Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
06/07/2010 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Town of Gorham
June 7, 2010
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES


LOCATION: Municipal Center Council Chambers, 75 South Street, Gorham, Maine

Members Present:                                Staff Present:  
EDWARD ZELMANOW, Chairman               THOMAS POIRIER, Town Planner
THOMAS HUGHES, Vice-Chairman            BARBARA SKINNER, Clerk of the Board
LAUREN CARRIER                          
THOMAS FICKETT  
GEORGE FOX                                              
CHRISTOPHER HICKEY
ANDREW MCCULLOUGH

Edward Zelmanow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read the 3-item Agenda.  The Clerk called the roll, noting that all members were present.

APPROVAL OF THE MAY 3, 2010 MINUTES

        Thomas  Hughes  MOVED and Christopher Hickey SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of May 3, 2010 as written and distributed.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes   [7:04 p.m.]


Mr. Zelmanow introduced three of the former Board members, Susan Robie, former Chairperson, Michael Parker and Mark Stelmack, who were present to receive plaques of appreciation and thanks for their years of dedication and service.  Former Board member Douglas Boyce was unable to attend this evening.  At the podium Ms. Robie said that it had been a privilege to serve on the Planning Board and as its chairperson, noted that participating in local government is the core of democracy.  She suggested that the new Board members keep in mind two principles:  one is to listen to each other and to the public, and the other is that there is only one question the Board needs to answer, which is does the application meet the ordinance.  Mr. Parker welcomed the replacement members on the Board; Mr. Stelmack indicated that he had learned a great deal from his fellow Board members and hope that the new Board members find their service as rewarding an experience as he did.


COMMITTEE REPORTS

A.        Ordinance Review Committee – No report.

B.        Streets and Ways Sub-Committee – Mr. Hughes reported that a workshop had been held prior to this evening’s meeting to discuss the issue of 1,500 foot deadend streets.  He said that suggested changes are being prepared to the ordinance.  


ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW REPORT

Mr. Poirier reported that there were no new administrative review applications.


Mr. Zelmanow noted for the record that two site walks were held by the Planning Board on May 22, 2010.  One site walk was for the Sawyer Estates plan submitted by Chase, and the other was for the Shaw Brothers Construction application which is on the agenda this evening.



ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL REVIEW:
SITE PLAN – Shaw Brothers Construction, Phase II of the 329 Mosher Road Site to include a main office, maintenance facility, enclosed storage area and associated commercial, employee and visitor parking areas on 126.13 acres located at 329 Mosher Road, Map 31, Lot 15 and Map 34, Lots 9 and 15.001, in the Industrial zoning district.

Mr. Poirier said that the applicant submitted final plans on June 1, 2010, and the Planning Department suggests that the application is substantially complete.  Mr. Poirier said that the Fire Chief had decided to eliminate Condition of Approval #10 “That the fuel depot shall be equipped with an extinguishing system that covers the pumps and canopy.”  The Fire Chief indicated that if the fuel depot needs to be equipped with the extinguishing system, it would have to be installed anyway, so the Condition of Approval is not necessary.  With that deletion the Conditions now number 16.

Walter Stinson, Sebago Technics, came to the podium and introduced the applicant Danny Shaw.  Mr. Stinson gave an overview of the project, noting that the site walk on May 22 gave the applicant the opportunity to show the Board the essence of the existing operation on Main Street, as well as being able to show what is proposed for the Mosher Road site.  Mr. Stinson indicated that the tank sizes have changed and are now two 25,000 gallon diesel tanks and one 15,000 gallon gasoline tank.

At the request of Mr. Fickett, Mr. Stinson reviewed the screening and buffering of the proposed buildings, such as the 20-foot berm on the north end of the site, the proposed 300 foot-long building which will also provide screening from the north, low growing shrubs around the office building, and lawn area and maple trees along the frontage of the building.  Mr. Stinson confirmed that there will be no lighting behind the enclosed storage building.  

