6. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:17 p.m.]
7. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “SEBAGO KNOLL” – off RITZ FARM ROAD – by AARON & PAULETTE SHIELDS and THOMAS & ANNE BACHNER (co-applicants)
Request for preliminary and final approval of lot line adjustments between Lots 6 & 7 and between Lots 7 & 8. Zoned R; M84/L16.006, 16.007 & 16.008.
Aaron Shields explained that there are two amendments proposed: one would be a transfer of land from Lot 7 to Lot 6, that of co-applicant Bachner, and the other amendment involves a strip of land between Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Shields said they are requesting a waiver to allow preliminary and final approval in one meeting.
Mr. Poirier gave the staff comments, noting that the original application received approval under the then-existing Rural Land Management System, establishing the maximum number of lots in subdivisions in the rural district. Those requirements have since been removed from the Code and replaced with Net Residential Density calculations. Staff has requested revisions to the current Plan Note #34, reflected in Condition of Approval #4 “That the applicant shall amend plan note 34 of the subdivision plan per the Town Attorney’s email dated April 3, 2008 and resubmit the revised subdivision plan for review and approval by Town Staff and Town Attorney prior to endorsement of the mylar by the Planning Board.”
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant the applicant’s request for waiver for the procedures leading up to final subdivision under the ordinances. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:21 p.m.]
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary and final approval for Sebago Knoll Subdivision’s First Subdivision Amendment with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:22 p.m.
8. PRIVATE WAY – “RIVER’S EDGE DRIVE” – by FLOYD BROWN.
Request for approval of a proposed 340’ private way located off 186 Mosher Road to serve 2 lots. Zoned UR-MH-SZ-RP; M49/L19.1.
Steve Roberge, SJR Engineering, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained the proposed private way. He said that the road is proposed to be 301 feet long to serve two lots, one existing. A gravity sewer system has been designed to tie into Mosher Road. The lots will be served by underground electric, natural gas and public water from Mosher Road as well.
Mr. Poirier said that the required Private Way Maintenance Agreement has been submitted, reviewed by the Town Attorney and revised.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion to grant Floyd Brown’s request for approval of the private way plan for “River’s Edge Drive” off 165 Mosher Road with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:24 p.m.]
6. MINERAL EXTRACTION/SITE PLAN – “BRICKYARD QUARRY” AND ASPHALT PLANT – off ROUTE 237/MOSHER ROAD – by SHAW BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
PUBLIC HEARING – (CONTINUED) –
Request for approval of a Mineral Extraction Permit for the Brickyard Quarry, a proposed quarry operation on 125.5 acres +/-; zoned: Industrial/Suburban Residential; Map 31/Lots 12, 13, 14, & 15 and a revised Site Plan Application for a hot-mix bituminous asphalt batch plant; zoned Industrial; Map 31/Lot 15 for Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc., on land of S.B. Aggregates, LLC located on Route 237/Mosher Road.
Ms. Robie noted that the first item to be considered is the revised March 31, 2008 Brickyard Quarry Planning Board Decision, Findings of Facts and Conclusions and Conditions of Approval, to determine if the changes made at the last meeting are accurately reflected in that document.
Mr. Hughes noted a correction on page 2 of the Findings, under “Zoning,” where the phrase “…this use is classified as permitted uses” should be “…this use is classified as a permitted use.”
The Town Attorney explained that because the Board adopted the Findings at the last meeting, the appropriate motion at this time would be to reconsider the Findings of Fact prepared at the last meeting to make the change just noted on page two.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to reconsider the Findings of Facts. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:28 p.m.]
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to accept the Findings of Fact as modified tonight with the single edit on page two of the Findings. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:29 p.m.]
The Board then considered the revised March 31, 2008 Brickyard Quarry Conditions of Approval.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to reconsider the Brickyard Quarry Conditions of Approval. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:33 p.m.]
Mr. Stelmack suggested deleting the word “Inc.” in Condition of Approval #24. He also suggested that the word “monitoring” be used exclusively in Conditions of Approval #19 and #21, and that the word “testing” be stricken from these two Conditions. Mr. Boyce suggested adding the word “noise” in the first sentence of Condition #21, so that it would read “…noise monitoring…” Ms. Robie recommended, in Condition #21, that the Code Enforcement Officer also be provided with the monitoring results, as well as the Town Engineer.
Mr. Fickett asked for clarification on Condition # 20, requiring the use of “Smart Alarms.” The Board ultimately agreed that the Condition should be modified to read “That the applicant shall ensure installation of ‘Smart Alarms’ on all equipment operating on the site, excluding vehicles entering and exiting the site that are not involved in site operations.”
The applicant questioned whether Condition of Approval #8, based on a requirement of the Town Engineer, is applicable to new pits. Further discussion between the Board and the applicant resulted in the following change: “That the applicant shall submit accurate plans, including the use of GPS-based information where applicable, and AutoCAD information of existing quarry operation area and conditions as part of the yearly Application for Registration of Existing Pit Operations to the Town Engineer and Code Enforcement Officer.”
The applicant also expressed concern that the wording of Condition of Approval #40 was ambiguous. The Board modified the Condition to read “...shall provide …deeds…and… easements for review and approval of the documents by the Town Attorney prior to the scheduling of the pre-construction meeting.”
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to accept the Condition of Approval prepared for the March 31, 2008 Planning Board meeting as modified at tonight. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:10 p.m.]
The Board next turned its attention to the Brickyard Quarry Blasting Permit Operational Requirements and Conditions of Approval prepared for the April 7, 2008 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Stelmack suggested that the document entitled “License to Blasting” should be amended to read “License to Blast.” The Board concurred.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED a motion to accept the Findings of Fact and the Conditions of Approval for the blasting permit.
DISCUSSION: In response to a query from Mr. Stelmack, Mr. Shaw replied that the applicant has no comment on the Conditions of Approval.
Motion CARRRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:15 p.m.]
Ms. Robie said that the Board would next consider the Asphalt Plant site plan application, following the same procedure as had been followed for the quarry application. Applicable requirements are in Chapter I, industrial zone use space and bulk standards and performance standards, all performance standards of Chapter II are applicable, and the submission requirements and waiver requests , and Approval Standards and Criteria “A” through “S” of Chapter IV, Site Plan Review, will also be reviewed. Ms. Robie said that the same procedure for public comment will be followed as was done in the Brickyard Quarry deliberations of taking public comment after the Board has developed conditions of approval. The Chair can recognize someone from the public if it seems appropriate, but there
cannot be continual interaction during Board deliberations.
