Town of Gorham
September 13, 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
LAUREN CARRIER CAROL WHITE, Planning Department
THOMAS FICKETT Administrative Assistant
GEORGE FOX
CHRISTOPHER HICKEY
THOMAS HUGHES Staff Absent:
ANDREW MCCULLOUGH Barbara Skinner, Clerk of the Board
Edward Zelmanow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. Ms. White called the roll; all members were present..
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 2, 2010 MINUTES
Thomas Fickett MOVED and Christopher Hickey SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 2010 as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Thomas Hughes abstaining as not having been present at the August 2, 2010 meeting). [7:03 p.m.]
Mr. Zelmanow noted that Ms. Carrier has laryngitis and would submit questions in writing.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Ordinance Review Committee – Mr. McCullough reported that a meeting was held on August 23, 2010, with discussions centering on the small wind turbine systems ordinance and the fraternity housing ordinance.
B. Streets and Ways Subcommittee – Mr. Hughes reported that there was no meeting of this subcommittee.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW REPORT
Mr. Poirier reported that there is one application currently going through administrative review, that of PATCO Construction, Inc., who is proposing a 9,660 square foot building addition and parking lot expansion at 29 Sanford Drive in the Gorham Industrial Park. The property is owned by Castle Rock, LLC, and is currently occupied by Helical Solutions.
Mr. Poirier noted that the 80 Main Street Coffee and Wine Shop application can be taken off the list of pending projects as it appears that a mortgage company may be looking at moving in there or has already done so, going through the use permit process with the Code Office.
Mr. Zelmanow announced that by his own motion he would like to reorganize the agenda items according to Planning Board rules wherein public hearing items are listed first after consent agenda items, with subsequent items heard based on the length of time they have been in the Planning Department process. The proposed reorder is as follows: Item 1: Consent Agenda; Item 2: Public Hearing, proposed amendment to the Land Use and Development Code relating to fraternity housing; Item 3: Public Hearing, site plan review at 274 New Portland Road by John Pompeo; Item 4: Public Hearing, proposed amendment to the Land Use and Development Code relating to off-street parking, Bed and Breakfast Facilities; Item 5: Administrative Review, Mallison Falls Recreation Facility by S.D. Warren; and
Item 6: Preliminary Subdivision Review, Peterson Fields Subdivision, 30 Brackett Road, by Normand Berube Builders, Inc.
Mr. Zelmanow’s MOTION to reorganize the agenda items was SECONDED by Thomas Hughes. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:14 p.m.]
ITEM 1: CONSENT AGENDA -Subdivision Amendment: Sebago Knoll Subdivision by Richard and Rhonda Alafat – a request for a subdivision amendment of the approved Sebago Knoll Subdivision lots 3 and 4 boundary line at 36 Ritz Farm Road located on Map 86 Lot 16.003 and 16.004 situated in the Rural (R) zoning district.
There being no one from the Board or the public wishing to remove the item from the Consent Agenda,
Christopher Hickey MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the item on the Consent Agenda.
Discussion: Mr. Poirier replied to Mr. Zelmanow that the proposed conditions of approval have been forwarded to the applicants. At Mr. Zelmanow’s request, Mr. Hickey amended his motion to include the conditions of approval posted prior to the meeting; the seconder concurred.
Motion as amended CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:15 p.m.]
ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING – Amendments to the Gorham Land Use and Development Code relating to Fraternity Housing: CHAPTER I – ZONING REUGLATIONS, SECTION V – DEFINITIONS to add a new definition; changes to PERMITTED USES and SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS in all zoning districts relating to fraternal organizations and fraternity housing.
Mr. Poirier explained that staff has for the Board’s review this evening two versions of the proposed ordinance changes: Version A which is the language forwarded by the Town Council to the Planning Board, and Version B, which the Planning Board’s Ordinance Committee has drafted.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Bruce Roullard, 46 School Street, Gorham. Speaking against the proposed amendment to exclude fraternity houses from the districts where they are currently permitted. He has served on the board which manages the 24 School Street property since the mid 1980s, feels the property is safe with appropriate fire alarm and security systems which are annually inspected as required; and said that 24 School Street provides an alternative means for housing of USM students, with rents at least 25% less than the lowest campus rate. He said many students would not be able to attend the University were it not for the reduced rents provided by 24 School Street. He said that if there are behavior issues relating to fraternity houses there are other methods of dealing
with them, such as via the national organizations.. Many of the problems relating to fraternity houses come from other students coming and going, not just those living at the fraternity houses. He said that eliminating fraternities and sororities will not eliminate noise issues in the Town of Gorham.