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


FINDINGS OF FACT

CHAPTER IV, SECTION IX – Approval Criteria and Standards

A.      Utilization of the Site _ The plan for the development will reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development.  
        The applicant is proposing to construct three structures on Map 34, Lot 9:
  • Two story office building with a footprint of 5,632 square feet;
  • Maintenance shop with a footprint of 28,325 square feet; and
  • Fuel Canopy Island.
Building façades for the office and maintenance shop will consist of brick with granite plinth highlights on the lower edge of the façade and lintels around the glass windows.
        The applicant is proposing to construct two structures on Map 31, Lot 15.001.
  • Enclosed storage building with a footprint of 24,000 square feet.  The storage building is proposed to be a metal building painted green with white garage doors.
  • Scale house with a footprint of 1,200 square feet.  The scale house will have a brick façade.
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.
        As part of the Phase I approval, the applicant provided a Traffic Study: Exhibit 3 in the October 6, 2009 Site Plan Application.  The Town’s Peer Review Engineer, Woodard and Curran, has reviewed the Traffic Study and finds it consistent with the Phase II proposal.  
C.      Access into the Site – Vehicular access into the development will provide for safe and convenient access.
        Two access driveways permitted and constructed as part of the Brickyard Quarry will provide access to the Shaw Brothers office and maintenance facility.
Two smaller existing driveways currently serving the LaChance Brick lot (Map 34, Lot 9) will be removed.
The location of access driveways into the site are identified on the Site Plan Amendment, sheet 2 of 8.
D.      Internal Vehicular Circulation – The layout of the site will provide for the safe movement of passenger, service and emergency vehicles through the site.
        The applicant is proposing to construct parking for 197 passenger vehicle spaces, 42 spaces for dump trucks, and 41 spaces for construction vehicles.
Access aisles within the parking lots range from 25’ for passenger vehicle spaces to 60’ for dump trucks.
Parking space dimensions are:
Passenger vehicle spaces:               10’ by 20’
Dump truck spaces:                      13’ by 30’
Large construction vehicles spaces:     20’ by 40’
Layout of the access roads and parking spaces are provided on the Site Plan Amendment, sheet 2 of 8.
E.      Pedestrian Circulation _ The development plan will provide for a system of pedestrian circulation within and to the development.
Sidewalks are located directly adjacent to the office building and are to be construction with 2” of bituminous pavement and 10” of aggregate sub base (M.D.O.T. Spec. 703.06 (B) Type D).
Sidewalk locations for the development are provided on the Site Plan Amendment, sheet 3 of 8.
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.
        Stormwater Management provisions for the development have been provided on the Grading and Utility Plan, sheet 3 of 8, with additional stormwater details provided on the Construction Details Plan, sheet 5 of 8.  The applicant has also provided a Stormwater Management Plan: Exhibit 4 in the Site Plan Application dated May 11, 2010.
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.
        Erosion control details have been provided on the Grading and Utility Plan, sheet 3 of 8, with additional erosion control measures provided on Construction Details Plan, sheet 5 of 8.  An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative was also provided in the Site Plan Application dated May 11, 2010.
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.  
        The site will be served by public water.
Locations of the waterlines have been provided on the Grading and Utility Plan, sheet 3 of 8, with trench details provided on Construction Details, sheet 5 of 8.
An ability to serve letter from the Portland Water District has been included as Exhibit 5: Utility Letters in Site Plan Application dated May 11, 2010.
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.
        The site will be served by public sewer.
Locations of the sewer lines have been provided on the Grading and Utility Plan, sheet 3 of 8, with trench details provided on Construction Details Plan, sheet 5 of 8.
An ability to serve letter from the Portland Water District has been included as Exhibit 5: Utility Letters in Site Plan Application dated May 11, 2010.  
J.      Utilities _ The development will be provided with electrical and telephone service adequate to meet the anticipated use of the project.
Electric power lines are proposed to be under ground with each building having its own transformer sub panel.  The main office and maintenance shop facility will be served with a 2,000 amp service, with the storage and scale house being served by a 600 amp service.
Locations for natural gas and electric power lines have been provided on the Grading and Utility Plan, sheet 3 of 8.
An ability to serve letter from the Maine Natural Gas and Central Maine Power have been included as Exhibit 5: Utility Letters in the Site Plan Application dated May 11, 2010.  
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.
The Site Plan Amendment, sheet 2 of 8, shows the location of existing vegetation to remain during and after construction.
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.
The applicant is proposing to install three underground fuel tanks:  two 25,000 gallon diesel tanks and one 15,000 gallon gasoline tank.  The underground tanks will be double-walled fiberglass with internal monitoring and alarms.
The location of the underground storage tanks are shown on the Grading and Utility Plan, sheet 3 of 8.
M.      Exterior Lighting _ The proposed development will provide for adequate exterior lighting to provide for the safe use of the development in nighttime hours
        The proposal is to install 21 pole mounted lights, 24 wall mounted lights, 10 wall director lights, and 6 fuel canopy lights of various arrangements, lumens and descriptions.
Site lighting locations and types are identified on the Site Plan Amendment, sheet 2 of 8.  The applicant has also provided a photometric plan, drawing no. 1049891A and submitted light fixture catalog cuts for the various lighting types.
O.      Waste Disposal _ The proposed development will provide for adequate disposal of solid wastes and hazardous wastes.
Two dumpster locations are shown on the Site Plan Amendment, sheet 2 of 8, one to the rear of the maintenance shop and one to the rear of the storage building.
The dumpster behind the maintenance shop will be located on a 10’ by 10’ concrete pad, with the dumpster behind the storage building being located on a 12’ by 12’ concrete pad.
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.
        Nine sugar maple trees are proposed to be installed along the eastern property line located between the two access driveways into the site.  
The proposal also outlines a collection of landscaping plants to be installed along the front of the office and maintenance building.
Landscape details are shown on the Amended Landscape and Lighting Plan, sheet 4 of 8.
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.
The lots are not located in the Shoreland Overlay District.  The approval standard is not applicable to the proposal.
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.
A TD Bank letter of financial capacity was submitted as Exhibit 6 in the Site Plan Application dated May 11, 2010.
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.
        Landscape details are shown on the Amended Landscape and Lighting Plan, sheet 4 of 8.
T.      Noise – The applicant has demonstrated that the development will comply with the noise regulations listed in Table 1 – Sound Level Limits and the associated ordinances.
        The applicant has demonstrated that the development will comply with the Town’s noise regulations.