Ms. Robie said the Board would begin with the Industrial Zone standards and drew everyone’s attention to the map showing the Industrial Zones in the Town of Gorham. She said that this is a permitted use and has been ruled a separate use by the Code Enforcement Officer and not an accessory use to the quarry, and therefore can not be located anywhere outside the industrial areas in the Town of Gorham.
Ms. Robie said that as the asphalt plant is a permitted use, the Board needs to make a finding of fact that it meets the space standards; staff has confirmed that it does meet the space standards and setbacks are appropriately shown on the plan.
Ms. Robie said that Chapter II consists of general standards of performance, which are basically items that are enforced by the Code Enforcement Officer, and all applications that undergo site plan review are subject to applicable performance standards. It is the Planning Board’s job to make sure that the applicant and the application reflect conditions of approval that will cause an application to meet those performance standards. She said that where there are not specific site plan requirements that address the performance standards, there can still be conditions of approval attached to a plan that will make it more probable that the applicant and the application will meet the performance standards of Chapter II. Therefore, as the Board reviews the asphalt plant, those performance standards,
particularly environmental which do not have specific site plan requirements, still need to be discussed to make sure that there are conditions of approval attached to the application that will increase the likelihood that the use will meet the general standards of performance it is required to meet. Therefore, as the Board goes through site plan review, it will return to a consideration of the general standards of performance, particularly those on page 128 of the Code, to make sure there are appropriate conditions of approval.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion that the Board finds that the asphalt plant is a permitted use in the Industrial Zone and meets the space standards of the zone. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:20 p.m.]
Under Chapter I Section XII, Industrial District, E. Performance Standards, 1)-3)
The general performance standards contained in Chapter II of this Code shall be fully observed and the following additional standards shall be required of uses within this district.
1) There shall be no new access or curb cuts to Main Street, Libby Avenue or New Portland Road from any lots in the Industrial District, when an alternative access exists as of November 30, 1998, provided however, if no such alternative exists than there can be only one access or curb cut per lot in existence at the date of adoption of this ordinance. The Planning Board may allow additional access points onto Main Street or New Portland Road if the developer demonstrates that additional access would provide for better traffic circulation and improved traffic safety, without reducing the level of service on the main travel way.
The Board found that this is not applicable
2) Except where it abuts existing industrial zoned land, all land zoned industrial after November 30,1998 shall have a “perimeter setback” of one hundred feet (100’), which shall be subject to the restrictions set out below. The Planning Board may reduce the perimeter setback by up to 50% if it finds that doing so would result in a better plan of development for the project site.
a) No portion of the “perimeter setback” shall be used for storage of equipment or inventory, service and loading, parking or any buildings or structures. Subject to Paragraph 1) above, access roads and utilities may cross the “perimeter setback” to provide access to and from a street but shall be designed to minimize the disruption of the “perimeter setback.” No direct access to parking stalls shall be provided from an access road located with in the “perimeter setback.”
b) A landscaped buffer area, as provided in Subparagraph 2) c) below, shall be designed and maintained within the “perimeter setback.”
c) A detailed landscaping plan, prepared by a landscape architect, shall be prepared for the landscaped buffer area and submitted as part of Site Plan Review, for all lots, with a perimeter setback." The landscaped buffer area shall be designed to provide effective visual and auditory buffering from abutting residential properties, create an attractive appearance for the proposed new development and maintain an attractive gateway to Gorham consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town of Gorham Comprehensive Plan. Existing natural features and vegetation may be incorporated into the plan for the buffer area if they are found to create an effective visual and auditory buffer by the Planning Board. All such buffer areas shall be maintained for the life of the project.
The Board found that this is not applicable
Ms. Robie suggested that in order to avoid duplication, 3) below be discussed with the appropriate site plan standard, #11, as well as those items involving erosion control and groundwater pollution. The Board concurred with the method proposed.
3) Fencing, screening, landscaped berms, natural features, or combination thereof, shall be utilized to shield from the view of abutting residential properties and public ways, along the perimeter setback of the Industrial District, all loading and unloading operations, storage and repair work areas, commercial vehicle parking, and waste disposal and collection areas.
The applicant proposes to use landscaped berms, natural features, and the Morin Brick Building on the adjacent lot (Map 34, Lot 9) to shield the view of abutting residential properties as well as Mosher Road public way. The asphalt plant tanks and silos, loading operations of the asphalt plant, and vehicle parking will be located behind the existing Morin Brick Building.
Ms. Robie then directed the Board to consider the Approval Criteria and Standards under Chapter IV, Site Plan Review, reminding the Board it must keep in mind the purposes listed particularly in light of a discussion of the performance standards of Chapter II.
The first item to be considered is A, Utilization of the Site.
A. Utilization of the Site _ The plan for the development will reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development. Buildings, lots, and support facilities will be clustered in those portions of the site that have the most suitable conditions for development. Environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, flood plains and unique natural features will be maintained and preserved to the maximum extent. Natural drainage areas will be preserved to the maximum extent.
A. Utilization of the Site- The developer is proposing to excavate up to 30’ into the existing hill to install the asphalt plant and associated infrastructure. The plans show leaving a portion of existing trees located around the stormwater pond, and the applicant is proposing to limit the amount of wetland impacts associated with the stormwater ponds, earthen landscaped berm, and access roads. The applicant has moved the asphalt plant to a portion of the site that is the furthest distance from abutting residences and provides a greater buffering area than that originally proposed.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant is suitably utilizing the site and to adopt the finding of fact.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Robie noted that the applicant has moved the asphalt plant to a portion of the site that is the furthest distance from abutting residences and provides a greater buffering area than that originally proposed.
Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes.
The Board then returned to its deliberations on the Submission Requirements outlined in Chapter IV.
Chapter IV Section VIII, C.) Submission Requirements 1, (a.) – (e.)