In response to Mr. Zelmanow, Mr. Roullard said there is an inter-fraternity council at the University, and there are policies and procedures that have been developed to deal with behavior and activities at the off-campus houses. Mr. Fox asked if there are any zoning districts where the proposed changes would be appropriate. Mr. Roullard replied that the districts located in close proximity to the campus would be appropriate for a student to walk from his or her residence to the campus. Mr. Hughes asked how many fraternities and sororities there are related to USM; Mr. Roullard replied that there are 3 national fraternal organizations, two national sororities; and two other female organizations not affiliated with a national entity. Mr. Roullard said that the national office has the right to revoke
the charter of any chapter on any campus if it believes that the chapter is not living up to the ideals of the organization.
Dan Santos, 24 School Street, president of the Interfraternity Council. Referring to the fraternity whose house has since been closed on Preble Street, Mr. Santos said that the national organization did step in and cut membership of that chapter to a 6-member fraternity, which is now in the process of trying to rebuild the chapter based on academics and performance on and off campus. Mr. Zelmanow asked if the Interfraternity Council has the authority to prevent a fraternity from holding a rush or pledging if that fraternity is acting in a negative fashion. Mr. Santos said that the IFC can step in if there is negative behavior impacting the Greek organization, and that the IFC is actively seeking to promulgate behavior guidelines to address Town problems. Mr. Zelmanow asked how fraternities would be
impacted if the Town Council passes the proposed ordinance changes. Mr. Santos replied taking away adding new houses would probably not cure the noise problem but could in fact add to it by increasing places where such problems could occur and where they would not be regulated. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Santos discussed the requirement of achieving a certain grade point level within a fraternity in order to have social events. Mr. Santos said a 2.0 grade average is required for new rushes and a 2.5 grade average for first semester freshmen out of high school. In response to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Santos said that his solution to issues such as those that occurred on Preble Street would be to address freshmen orientation to outline proper behavior in Town so they are aware they can be penalized for not being good neighbors in Town and to create and promulgate guidelines for all students to follow. Mr. Santos said he believes that the problems lie with the younger
students and that the problems are not necessarily caused by the Greek houses but by students outside the fraternity structure. For some students it is too expensive to live on campus and it is cheaper to live in fraternity and sorority housing. Mr. Hughes noted that prohibition will affect all organizations, including honorary fraternities and sororities, and suggested that regulation would be better than prohibition.
By note read by Mr. Zelmanow, Ms. Carrier asked if Mr. Santos thinks that the ordinance will address the noise and behavior problems. Mr. Santos said that if new houses were permitted with guidelines, then they would be able to be regulated in a more specific manner. He said he believes that more fraternity and sorority houses would lessen the number of students in each specific house and would dissipate the noise if the houses are closer to campus. Mr. Zelmanow asked what the social implication would be if Greek members were prohibited from living together in the same structure. Mr. Santos replied that living on campus as he did last year was incredibly expensive, but living in a fraternity house is more affordable; if it were not for the fraternity housing, he would not be attending the
University of Southern Maine. Mr. Santos said that not being able to live with Greek brothers would negatively impact the purpose of a fraternity.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Poirier called the Board’s attention to the provision stating that “Applicability date notwithstanding the provisions of 1 MRSA, Section 302 or any other law to the contrary, this ordinance, when enacted, shall govern any building permit application that has not received all required approvals prior to July 6th, 2010.” Mr. Hughes commented that more attention needs to be paid to other options in the future for solving the problems that have occurred in the past, rather than prohibiting fraternity housing as a solution, which he believes sends a negative message about the Town.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion not to recommend either proposed ordinance version for adoption to the Town Council.
Discussion: Mr. Poirier suggested that in light of the work by the Planning Board, the motion be phrased “Move to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter I, Zoning Regulations, Sections V, VII, VIII and XVI as amended by the Planning Board.”
Mr. Hughes withdrew his original motion.
Discussion: Mr. Zelmanow noted that the Board does not make policy, the Council does, but the Board can make recommendations on how it believes the Council should proceed.
Thomas Fickett MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption to the Town Council of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter I, Zoning Regulations, Sections V, VII, VIII and XVI as amended by the Planning Board. Motion FAILED, 6 nays and 1 abstention (Christopher Hickey).
Mr. Poirier suggested that the Board authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the Town Council outlining the Board’s reasoning in not recommending the proposed ordinance language.
ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING - Site Plan Review: 274 New Portland Road by John Pompeo, Owner. A proposal to construct a lay down yard for storage of earthwork equipment and material on 2.78 acres at 274 New Portland Road, located on Map 12 Lot 17.008 situated in the Industrial (I) zoning district.
Mr. Fickett advised the Board that he and Mr. Pompeo have had business relationships in the past but he believes that he can act impartially in considering the application. There were no objections to Mr. Fickett remaining on the dais for the review of the item.
Mr. Poirier said that the applicant last was before the Board at a pre-application discussion on July 12, 2010, at which time the applicant discussed with the Board the opportunity to crush rock overburden on site. A site walk was held on August 26, 2010, giving the Board the chance to review the site. This is the first time the application is before the Board for an official review; staff has completed staff notes for the project, and Mr. Poirier recommends that the Board review the approval criteria for discussion and/or approval. At Mr. Fickett’s request, Mr. Poirier said that initially when first approved a building was approved on site and restrictions were placed on doing any materials processing on site.
Shaw Frank, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicant and described the project, noting that initially only two phases of development were proposed, associated with the regrading of the site. However, as discussed with the Board at the site walk, the site currently is 14 to 16 feet above New Portland Road, so access to the site is a major problem and the elevation needs to be brought down in order to make the site usable. The current proposal has been divided into 8 phases in order to allow the applicant to remove material on a more economically friendly time table and to provide a lay down area at the same time. Ultimate access to the property will be across from the existing driveway on the other side of New Portland Road. The phases are: 1 and 2 will be to regrade the front of
the site to allow a lay down area; phase 3 will be to construct a treatment pond; and the second treatment pond is associated with the back 4 phases of development. Mr. Frank commented that one of the abutters at the site walk asked that a treed buffer along the property line be retained, which the applicant is willing to do. Existing vegetation along the front of the site will be retained as well. One of the owners of the abutting mini-storage facility was present at the site walk and discussions about blasting were held with that abutter; notification processes will be in accordance with local and state ordinances and safeguards. No services will be extended to the site; the only reason to show a proposed septic system is because there are some passing soils on site which will not be disturbed.
Mr. Frank said that a response is being prepared to staff’s comments and no major issues have been identified in connection with those comments. It is hoped that the application can receive site plan approval at the next Board meeting in October.
Mr. Zelmanow asked if the applicant is applying for a blasting permit. Mr. Poirier replied that the Town only has blasting permit requirements for gravel pits. All other blasting requirements are regulated under DOT. Mr. Zelmanow read from Chapter IV, Site Plan and Review, Section IX – Approval Criteria and Standards, as follows:
“The following criteria shall be used by the Site Plan Review Committee and the Planning Board in reviewing applications for site plan review and shall serve as minimum requirements for approval of the application. The application shall be approved unless the Site Plan Review Committee or the Planning Board determines that the applicant has failed to meet one or more of these standards. In all instances, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant and such burden of proof shall include the production of evidence sufficient to warrant a finding that all applicable criteria have been met.”
The approval criteria are listed A through T in the Land Use Code.
PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD ENDED.
The Board then considered certain criteria, as follows:
“A Utilization of the Site – The Plan for the development will reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development.
Issues involving signage, blasting, pavement details and gravel pad details need to be resolved. Mr.Fickett asked if the only two blasting notifications would be to the Fire Department and Dispatch; it was agreed that abutters should also be notified. Mr. Frank said abutters can be contacted for permission to have a pre-blast survey done, the abutters can be offered the notification process as well, and the applicant’s telephone number would also be made available. Mr. Hughes noted that the proposed condition of approval appears appropriate. Mr. Frank said that some of the phases will have only small amounts of overburden removed and the blasting will be minimal, similar to blasting for a single family home. Mr. Pompeo said that timing of completion of the phases is in
part market-driven.
“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.”
Mr. Hughes commented about the suggested requirement that any damage to New Portland Road that is attributable to the project shall be repaired by the developer, asking how could such potential damage be proven to be the fault of the developer and enforced. Mr. Frank said that there have been similar conditions in the past, and if the Board is comfortable with that condition, the developer is as well. Mr. Frank said he believes that the Public Works Director’s concerns probably run to the temporary and permanent access areas as they tie into the edge of New Portland Road. Mr. Pompeo assured the Board that any damage to the road edges at the access areas would be addressed as required.
Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Frank if the comments by the Town’s Review Engineer, Woodard & Curran, about stormwater management would be addressed directly to them. Mr. Frank said they have reviewed all the comments and are preparing their responses.