        Thomas Hughes MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the approval criteria and standards of Chapter IV, Section IX of the Land Use and Development Code.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes [7:20 p.m.]

Mr. Stinson noted that the applicant is satisfied with the proposed Conditions of Approval.

        Thomas Fickett MOVED and Lauren Carrier SECONDED a motion to grant final approval of Shaw Brothers, Inc.’s request for site plan approval to construct Phase II of the 329 Mosher Road site, located on Map 31, Lot 15 and Map 34, Lots 9 and 15.001, Sections A through T, and situated in the Industrial zoning district, with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting, discussed with the applicant and modified here this evening.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes [7:21 p.m.]

Mr. Stinson and Mr. Shaw thanked the Board and staff for their cooperation in moving the application expeditiously through the process.


ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL REVIEW:
        SITE PLAN/SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW – PineCrest Bed and Breakfast, LLC, proposal to discontinue dining for private club members and to add public dining as an accessory use to the existing Bed and Breakfast Establishment, located at 91 South Street, Map 106, Lot 42, in the Urban Residential zoning district.

Mr. Poirier told the Board that this project is being reviewed under site plan review criteria as well as special exception criteria and is a continuation of the Board’s review of May 3, 2010.  Mr. Poirier noted that the applicant is requesting a waiver from the parking standards for 10 parking spaces and has submitted a plan dated June 2, 2010, showing proposed parking.  The applicant is required to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 17, 2010 for a waiver of 7 feet of parking in the front yard setback.  Staff has added Condition of Approval #2 that “final approval of this Plan by the Planning Board is contingent upon the applicant acquiring an Approval of Variance for 7 feet of pavement encroachment into the front setback.”  