The application for site plan review of a major development shall contain at least the following exhibits and information for review. Ms. Robie suggested that the Board combined a. General Information and b. Existing Conditions and find that the applicant has met these requirements.
a. General Information: (1. -10. – Page 194 of the Land Use Code)
The applicant has submitted information pertaining to the ten general information submission requirements required under major site plan review on the site plans and site plan application. The Planning Board may elect to discuss any of the required submission requirements with the applicant.
b. Existing Conditions: (1. – 12. – Pages 194-195 of the Land Use Code)
The applicant has submitted information pertaining to the existing conditions of the site requirements required under major site plan review. The Planning Board may elect to discuss any of the required submission requirements with the applicant.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.), 1, (a) and (b) for General Information and Existing Conditions. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:33 p.m.]
c. Proposed Development Activity:
1. A grading plan showing the proposed changes in the topography of the site at a two-foot contour interval. This plan may be combined with the site plan.
The applicant details the proposed lot 1 changes in the topography at two-foot contour intervals on the Partial Grading and Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 1 and to adopt the finding of fact as written. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:34 p.m.]
2. Location and dimensions of all provisions for water supply and wastewater disposal and evidence of their adequacy for the proposed use including test pit data if on-site sewage disposal is proposed.
The applicant shows the proposed lot 1’s 8” waterline extension from a watermain located in Mosher Road on the Partial Grading and Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18. The applicant is not proposing to have an on-site sewage disposal system on lot 1.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 2 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:35 p.m.]
3. Provisions for handling solid wastes including the location proposed treatment of any on-site collection or storage facilities.
The applicant has submitted information pertaining to the proposed treatment of any on-site collection and storage facilities. The applicant has also submitted a Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) as well as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the Operations Plan Notebook dated January 2008 and as amended March 2008.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 3 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:36 p.m.]
4. Location, dimensions, and ground floor elevations of all proposed buildings or expansions on the site.
The applicant has shown the location and dimensions of lot 1’s buildings and structures on the Partial Site Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 4 of 18 as well as the Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18. The applicant has proposed a typical asphalt plant layout but has not provided specific dimensions of what will be placed on the lot. Condition of Approval #33: that the applicant shall be required to return to the Planning Board if the footprint or location of buildings changes from what is shown on the site plan.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 4, and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Robie noted that there should be a Condition of Approval which would require the applicant to return to the Planning Board should the footprint or location of buildings changes from that shown on the site plan. She said that the applicant has proposed a typical asphalt plant layout but not specific dimensions of what will be placed on the lot.
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED a motion to amend the finding of fact to include that Ms. Robie’s comments. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:45 p.m.]
5. Location and dimensions of proposed driveways, parking, loading areas, and walkways.
The applicant has shown the locations of lot 1’s proposed driveways, parking, and loading areas on the Partial Site Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 4 of 18 as well as the Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18. A condition of approval was added to address the location of the walkways. The asphalt plant condition of approval number # 30 states, “That the applicant shall provide for OSHA approved painted walkways between the scale house and the control house as well as any other locations required by OSHA.”
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 5, and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:47 p.m.]
6. Location, front view, materials, and dimensions or proposed signs together with the method for securing the sign.
The applicant has shown the type of sign to be located on lot 1. The applicant stated at the April 7, 2008 meeting that the sign will read “Brickyard Quarry Asphalt Plant.”
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 6, and to adopt the finding of fact as modified tonight. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent).
7. Location and type of exterior lighting.[7:50 p.m.]
The applicant has shown the location of lot 1’s exterior lighting on the Partial Site Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 4 of 18. The applicant has also submitted a Site Lighting Photometric Plan on March 12, 2008. Lighting catalog sheets were submitted on January 2008 in the Supplemental Information Site Plan Application Exhibit 16. The applicant has stated that lights located on the pavement silos and fuel & liquid asphalt storage tanks will be limited to a height of twenty feet. The applicant has also indicated that the lights will be turned off when the asphalt plant is not in use but would like the ability to have security lights on lot 1.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 7, and to adopt the finding the fact as modified tonight. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:52 p.m.]
8. Storm water drainage and erosion control program showing:
a. The existing and proposed method of handling storm water runoff.
b. The direction of flow of the runoff through the use of arrows.
c. Location, elevation, and size of all catch basins, dry wells, drainage ditches, swales, retention basins, and storm sewers.
d. Engineering calculations used to determine drainage requirements based upon the 25-year 24-hour storm frequency, if the project will significantly alter the existing drainage pattern due to such factors as the amount of new impervious surfaces (such as paving and building area) being proposed and the pre and post development rates of runoff; provided, if clearly warranted in the professional opinion of the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer may require information on the storm frequency greater than that for the 25-year 24-hour storm.
e. Methods of controlling erosion and sedimentation during and after construction
The applicant has shown the proposed method for handling stormwater runoff, the direction of runoff flow, location, elevation, and sizes of all catch basins, drainage ditches, swales, retention basins, storm sewers, and culverts on the Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18, Details: Sheet 14 of 18, Wet pond #1 Cross-section: Sheet 16 of 18, Wet pond #2 Cross-section: Sheet 17 of 18, Pre-development Watershed Map: Sheet 1 of 2, and Post-development Watershed Map: Sheet 2 of 2. The applicant has also provided the required stormwater calculations based upon the code and the Town Engineers request for a greater storm frequency, which is the 100-year storm events for the watershed outletting along the northeasterly property boundary.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.), c. 8, and to adopt the finding the fact as modified tonight. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:55 p.m.]
9. Location and nature of electrical, telephone, and any other utility services to be installed at the site.
The location and nature of lot 1’s proposed electrical, telephone, and other utility services serving the site are shown on Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 9 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record.
10. Building plans showing, at a minimum, the first floor plan and elevations of all proposed principal and accessory buildings and structures and a schedule of the type, color, and texture of exterior surface materials.
The applicant has provided the location of the structures to be located on lot 1 as well as providing a plant layout plan in the January 8, 2008 submission. The asphalt plant layout plan shows the possible dimensions of the asphalt plant, conveyors, asphalt silos, and aggregate bins.