Mr. Zelmanow asked if it is better procedurally to keep the Condition of Approval as it is or to go through the various criteria to determine if they are met and put final approval on a Consent Agenda for the next Board meeting.  Mr. Poirier said that it is up to the Board to decide if they want to see the ZBA decision or if the application can go on a consent agenda.  Mr. Hughes confirmed that if the applicant does not get ZBA approval the Board would not sign the mylars.  

Matt Mattingly, applicant, came to the podium and thanked the Zoning Administrator, Sandra Mowery, for her assistance since the last public hearing.  He said that various parking reconfigurations have been considered and rejected for many reasons, but a different solution has been presented which
Mr. Mattingly believes is more appropriate to the site and the neighborhood, increasing the parking lot space by some 250 feet and keeping some old trees intact.  

Mr. Zelmanow reminded the Board that everything being done about the application is contingent on the ZBA’s decision on June 17th.  Mr. Hickey asked if a noise easement would be required for the proposed kitchen ventilation unit.  It was determined that the noise of the ventilation hood would fall well below the ordinance’s requirements, but should there be complaints, they would be handled by the Code Enforcement Office.  Mr. Poirier replied to a question from Mr. Fox that the standard dimensions for a parking space are 9x18’.  Mr. Hughes confirmed that cars will be able to back out of spaces and exit going forward.  Mr. Zelmanow noted that there is a hammerhead at the end to allow vehicles to turn around, that 6 parking spaces are shown on South Street in front of the PineCrest for on-street parking and other parking spaces are located within 200 feet of the site.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:   Laura Clough, 90 South Street, approached the podium and read the following statement:

“My name is Laura Clough.  I live directly across the street from the PineCrest.  My husband Jeremy and I have owned our home at 90 South Street since 2003.  We have lived in the South Street Historic District since 2001.  We also owned 59 South Street from 2001 to 2008.  We intentionally moved down the street from #59 to #90 in 2003 because it was a little further from downtown and much quieter.

Though I am personally opposed to allowing a 35 seat, 7 day-per-week restaurant to open in the middle of a residential zone, I am not here trying to shut down the PineCrest.  I am asking the board to uphold the spirit of the carefully crafted ordinance added to the town’s zoning laws with the applicant’s input just last year.  The applicant has repeatedly refused to follow the well thought out and fair rules of the B&B ordinance that was designed to find a way for a restaurant to peacefully coexist in a residential character of the neighborhood.

Since its inception in 2005, the PineCrest Bed and Breakfast Inn, LLC has made many incremental changes that when added together have begun to change the residential character of the neighborhood.

South Street is the only historic district in the town of Gorham and it is a special neighborhood that is worthy of protection.

1.      Respect for the Land Use Code of the Town of Gorham
The B&B ordinance that was just passed in August 2009 was carefully worded to protect the residential neighborhoods.  It should be respected and its intent should be honored.  As I understand it the public dining portion of the B&B ordinance was never intended to bring a restaurant and bar of this magnitude to Gorham’s residential neighborhoods.

The land use code and the planning process is a serious and important part of a civilized society.  However, at the May 3rd Planning Board meeting the Applicant’s attorney described this special exception process as merely an attempt to ‘change the marketing limitation’ imposed on the property.

Applicant’s attorney also stated that the ‘standard is too high’ and if this were a restaurant they would not need all this off-street parking.  It is true that if this property were in the commercial zone, the parking requirements would be lower.  This property is not in a commercial zone, it is in the middle of a residential neighborhood and should be expected to meet a higher standard.

There are currently several vacant storefronts, including a vacant restaurant along Main Street in the commercial district where parking requirements are less stringent.  It does not make sense to grant a parking waiver for a business that will add additional restaurant seat capacity to a residential area when so much square footage in the commercial district is currently unused.

Has the original Board of Appeals decision from 2006 been respected?
The original Board of Appeals decision from 2006 states quite clearly that the Private Supper Club used was granted “provided [it is] limited to private supper club of a social nature with dues paying members but not include restaurant like activities such as birthday parties or wedding receptions.”
The website for the PineCrest (http://www.pinecrestmaine.com/your-events.htm) advertises wedding receptions of up to 100 guests (website screen print attached).

According to the press release written by the Applicant (attached), the PineCrest has been open to the public as a restaurant since January 27th, 2010.

The applicant currently charges a nominal fee of $1 (one dollar) for a membership in the dinner club.

2.      Parking
Parking Plan
The applicant has not made a serious attempt to conform to the brand new B&B public dining ordinance that he was involved in creating.

Despite repeated requests from the Planning Board, the applicant’s file does not contain a conforming parking plan.  Parking is still being shown in the front setback and the applicant does not show the required number of off-street spaces despite having the available property to do so.  

The current parking plan submitted by the Applicant still has the parking in the setback.  However, even if these spots were moved back out of the setback and there were 13 conforming spaces, this would merely be enough for his 7 room B&B, leaving one space for the restaurant.
1 space is for handicapped patrons
2 spaces are for innkeepers
2 spaces are for staff
7 spaces for overnight guests
1 space for restaurant patrons
TOTAL = 13 spaces

The applicant has not demonstrated a legitimate reason why the ordinance cannot be followed as intended.  The Applicant has adequate land to put in enough parking spots to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance.  Based on the town’s parking standards, the Applicant can easily fit 30 off-street parking spaces.

Burden on the Town of Gorham
Essentially, the town of Gorham is being asked to subsidize the parking for the PineCrest by putting 16 cars on the street..

Approving the waiver of 10 parking spaces will turn South Street into a parking lot.  The town of Gorham will be assuming the responsibility of paving, plowing and maintaining the parking lot (South St) for the Applicant.

Overnight street parking
The PineCrest markets itself as a wine bar.  What will happen when a bar patron leaves the PineCrest and discovers that they should not be driving, but it happens to be during the 6 months of the year when overnight street parking is not allowed?  The patron will not be able to leave their car on the street and may choose to drive home in an intoxicated state.

Waiver of Required Parking Spaces
There is no need to grant a waiver when the applicant has the space available to meet the parking ordinance requirements.  There is a very large side yard that can be paved or graded to meet the requirements as they were designed.  

The intention of the B&B Public Dining ordinance is to minimize the impact on the residential neighborhood where the establishment is located.  The spirit of the ordinance should be upheld.

According to Chapter II, Section II.A.8, the burden of proof is on the applicant to clearly demonstrate that the parking demand will be lower than what is established by Section II.A.2 and that the reduction will not detract from neighborhood property values, inconvenience the public, or increase congestion on adjacent streets.
        The applicant has not clearly demonstrated that the need will be lower.
        There is no history of a public dining facility at this location, so it is not known what the demand will be.  We can assume that a public dining facility will be able to be patronized by a greater number of people than a private club.
        Turning South Street into a parking lot will increase congestion and will detract from neighborhood property values.

The language on the waiver states that the proposed use is not significantly different from the current use.  The Applicant is requesting that a 3 night a week private membership dining club be changed to a 7 day-and-night a week public restaurant.  This is a significant change of use.  

The shoulder of South Street in this area is not a full parking space wide.  It is 7’-6” wide.  If the waiver is granted and the Applicant is not required to conform to the B&B Public Dining ordinance as written, cars will be parked daily on both sides of the street.  Cars will be out into the roadway on both sides and will slow traffic down considerably, which will cause congestion and will make entering and exiting driveways more difficult and less safe.

The business plan of the PineCrest may not include paving the side yard, but that should not be a concern of the town of Gorham.  The lack of financial capacity to perform the required site work is also not a reason to grant a waiver.  Also, 100 year old trees are not a protected class.  The landscaping the Applicant is proposing will not be seen because all the cars in the street will be blocking the view.”