The Board concurred that there should be a reference in this finding of fact to the proposed Condition of Approval #33 that the applicant shall be required to return to the Planning Board if the footprint or location of buildings changes from what is shown on the site plan. Ms. Robie suggested that the Board consider another new Condition of Approval stating that “Any silos or buildings visible from the public way and/or nearby residences shall be made of materials conducive to blending with the environment and shall be painted a neutral color so as to blend as far as possible with the natural surroundings. Further, there shall be no signage on the silos.” Ms. Robie quoted from Item E3 of the Industrial District’s Performance Standards that “Fencing, screening, landscaped berms,
natural features, or combination thereof, shall be utilized to shield from view of abutting residential properties and public ways, along the perimeter setback of the Industrial District, all loading and unloading operations, storage and repair work areas, commercial vehicle parking, and waste disposal and collection areas.” She said that as these facilities cannot be hidden, the best way to deal with them is to paint them.
The applicant noted that the portable plant will already be painted but the permanent plant could be.
Mr. Hughes said he did not agree with the proposed Condition #34. Mr. Stelmack said he does not believe the color can be dictated under the Code, and the applicant has agreed to neutralize the color of the permanent plant, which, in conjunction with the extensive proposed landscaping, should be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Code. Mr. Fickett concurred with Mr. Stelmack, and Mr. Boyce indicated he thought the color scheme should be relaxed for both the temporary and the permanent plants. Mr. Zelmanow said he would like to maintain the signage restriction on the silos.
The Board, by a vote of 4 to 2, allowed Russell Sprague to approach the podium to speak. Mr. Sprague pointed out that the plant in Scarborough is a bright orange, and the solution lies in planting of trees in the berm to provide adequate buffering.
The finding of fact as modified reads: The applicant has provided the location of the structures to be located on lot 1 as well as providing a plant layout plan in the January 8, 2008 submission. The asphalt plant layout plan shows the possible dimensions of the asphalt plant, conveyors, asphalt silos, and aggregate bins. Condition of Approval #33: that the applicant shall be required to return to the Planning Board if the footprint or location of buildings changes from what is shown on the site plan. Condition of Approval #34: that any permanent structure on the site visible from the public way and/or nearby residences shall be constructed of materials conducive to blending with the environment and shall be of a neutral palette so as to blend as far as possible with the natural surroundings. This Condition of Approval applies to the permanent asphalt plant. There shall be no signage on the silos.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 10 and to adopt the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:25 p.m.]
Ten Minute Stretch Break to 8:35 p.m.
The Board returned to its review of the Submission Requirements.
11. A planting schedule keyed to the site plan indicating the varieties and sizes of shrubs, trees, and other plants to be installed at the site.
The applicant has shown the location and dimensions of lot 1’s landscaping which includes the varieties and sizes of the shrubs, trees, and other plants to be installed on the site: Landscape Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 10 of 18.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 11 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:45 p.m.]
12. Location and nature of any proposed fire protection systems.
The applicant is proposing to run an 8” water main onto lot 1 which will service a fire hydrant. The fire hydrant will be installed approximately 700’ west from the eastern property line and adjacent to the access road. The fire hydrant’s location and installation shall meet the approval of Gorham’s Fire Chief.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 12 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:47 p.m.]
13. A statement of any hazardous materials that will be stored or used on the site.
The applicant has identified hazardous materials to be stored on the site in the Operations Plan Notebook dated January 2008 and as amended March 2008 in Section 6, titled Spill Prevention.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 13, and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:49]
14. A schedule of construction, including anticipated beginning and completion dates.
The applicant has stated the following information in the January 8, 2008 asphalt plant application:
Beginning Date: Upon Approval
Completion Date: Approximately 6 months from the project start.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, c.) 1, c. 14 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:50 p.m.]
d. Assessment of the Impact of the Project:
1. A groundwater impact analysis prepared by groundwater hydrologist for projects involving on-site water supply or sewage disposal facilities with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater. In addition, the Planning Board may require such an analysis if it determines that the relationship of the project to other activities creates concern about the quality or quantity of the groundwater.
The applicant’s proposal does not meet the code requirements triggering a groundwater impact analysis from a hydrologist because the on-site water supply or the sewage disposal facilities will not have a capacity of two thousand gallons.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, d. 1 is not an applicable requirement. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:51 p.m.]
2. A traffic impact analysis demonstrating the impact of the proposed project on the capacity, level of service, and safety of adjacent streets, if the project will provide parking for fifty (50) or more vehicles or generate more than one hundred (100) trips during the A.M. or P.M. peak hour based on the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers.
The applicant’s prepared traffic study indicates that the applicant’s project will not generate more than one hundred trips during the A.M. or P.M. peak hour. The applicant has a traffic impact analysis demonstrating the impact of the proposed project on the capacity and level of service at State Route 237.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, d. 2 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the read. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:52 p.m.]
The Board then resumed consideration of the Site Plan Criteria of Chapter IV, coupled with the General Performance Criteria of Chapter II. Having already considered “A. Utilization of the Site,” the Board began with Item B:
B. Access to the Site _ Vehicular access to the site will be on roads, which have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. For developments which generate one hundred (100) or more peak hour trips based on the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, intersections on major access routes to the site within one (1) mile of any entrance road which are functioning at a Level of Service of C or better prior to the development will function at a minimum at Level of Service C after development. If any intersection is functioning at a Level of Service D or lower prior to the development, the project will not reduce the current level of service.
The Planning Board of Site Plan Review Committee may approve a development not meeting this requirement if the applicant demonstrates that:
1) A public agency has committed funds to construct the improvements necessary to bring the level of access to this standard, or
2) The applicant will assume financial responsibility for the improvements necessary to bring the level of service to this standard and will guarantee the completion of the improvements within one (1) year of approval of the project.
B. Access to the Site – Access to the site is via State Route 237, also known as Mosher Road. The applicant’s traffic study shows Route 237 to have adequate capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the asphalt plant project, which is estimated to generate 600 truck trips per day.
Ms. Robie read the Conditions of Approval relating to traffic, as follows:
21. That the applicant shall work with the Town to seek a “no engine brake” ruling from the Maine Department of Transportation;
26. That no certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to the completion of all required roadway improvements as set forth in the MDOT Driveway Permits and detailed in the MDOT final approved construction drawings;
27. That no more than one truck shall be allowed to remain on the State Route 237 widened shoulders prior to the opening of the gate to the asphalt plant in the morning and no queuing shall occur in the State Route 237 shoulder area;
28. In the event that the MDOT permit requires substantive changes to the approved site plan, the applicant will return to the Planning Board for an amended approval;
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, B., and to adopt the finding of fact as read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:07 p.m.]
C. Access into the Site _ Vehicular access into the development will provide for safe and convenient access.
1) Any exit driveway or proposed street will be so designed as to provide the minimum sight distance to meet the Maine Department of Transportation standards.
2) Points of access will be located to avoid hazardous conflicts with existing turning movements and traffic flows.
3) The grade of any proposed drive or street will be a _2.0% for a minimum of five (5) feet from the existing pavement edge or to the centerline of the existing drainage swale. From the above control point, a grade of not more than -3% shall be required for a minimum of two (2) car lengths or forty (40) feet.
4) The intersection of any access drive or proposed street will function at a Level of Service of C following development if the project will generate an ADT of one thousand (1,000) or more vehicle trips, or at a level which will allow safe access into and out of the project if less than one thousand (1,000) trips are generated.
5) Projects generating an ADT of one thousand (1,000) or more vehicle trips will provide two (2) or more separate points of vehicular access into and out of the site. Not applicable.
C. Access into the Site - The access to the site will occur via a paved driveway located off Route 237. The main entrance and exit for the asphalt plant will also be the main entrance for the Brickyard quarry. The applicant is proposing to pave 500 feet of the access road with a 65 foot entrance radii to allow trucks to enter the site with a faster turning speed than would occur with a tighter radius allowed under the ordinance. The access drive sight distance onto Mosher Road exceeds the Maine Department of Transportation minimum sight distance. The proposed requirements of the Maine DEP are necessary to meet point 2, which is that points of access will be located to avoid hazardous conflicts with existing turning movements and traffic flows.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, C., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record.
DISCUSSON: Ms. Robie suggested adding into the finding of fact that the proposed requirements of the Maine DEP are necessary to meet point 2, which is that points of access will be located to avoid hazardous conflicts with existing turning movements and traffic flows.
Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:09 p.m.]
D. Internal Vehicular Circulation _ The layout of the site will provide for the safe movement of passenger, service and emergency vehicles through the site.
1) Nonresidential projects will provide a clear route for delivery vehicles with appropriate geometric design to allow turning and backing for WB_40 vehicles.
2) Clear routes of access will be provided and maintained for emergency vehicles around all buildings and will be posted with appropriate signage (fire lane _ no parking).
3) The layout and design of parking areas will provide for safe and convenient circulation of vehicles throughout the lot and will prohibit vehicles from backing out onto a street.
4) All roadways will be designed to harmonize with the topographic and natural features of the site. The road network will provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety, all season emergency access, snow storage, and delivery and collection services.
D. Internal Vehicular Circulation –The layout and design of the parking areas appear to provide for a safe and convenient commercial circulation, and the exit locations are placed to provide safe egress from the site to adjacent public ways.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, D., and to accept the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [911 p.m.]
E. Pedestrian Circulation _ The development plan will provide for a system of pedestrian circulation within and to the development. If the project is located in a village area, this system will connect with existing sidewalks if they exist in the vicinity of the project.
E. Pedestrian Circulation – No pedestrian improvements are proposed. The Board has discussed this issue with the applicant, who has agreed to Condition of Approval #30, which requires OSHA-approved painted walkways between the scale house and the control house as well as any other location required by OSHA.
Ms. Robie noted that the applicant has agreed to Condition of Approval #30, that the applicant shall provide for OSHA approved painted walkways between the scale house and the control house as well as any other locations required by OSHA.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, E., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:12 p.m.]
F. Storm water Management _ Adequate provisions will be made for the disposal of all storm water collected on streets, parking areas, roofs or other impervious surfaces through a storm water drainage system and maintenance plan which will not have adverse impacts on abutting or downstream properties:
1) To the extent possible, the plan will detain storm water on the land at the site of development, and do so through the wise use of the natural features of the site. Storm water runoff systems will detain or retain water falling on the site such that the rate of flow from the site does not exceed the predevelopment rate. Discharge of additional storm water caused by the development onto adjacent properties will be prohibited unless written easements are obtained from the owners of such adjacent properties.
2) If the post development runoff is greater than predevelopment runoff, the developer will demonstrate that downstream channel or system capacity is sufficient to carry the flow without adverse effects, or will be responsible for the improvements to provide the required increase in capacity.
3) All natural drainage ways will be preserved at their natural gradients and will not be filled or converted to a closed system except as approved by the Planning Board and appropriate state agencies.
4) The design of storm water drainage systems will be based upon a storm frequency established by the Town Engineer, consistent with the frequency that would otherwise be required under the Town's subdivision ordinance, and shall provide for the disposal of storm water without damage to streets, adjacent properties, or downstream properties.
5) The design of the storm drainage systems will be fully cognizant of upstream runoff which must pass over or through the site to be developed.
6) The biological and chemical properties of the receiving waters will not be degraded by the storm water runoff from the development site. The use of oil and grease traps in manholes, the use of on_site vegetated waterways, and the reduction in use of deicing salts and fertilizers may be required, especially where the development storm water discharges into a gravel aquifer area or other water supply source.
F. Storm water Management – The applicant has made provisions to provide for the control and disposal of stormwater from the project. Based on the Town and Third Party Engineers’ review of the applicant’s “Stormwater Management Report,” prepared by Shawn Frank, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, Sebago Technics, Inc., the post-development peak rates of run-off for the 2, 10, and 25-year storm events are less than the pre-developed peak rates at all study points. The stormwater infrastructure will control runoff from
a minimum of 95% of the site’s impervious area along with providing effective channel protection and temperature control by filtering runoff at a controlled rate. All proposed stormwater drainage structures are to be located on lot 1 (asphalt plant) with the exception of a culvert under the quarry access road that flows into Stormwater Pond 2. The applicant has submitted a “Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan” (SPCC) and a “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” that addresses protection for stormwater from fuel spills.