Mrs. Clough provided the Board with copies of how she envisioned the parking lot could be enlarged.  The entire package as presented to Board members by Mrs. Clough is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Ron Strout, 87 South Street, appeared in support of the PineCrest application, saying that he has no problem with lighting, parking, noise and noted that he is the closest neighbor to the site.  He said he very seldom sees cars parked on the street other than in front of the Inn itself, and believes that the Inn and a restaurant are a good use for the property.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED.  [7:47 p.m.]

Mr. Zelmanow asked if Board members had questions about the parking issues.  Mr. Hickey asked if the entire parking area has to be paved, as there as two gravel parking spaces shown on the plan.  Mr. Poirier replied that the gravel spaces will be those for the innkeeper and are allowed by Code in low use circumstances such as for a residence and which do not trip 35 vehicle trips per day.  The restaurant use would not qualify as “low use,” so those spaces would have to be paved.  Mr. Hughes said he believes that the current plan is much better and said he has no issue with granting the requested waiver of 10 spaces, contingent on the ZBA’s decision.  Mr. Hughes did note that in the winter parking on South Street will pose a significant problem and will affect the business considerably.  

Mr. Zelmanow quoted from Chapter II, Section II, A. 8), a), b) and c), that the Board may reduce off-street parking requirements as follows:

“a)     Where legal on-street parking is located within 200 (200) feet of a non-residential use and the Board determines that this parking will be available to meet some or all of the parking demand.
b)      Where publicly supplied off-street parking is located within two hundred (200) feet of a non-residential use and the Board determines that this parking will be safe, convenient, and available to meet some or all of the parking demand.
c)      Where it is clearly demonstrated that the parking demand will be lower than that established by this section and that the reduction will not detract from neighborhood property values, inconvenience the public, or increase congestion on adjacent streets.”

With regard to a) and b) above, Mr. Zelmanow confirmed with Mr. Poirier that the site plan does show 24 on-street parking spaces within 200 feet of the site and that on-street parking spaces allow a minimum of 5 feet from narrow driveway entrances so that access, as well as sight visibility, to and from the residential lots is not encumbered.  Insofar as c) is concerned, Mr. Zelmanow referred to the correspondence dated April 20, 2010 in the record indicating that five neighbors have no issue with vehicles parked on South Street in front of their houses.  He asked the remaining Board members to indicate whether they believe that these waiver requirements have been met.

The Board then discussed at length the subjectivity of c) of the off-street parking requirements, with Ms. Carrier and Mr. Fox questioning whether the parking demand has been “clearly demonstrated” and if the standard has been clearly met.  Mr. Zelmanow said that it is up to each member to determine if the standard has been met.  Mr. Poirier suggested that Board members identify their concerns and address them to the applicant about the four criteria listed in c), as Mr. Mattingly no doubt compiled data when he was considering adding public dining.  Mr. Mattingly said that it is about a 50-50 ratio of dining guests vs. overnight guests, and said that occupancy drops to 18 to 20% in the winter so there is more parking available for dining.  Mr. Zelmanow noted that parking on the street is not prohibited, so that someone living on the street could have a party with many cars parked on the street.  In response to Mr. Fickett, Mr. Mattingly said that the distance to the library is about 300 feet, that area is well maintained in the winter and would be available for parking.  Mr. Zelmanow said that if parking on South Street were an issue, the Town would have addressed it by prohibiting it, and that by not doing so the inference is that parking is permitted year round.  Mr. Fox said he is still struggling with the phrase “clearly demonstrates” although it appears that there will be parking available when there is a demand for parking.

Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Mattingly what is the most number of diners he has had; Mr. Mattingly replied that an average number of diners is around 14.  Mr. Mattingly said that currently they are serving dinners Thursday, Friday and Saturday and have no intention of expanding right now even though the ordinance permits dining 7 nights a week.  Mr. Mattingly replied to Ms. Carrier that use of the porch for dining is an “either/or” situation and that the kitchen is not adequate to serve double capacity, and traditionally if there is outdoor dining there must be backup seating available in the event weather conditions dictated a need to do so.  