Ms. Robie suggested that Condition of Approval #29 for the quarry should be duplicated for the asphalt plant as Condition of Approval #24, as follows: that the applicant shall maintain on site copies of all required visual and laboratory monitoring of stormwater samples as required by the Multi-Sector General Permit and must provide to the Town Engineer and the Code Enforcement Officer any report of deviations required to be submitted to the DEP.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, F., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record, with the Condition of Approval as stated above. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:15 p.m.]
G. Erosion Control _ For all projects, building and site designs and roadway layouts will fit and utilize existing topography and desirable natural surroundings to the fullest extent possible. Filling, excavation and earth moving activity will be kept to a minimum. Parking lots on sloped areas will be terraced to avoid undue cuts and fills, and the need for retaining walls. Natural vegetation will be preserved and protected wherever possible.
During construction, soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies will be minimized by an active program meeting the requirements of the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District's Best Management Practices.
G. Erosion Control – The applicant will employ Best Management Practices to provide adequate erosion control during all construction and operation activities. The Board also finds that the applicant’s best management proposal is adequate to meet the General Performance Standard for erosion listed on page 97, Chapter II, Section 1.B,
Ms. Robie noted that this bears directly to the Performance Standards, Chapter II, Section I.B, erosion control. Mr. Stelmack suggested modifying “all construction activities” by adding the words “all construction and operation activities.”
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, G., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Robie suggested that the Board should further find that the applicant’s best management proposal is adequate to meet the General Performance Standard for erosion listed on page 97, Chapter II, Section 1.B, of the Code.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to amend the finding of fact to include the Chairwoman’s recommendation about the applicant’s best management proposal sufficient to address the erosion item of the Performance Standards in Chapter II. Motion as amended, CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:21 p.m.]
H. Water Supply _ The development will be provided with a system of water supply that provides each use with an adequate supply of water meeting the standards of the State of Maine for drinking water. When required by Chapter II, Section IX., the project shall be served by public water provided by the Portland Water District.
If a public water supply system is to be used, the developer has secured in writing a statement from the Water District that the proposed water supply system conforms with its design and construction standards, will not result in an undue burden on the source or distribution system, and will be installed in a manner adequate to serve domestic water and fire protection needs.
H. Water Supply – The site is supplied with public water from a Portland Water District watermain located at Mosher Road. The applicant is proposing to run a 8” watermain to a fire hydrant where the waterline will then be reduced to a 4” watermain to serve the scale house located on Lot 2 (quarry lot). No waterline is being proposed to serve the asphalt plant or the asphalt plant control house on Lot 1.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, H. and to accept the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, Michael Parker absent). [9:22 p.m.]
I. Sewage Disposal _ A sanitary sewer system will be installed at the expense of the developer if the project is located within a sewer service area as identified by the sewer user ordinance. The Site Plan Review Committee or Planning Board may allow individual subsurface waste disposal systems to be used where sewer service is not available.
1) Upstream sewage flows will be accommodated by an adequately sized system through the proposed development for existing conditions and potential development in the upstream area or areas tributary to the proposed development.
2) All components of sanitary sewerage facilities that connect to the Town system have been designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Maine and will be tested in full compliance with the design specifications and construction practices as established by the Town Engineer. The construction of sewer lines will include the construction of laterals to the property line of each lot where individual lots are created.
3) All individual on_site systems will be designed by a licensed soil evaluator in full compliance with the Maine State Plumbing Code, as amended. Upon the recommendation of the Local Plumbing Inspector, the Site Plan Review Committee or Planning Board may require the location of reserve areas for replacement systems.
Ms. Robie proposed adding to the finding of fact that the General Performance Standard concerning soil suitability is not an issue for Lot 1.
I. Sewage Disposal – No sewage disposal is being proposed on Lot 1 (asphalt plant lot) but a septic system is designed to service the proposed scale house on Lot 2 (Quarry Lot). The Performance Standard of Chapter II concerning soil suitability is not an issue for Lot 1.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, I, and to adopt the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes. (Michael Parker absent). [9:24 p.m.]
J. Utilities _ The development will be provided with electrical and telephone service adequate to meet the anticipated use of the project.
J. Utilities –The electrical and telecommunication utilities supplying the site will originate from the Morin Brick Company lot (Map 34, Lot 9) and go underground to the control house. Natural gas will also be utilized on site and will be extended into the site from Mosher Road.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, J., and to accept the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:25 p.m.]
K. Natural Features _ The landscape will be preserved in its natural state insofar as practical by minimizing tree removal, disturbance and compaction of soil, and by retaining existing vegetation insofar as practical during construction.
1) Extensive grading and filling will be avoided as far as possible.
2) Cutting of trees on the northerly borders of the development will be avoided to the extent possible to retain a natural wind buffer.
K. Natural Features – The site is hilly and predominately wooded with a small amount of forested wetlands and wet meadows. The proposal will impact 10, 777 sq. ft. of wetland as well as require the removal of some of the trees. The applicant has obtained a Tier I Wetland Alteration Permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The applicant is proposing to excavate 30’ into the hill to assist in buffering the view of the asphalt plant from the abutters. The applicant is also proposing to save as many trees as possible around the stormwater ponds to act as additional vegetative buffers.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, K, and to accept the finding of fact as written, modified and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:30 p.m.]
L. Groundwater Protection _ The proposed site development and use will not adversely impact either the quality or quantity of groundwater available to abutting properties or public water supply systems. Projects involving on_site water supply or sewage disposal systems with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater have demonstrated that the groundwater at the property line will comply, following development, with the standards for safe drinking water as established by the State of Maine.
L. Groundwater Protection – This applicant has provided a SPCC Plan and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to ensure protection of the groundwater from contaminants. The SPCC Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan can be found in the Operations Plan Manual, dated January 2008 and amended March 2008. The application adequately groundwater protection and wastewater pollution to meet the Performance Standard in Chapter II, Subsection F.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the application has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, L, and to accept the finding of fact as written, modified and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:35 p.m.]
M. Exterior Lighting _ The proposed development will provide for adequate exterior lighting to provide for the safe use of the development in nighttime hours.
1) All exterior lighting will be designed and shielded to avoid undue adverse impact on neighboring properties and rights_of_way.
2) Lighting shall be provided, at a minimum, in the following areas:
a. Entrances to facilities and recreation areas;
b. Street intersections;
c. Pedestrian crossings; and
d. Entrance roads.