Mr. Hughes quoted from the ZBA 2006 decision that the use for the private supper club was granted “… provided [it is] limited to private supper club of a social nature with dues paying members but not to include restaurant like activities such as birthday parties or wedding receptions” and asked whether Mr. Mattingly had obtained permits for such events in the past.  Mr. Hughes noted that the ordinance does not address such large events.  Mr. Mattingly said he believed that was outside the parameters of the dinner club and functions that have happened at the Inn are all sponsored by a dues paying member so it is that member’s function at the Inn.  He said he believed that members could bring guests and that the Town Attorney had said that members could not be told not to bring guests.  Ms. Carrier, who had been a member of the ZBA in 2006, said she recalled a discussion involving that specific question and that there would be a limited number of guests at a member’s function, perhaps 20 or 25 people, and that the ZBA did not want the Inn to be a place where there would be 100 or 150 people.  She asked Mr. Mattingly if he means that what the Inn sponsors would be limited but the Inn cannot control how many guests a member would invite.  Mr. Mattingly said the facility cannot accommodate 100 people and the discussion involved member-sponsored activities such as a bridal shower.  Mr. Hughes asked that when the private club no longer exists, would the Inn be allowed to have an event such as a wedding reception for an individual who wants 50 guests.  Mr. Mattingly replied not in the dining room but in the side lawn it would be alright.  Ms. Carrier asked where would the guests park.  Mr. Mattingly replied that with large events such as the First Taste Walk, concerts and similar events, he has come in for mass gathering permits and sought permission to park at the Municipal Center, which was granted so long as there was no corresponding event at the Town.  In response to Mr. Zelmanow about the number of people allowed in the building, Mr. Mattingly replied that fire code permits 49 people based on the square footage.  Mr. Zelmanow noted that the facility itself is a limiting factor.  Mr. Mattingly said that large gatherings and overnight guests do not co-exist well, and therefore every large gathering this year is scheduled to be off-site.

Mr. Hickey commented that the required number of spaces is 29, and looking at the plan, there are 13 being supplied on the site itself.  He agreed that the current plan is substantially improved, but he believes that the site should support at least half of the required spaces, which is possible based on the current layout if the two gravel spaces around the tree were paved spaces and the gravel parking area was preserved at the end of the driveway as it is currently to become the innkeepers’ parking spaces.  Mr. Hickey said that would make 15 spaces on site.  Mr. Mattingly said that the ordinance allows the use of directly abutting parking spaces in front to be considered as “on-site,” so that 13 plus 6 abutting gives a total of 19 considered as “on-site.”  Mr. Hickey said he intended to refer to “off street” parking.  Ms. Carrier asked Mr. Mattingly how often the grass area is used; Mr. Mattingly replied that it was used every Sunday afternoon last summer, and that the side yard is the back yard of four different abutting properties and he is reluctant to use it for parking.  Ms. Carrier asked if any of the other parking layout variations provided more parking spaces while maintaining the back section of the yard; Mr. Mattingly replied that the most that was squeezed on the site was 18 parking spaces, which was 100% usage within the setbacks.  

        Thomas Hughes MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a waiver of ten spaces from those required in Chapter II, Section II, Subsection A.2), parking requirements for Bed and Breakfast Establishment with Public Dining as an accessory use.
Discussion:  Mr. Fickett asked if a finding of fact is necessary that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter II, Section II, A. 8), a), b) and c).  Mr. Zelmanow said that he read the criteria and the statements supporting a finding that the criteria have been met, and that a vote to approve the waiver is an agreement that the applicant has met those requirements.  
Motion CARRIED, 5 ayes and 2 nays (Carrier and Hickey).

Mr. Zelmanow noted that the waiver is contingent on the ZBA approval on June 17 of the applicant’s request for a variance for 7 feet of pavement encroachment into the front setback.