M. Exterior Lighting – The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the type and location of lights along the access road, paved asphalt plant yard, asphalt plant silos, and fuel storage tanks. The applicant has also supplied a photometric plan showing the proposed lighting on the site. Further, the applicant has stated that all lights other than security lights shall be turned off when the plant is not in use. There is a Condition of Approval ( proposed #34) that requires the applicant to use full cut-off lights to replace the forward throw lights shown on the plan.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, M., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boyce and the applicant’s engineer discussed the type of lighting fixtures to be used, and the potential for glare from the fixtures proposed. Mr. Stinson said they would reconsider the kinds of fixtures.
Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:45 p.m.]
O. Waste Disposal _ The proposed development will provide for adequate disposal of solid wastes and hazardous wastes.
1) All solid waste will be disposed of at a licensed disposal facility having adequate capacity to accept the project's wastes.
2) All hazardous wastes will be disposed of at a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility and evidence of a contractual arrangement with the facility has been submitted.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, O., and to accept the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:47 p.m.]
O. Waste Disposal – The applicant proposes to use a licensed trash hauler for trash and waste disposal. No exterior dumpsters are proposed.
P. Landscaping _ The development plan will provide for landscaping to define street edges, break up parking areas, soften the appearance of the development and protect abutting properties from adverse impacts of the development.
Ms. Robie read the following standards/criteria which apply to this section:
Industrial buffering requirements, Chapter I, Section XII, E.3:
3. Fencing, screening, landscaped berms, natural features, or combination thereof, shall be utilized to shield from the view of abutting residential properties and public ways, along the perimeter setback of the Industrial District, all loading and unloading operations, storage and repair work areas, commercial vehicle parking, and waste disposal and collection areas.
General Performance Standards, Chapter II, Section 1.I
1. Any non-residential yard space abutting a residential area shall be maintained as a buffer strip by the developer. Such buffer area shall be for the purpose of eliminating any adverse effects upon the environmental or aesthetic qualities of abutting properties or any type of nuisance affecting the health, safety, welfare and property values of the residents of Gorham.
2. Natural features shall be maintained wherever possible to provide a break between the proposed development and abutting properties.
3. When natural features such as topography, gullies, stands of trees, shrubbery, rock outcrops do not exist or are insufficient to provide a buffer, the developer shall landscape or otherwise provide fencing or screening.
4. Fencing, screening or natural features, or combination thereof, shall be sufficient to shield from the view of abutting residential properties, and otherwise prevent any kind of nuisance: all loading and unloading operations, storage areas, commercial vehicle parking, waste disposal and collection areas.
5. Fencing and screening shall be durable and properly maintained at all times by the owner.
6. Fencing and screening shall be so located within the developer’s property line to allow access for maintenance on both sides without intruding upon abutting properties.
7. All buffer areas shall be maintained in a tidy and sanitary condition by the owner.
Ms. Robie noted that these are General Performance criteria enforced by the Code Officer, and the Board’s job is to make sure that the applicant’s materials and the Conditions of Approval can assure that the applicant can meet these criteria.
P. Landscaping – The proposed landscaping plan is very extensive in regards to specific species, size, and quantity. The site will buffer abutting residential properties as well as Mosher Road with landscaping and hardscape features; these include a planting schedule including sizes, species, methods, maintenance and location of plantings. A condition of approval mirroring Quarry Condition of Approval #39shall be created that the applicant shall maintain a continuous buffer between the public right-of-way and the asphalt plant operations through the life of the plant.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, P., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:58 p.m.]
The applicant proposes to use landscape berms, natural features, and the Morin Brickyard Building on adjacent lot Map 34, Lot 9, to shield the view of abutting residential properties as well as Mosher Road public way. The asphalt plant, tanks, and silos, loading operations of the asphalt plant and vehicle parking will be located behind the existing Morin Brickyard, and, further, a Condition of Approval was crafted to require the permanent asphalt plant to be of an unobtrusive color.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the Performance Standard requirement of Chapter I, Section XII, E.3 and to accept the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent).
The applicant’s proposed landscaping and buffering is sufficient to meet the General Performance criteria of Chapter II, Section 1.I, buffer areas.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant’s proposed landscaping and buffering is sufficient to meet the General Performance criteria of Chapter II, Section 1.I, buffer areas. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [10:06 p.m.]
Q. Shoreland Relationship _ The development will not adversely affect the water quality or shoreline of any adjacent water body. The development plan will provide for access to abutting navigable water bodies for the use of occupants of the development.
Q. Shore land Relationship – Not applicable.
Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, Q. is not applicable. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [10:06 p.m.]
R. Technical and Financial Capacity. The applicant has demonstrated that he has the financial and technical capacity to carry out the project in accordance with this Code and the approved plan.
R. Technical and Financial Capacity – The proposed improvements are estimated to cost $250,000. The project is to be self-financed by Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc. A condition of approval will be crafted that the applicant shall provide an amended schedule of proposed improvements;
The applicant indicated that the initial estimate is no longer appropriate, and the cost is to cover offsite improvements and to bring in utilities. It was determined that the applicant will submit an amended schedule of proposed improvements and that there be a condition of approval to that effect.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the application has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, R., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [10:08 p.m.]
S. Buffering _ The development will provide for the buffering of adjacent uses where there is a transition from one type of use to another use and to screen service and storage areas. The buffer areas required by the district regulations will be improved and maintained.
S. Buffering – The proposal calls for a large landscaped earthen berm to buffer the residents along the northern property line. The proposal also calls for a smaller landscaped berm along the eastern property line, as well as using the Morin Brick Building to buffer the site from Mosher Road traffic and properties located across from Mosher Road. A new Condition of Approval shall be written requiring that the applicant shall maintain a continuous buffer between the public right-of-way and the asphalt plant operations throughout the life of the plant.
Mr. Zelmanow suggested that there be a condition of approval mirroring that for the quarry (Quarry Condition #39) about the continuous buffer between the asphalt plant and the public right of way.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, S, and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [10:10 p.m.]
The Board having concluded its review of the Approval Criteria Worksheet, Ms. Robie suggested that it turn its attention to page 128 of the Code, the section dealing with air pollution, in order to determine if the Conditions of Approval crafted so far adequately meet the purposes of site plan review and are adequate for the Code Officer to enforce the requirements of air pollution, noise abatement, waste water pollution, buffer areas. She said that what the Board has not addressed specifically are those issues under G., Air Pollution.