Mr. Zelmanow asked if the Board wants to keep Condition of Approval #2 or move the item to a Consent Agenda.  Ms. Carrier said she would like to have the opportunity to discuss the item depending on the ZBA decision.  The Board concurred with setting the item as a Consent Agenda item at the next meeting of the Board and removing COA #2.  Mr. Zelmanow said the Board members should read through the Conditions of Approval and the Findings of Fact, and at the Consent Agenda meeting the Board would adopt the Findings at the final vote to approve.  Mr. Poirier said that there will be an amendment to other documents submitted consistent with the applicant submitting a copy of the ZBA decision for the Board’s review.  Mr. Zelmanow asked that the Board and the applicant be made aware of the ZBA’s decision and if there are any conditions on its decision.  

Mr. Zelmanow stated that based on the ZBA decision, if there are any changes to the proposed Findings of Fact or the Conditions of Approval the item will come off the Consent Agenda.  In response to a question from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Poirier said that the Findings of Fact will be approved as part of  the Consent Agenda meeting.

        Thomas Fickett MOVED and Lauren Carrier SECONDED a motion to adjourn.  Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.  [8:30 p.m.]

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
__________________________, 2010

ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL REVIEW:
SITE PLAN – Shaw Brothers Construction, Phase II of the 329 Mosher Road Site to include a main office, maintenance facility, enclosed storage area and associated commercial, employee and visitor parking areas on 126.13 acres located at 329 Mosher Road, Map 31, Lot 15 and Map 34, Lots 9 and 15.001, in the Industrial zoning district.

APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

  • 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 applicants and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Town Planner may approve;
  • That prior to the signing of the mylars by the Planning Board, the applicant must provide an estimated cost for the proposed site improvements and a performance guarantee including an escrow for 2-1/2% of the estimated cost of improvements meeting the approval of Town Staff and the Town Attorney;
  • 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;
  • That all buildings shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code and NFPA Fire Prevention Code 1;
  • That the building construction plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshal’s Office and the Gorham Fire Department for review and permitting. This includes all buildings. The plans for the Fire Department do not need to be submitted until a building permit is issued;
  • That a copy of the building construction permit for all buildings shall be submitted to the Fire Department;
  • That all buildings shall be fully sprinkled with the systems meeting all requirements of the Town of Gorham’s Sprinkler Ordinance. Sprinkler plans must be submitted to the State Fire Marshal’s Office and the Gorham Fire Department for review and permitting. The plans shall be submitted to the Gorham Fire Department at least two weeks prior to the start of the installation of the sprinkler systems;
  • That all natural gas appliances etc shall be installed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 and all natural gas regulators shall be protected with bollards;
  • That underground fuel storage tanks shall meet all State of Maine regulations from DEP and State Fire Marshal’s Office;
  • That a lock box shall be installed on both buildings and located next to the sprinkler control room door with a master key to the building;
  • That a complete list of any hazardous materials stored on site will be provided to the Fire Department along with their MSDS sheets;
  • That each building shall have a sprinkler control room with an outside door, where the main sprinkler control valves are located. The outside door shall be labeled SPRINKLER CONTROL ROOM. The main Fire Alarm Panel shall be located in this room as well;
  • That the Fire Alarm System for the Office/Maintenance Building shall be a point of contact system. The system installer shall meet with the Fire Department to review the Fire Alarm System plans. The Fire Alarm System shall meet the requirements of NFPA 72. A remote annunciator panel shall be located at the front entrance door;  
  • That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities, representatives of the developer, general contractor, site contractor, and the site design engineer shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the Town Planner and other staff members to review the proposed commencement date of the project, the overall schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site plan requirements;
  • That the Planning Board Chairman is authorized by the Planning Board to sign these Findings of Fact on behalf of the entire Board; and
  • That these conditions of approval must be added to the site plan and the site plan 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 site plan shall be returned to the Town Planner prior to the pre-construction meeting.