Ms. Robie said she would like to suggest Conditions of Approval related to air pollution, which would be as follows: The first Condition would be that copies of all required stack emission tests shall be provided to the Town Engineer and Code Enforcement Officer. The second Condition relates to the Operations Notebook and that there be in addition to the Notebook that all complaints regarding dust, noise and odor from the asphalt plant shall be recorded by the applicant, including the complaint, the name and address of the person with the complaint, the time of the occurrence of the issue, the day, date and time, and that all these complaints for the plant be provided to the Town Engineer and to the Code Officer, and such offices are directed to maintain a compiled list of these complaints, including those received
by the Town and by DEP, and if the Code Officer determines the operation of this plant does not meet the performance standards of Chapter II, Sections G and H, the applicant must return to the Planning Board with proposed measures for mitigation for noise, dust and/or odor. She said that G.3 provides that detailed plans must be submitted to minimize odoriferous substances, but the applicant is providing no detailed plans beyond the emissions license for the particular burner for either the temporary or the permanent asphalt plant. There are detailed mitigation procedures available, but the Board cannot direct the applicant to mitigate odor without cause. This Condition would provide a method for the Code Enforcement Officer the necessary information as it becomes available.
The Board, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Stinson discussed the feasibility of the proposed Condition, with Mr. Stinson noting that the language of the Code states that limitations of toxicity and odors of the substances shall be as set forth in the State of Maine, which will limit the actions that can be taken by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Stelmack suggested that requirements 1 and 2 under the Air Pollution section can be met by the applicant’s air emissions license, requirement 4 is met because the applicant will have the State air emissions license, but the Code is not clear about what constitutes a nuisance odor so it is difficult to determine what the Code Enforcement Officer would use as a basis for odor complaints. Mr. Stinson said that defining a nuisance by the number of complaints on a subjective
issue is very dangerous. Mr. Hughes agreed with Mr. Stinson, that items 3 and 4 under Air Pollution are not specific enough to say that the applicant is not meeting those standards, and the Condition proposed by Ms. Robie would not be practical. Mr. Fickett agreed with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Boyce agreed with Ms. Robie’s desire to address all the potentially adverse conditions of the facility, but odor is an issue difficult to grasp without quantifiable standards against which something can be measured without being arbitrary. Mr. Zelmanow said he would like to see the Condition in writing again, but feels now that it is imposing an unduly burdensome requirement on the applicant.
Ms. Robie suggested that this issue would be a item for discussion at the next Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Poirier noted that he had discussions with DEP staff, reflected in his memo of April 7, 2008, but odor did not enter into those discussions. However, Mr. Poirier said he would follow up with those questions with DEP. Mr. Stelmack asked Ms. Burns for an explanation of the language in Item 3, “limitations of toxicity and odors of the substances shall be as set forth in the State of Maine.” She replied that she believes it refers to whatever the air emissions requirements are, she has determined there is nothing specific about odor in those requirements, and some of the emissions levels that are established do control certain types, but not all, of odors. Ms. Burns said that because of that, Ms. Robie has repeatedly stated a concern that because not all types of odors are regulated and
that there might be other odors generated that are not related to the emissions, Ms. Robie believes the Board needs to address odors in some manner in this approval process.
Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to continue the public hearing to Monday, April 28, 2008. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [10:49 p.m.]
9. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING - April 28, 2008
10. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [10:50 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
__________________________, 2008
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “DOUGLAS KNOLL/MARYANN DRIVE” – off WATERHOUSE ROAD & SOUTH STREET – by DESIGN DWELLINGS, 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 minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the applicant shall submit a revised plan noting the approved change to the pedestrian trail for endorsement by the Planning Board;
3. That all other applicable conditions of approval attached to the original subdivision plan approved November 6, 2006 and as amended November 5, 2007 shall remain fully in effect; and
4. 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.
7. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT – “SEBAGO KNOLL” – off RITZ FARM ROAD – by AARON & PAULETTE SHIELDS and THOMAS & ANNE BACHNER (co-applicants)
Approved
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2.. That all other applicable conditions of approval and plan notes attached to the original subdivision plan shall remain fully in effect;
3. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state, and federal permits required for the development of this project;
4. That the applicant shall amend plan note 34 of the subdivision plan per the Town Attorney’s email dated April 3, 2008 and resubmit the revised subdivision plan for review and approval by Town Staff and Town Attorney prior to endorsement of the mylar by the Planning Board;
5. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information, in AutoCAD format (version 2000) to the Planning Office; and
6. That the conditions of approval shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the date of written notice of approval by the Planning Board, 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.
8. PRIVATE WAY – “RIVER’S EDGE DRIVE” – by FLOYD BROWN.
Approved
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning board, except for de minimus changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required local, state and federal permits;
3. That prior to the commencement of any site improvements, land clearing and/or earth-moving activities associated with the approved private way, the applicant and the design engineer shall arrange a pre-construction meeting through the Compliance Coordinator with the Planning Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and the Code Department to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
4. That at least one week prior to the date of the pre-construction meeting, a complete set of the final approved plan sets will be delivered to the Compliance Coordinator for the following: (1) Code Office, (2) Public Works Director, (3) Compliance Coordinator, and (4) Director of Planning;
5. That prior to the commencement of construction of the private way, the applicant shall establish a performance guarantee with the Planning Department to cover the cost of constructing the private way paved apron;
6. 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;
7. That the private way shall be properly maintained for access of emergency vehicles year round;
8. 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, latest edition;
9. That the applicant shall amend the Private Way Maintenance Agreement per the Town Attorney’s faxed comments dated April 2, 2008 and resubmit the revised Private Way Maintenance Agreement for review and final approval by Town Staff and the Town Attorney;
10. That prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit the applicant’s engineer shall certify that the private way has 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; and
11. That the private way plan, Private Way Maintenance Agreement, and decision document shall be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of endorsement of the plan by the Planning Board; and that a receipt from the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds showing the date, and book and page number of the recorded plan and a copy of the recorded decision document shall be returned to the Town Planner.
| 