Mr. Zelmanow said he saw no reason to go through each bolded comment in the staff notes as Mr. Frank has indicated that the comments are being addressed, and ultimately each comment must be shown to meet the appropriate criterion before Board approval. He asked the Board members if there were any specific questions or concerns. Mr. Poirier noted that staff’s statements in each of the criterion will ultimately become findings of fact, so if the Board wants to revise or amend those statements, staff needs to be so advised. He asked that the Board look at each criterion, either at this meeting or at the next meeting, and indicate if they concur with staff’s comments under each item where they appear. Mr. Fox commented that the Board should look at staff’s
recommended statements so that the applicant will have that information for when they next come before the Board.
Mr. Hickey said his primary concern is under “G. Erosion Control,” referring to staff’s comment that the erosion control barriers are not shown on the plan, inasmuch as this will be an on-going excavation project. Mr. Frank assured the Board that will be shown on a phase-by-phase basis on the plans. Mr. Hickey said it is important to show that the erosion control methods are keeping up with the excavation.
Mr. Poirier noted that under “S. Buffering,” as the ultimate use of this site will be a construction lay down area for storage of equipment, stockpiling, etc., staff has highlighted the buffering criteria in the ordinance for the Board’s review. The Board should indicate what it would like to see for buffering when the site is being utilized as a construction lay down area. In response to Mr. Zelmanow, Mr. Frank said that average stockpile height could reached 25 feet, and the buffering will be shown on the plans.
Mr. Frank said their intent is to provide staff with responses so that they may come before the Board at the October meeting.
ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING -Amendments to Gorham Land Use and Development Code relating to Off Street Parking, B&B Facilities: CHAPTER II GENERAL STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE, SECTION II – PARKING, LOADING AND TRAFFIC, A. OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS, additions to #10).
CHAPTER II GENERAL STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE, SECTION VIII – BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITIES, (INCLUSIVE OF BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENT WITH AND WITHOUT PUBLIC DINING FACILITIES, AND INN) addition of #3), additions to #6) and changes to #9).
Mr. Poirier said that this amendment to the Land Use Code refers to commercial off-street parking for bed and breakfast uses. The Board held a workshop earlier this evening on the item. Mr. Poirier said that the amendment language was written by Sandra Mowery, Zoning Administrator of the Town of Gorham.
PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
Mr. Zelmanow read the following email into the record:
“To the Planning Board
My name is Jeremy Clough. My wife and I live at 90 South Street which is directly across the street from the Pine Crest Bed and Breakfast.
We are concerned with the proposed amendment to the Gorham Land Use and Development Code relating to off-street parking, buffer areas and screening. We feel that this is a good reason for the existing setbacks to be required and believe that the buffering will be inadequate to protect the character of the residential neighborhoods.
We understand that this will affect all of the Bed and Breakfast establishments. However, we understand that there are no other Bed and Breakfast establishments in Gorham at this time other than the Pine Crest.
Also, we feel that this is not really about parking in the setback for the B&B establishments. We feel that allowing these parking spaces in the setback will pave the way, so to speak, for a restaurant to be allowed on the site. Allowing a restaurant in a historic residential neighborhood will adversely the character of the neighborhoods and property values.
Over the past 4 years the Pine Crest has established a pattern of incremental changes that have negatively impacted the neighborhood. I was particularly distressed when I came home on a recent Sunday afternoon to see a mechanical bull riding contest being held in the parking lot of the Pine Crest. We have seen an increase in the amount of diesel delivery and trash trucks idling while servicing the Pine Crest. I strongly believe that the Pine Crest has negatively impacted the quality of life for residents of the South Street Historic District. Because of the historic nature of our neighborhood I believe the zoning rules should be more stringent so the character of this special neighborhood is preserved. I
strongly urge the Planning Board to reject the proposed amendment as it appears to be written specifically for the Pine Crest and does not take the wishes of the neighbors into account.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeremy Clough
91 South Street”
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Zelmanow said his concern with the proposed language is that it is only for a bed and breakfast that has a paved area in a front setback and there is only current bed and breakfast in the Town of Gorham. In particular, the language is an open and closed amendment that only benefits one bed and breakfast, inasmuch as when this amendment is passed, if you happen to be a bed and breakfast in the Town of Gorham and have a paved area in the front setback, you are allowed to use it, but no other bed and breakfast is allowed to have a paved area in the front setback going forward. Mr. Zelmanow said that if it were important to allow commercial operations to use their front setbacks as parking, then it should be open to all commercial developments for that period of time, not just specifically to one. He
said that he would not vote for approval of the language as it is written now, he believes more research needs to be done, more questions need to asked, and perhaps the language needs to be tweaked or changed at a later time in a different venue.
Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Zelmanow’s comments, suggesting that the amendment be forwarded to the Planning Board’s Ordinance Review Committee, which has not yet reviewed it, to take a look at all the aspects which would be affected.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion that the proposed ordinance language be sent to the Board’s Ordinance Review Committee for review and recommendation to the full Board.
Discussion: Mr. Fox said that the proposed ordinance change be considered in the light of all commercial businesses and not what appears to be targeted to perhaps a singular commercial business. He said he is uncomfortable with the approach that has been taken of crafting something that works for one business, one time, and then the door closes, and said he believes it is not an appropriate method of solving these problems.
Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes.
Thomas Fickett MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to continue the Public Hearing to a future date. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:15 p.m.]
10 Minute Break to 8:25 p.m.
ITEM 5: Administrative Review: Mallison Falls Recreation Facility by S.D. Warren Co.
A proposal to construct 11 gravel parking spaces and gravel paths for use as a canoe & kayak access and portage around the Mallison Street hydroelectric dam at the intersection of Mallison and Canal Streets, located on Map 110/Lots 77 & 31.001, situated in the Urban Residential-Manufactured Housing District (UR-MH), Shoreland Overlay District, and Resource Protection Sub-District.
Mr. Poirier noted that this is an Administrative Review, typically reviewed by a committee comprised of the Town Planner, Code Enforcement Officer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief and Police Chief. However, in this instance because this project is located in the Shoreland Zoning Overlay District, the Land Use Code requires a determination by the Planning Board, who will be looking at both Shoreland and Administrative Review requirements. A site walk was held by the Planning Board on August 12, 2010; a copy of the site walk notes are included in the staff notes. This is the first time this Administrative Review project has come before the Board, and staff has completed staff notes outlining the approval criteria which the applicant must meet. He recommends that the Board go through these criteria after
the applicant’s presentation has been completed.
Chris McDonald, HDR/DTA, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced Brad Goulet of Sappi, Ms. Richards of Normandeau and Francis Broadigan from Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. McDonald gave a brief overview of the project, located at the intersection of Canal and Mallison Streets, involving an 8-space car gravel parking area and 3 additional parking spots at the existing power house site on Canal Street. There will be a small turnoff area on Mallison Street for taking canoes off and a portage route starting upstream of the bridge on Mallison Street, to go across the proposed parking area and to continue along Canal Street to the existing entrance to the power house, and then to the area downstream of the power house.
Mr. Zelmanow said there is some confusion why this is being done, and asked if it is in response to a court order or some other type of requirement. Mr. Goulet, project manager for Sappi’s hydros on the Presumpscot River, came to the podium and explained that for this site and all of the sites which were re-licensed in 2003, as part of their federal licenses, each project was required to have a public use and recreation plan, which Sappi developed and submitted with consultation with state agencies. This plan was begun in 2002 and has seen numerous revisions, and now the Planning Board is being asked to allow Sappi to construct a public use plan for access to the river which Sappi is required to produce because of the license they have for the use of the waterway.
Mr. Hughes expressed his serious concerns about the safety of anyone attempting to carry a canoe or kayak along Canal Street and crossing Mallison Road to access Canal Street to do so. Mr. Goulet said that the Board has the option of granting Sappi a permit or not, but Sappi has requirements to allow access from above and below the dam. If they do not have a permit, they cannot construct it. There are other components, such as car-top boat access, canoe and kayak portage from above and below the dam, and a fisheries component both above and below the dam. Should the Board not give approval to the project, Sappi will have to go back to both the state agencies and FERC and amend their approved plan with what could be constructed. Mr. Zelmanow said that the area around the dam powerhouse could
be a desirable area to develop for picnicking and fishing accessibility, and asked if the power pole in the middle of the parking area can be protected with bollards. Mr. Goulet noted that while portaging along Canal Street does pose some problems, one of their concerns is public safety in the vicinity of the powerhouse.
Mr. Fickett asked how the number of 11 spaces was arrived at; Mr. Goulet said he was not part of the negotiations when that number was achieved. Mr. Fox noted that concerns seem to be centered around the portage routes, and asked if alternatives have been considered. Mr. Goulet said they actually do not own any property which would allow them to do it, Canal Street is the only option available to get from above the dam to below the dam; and the property on the opposite side of the dam is owned by the Portland Safe Company. Their only option is to work on the property that they actually own.
Mr. Zelmanow noted that there was a bit of a grass shoulder along Canal Street and confirmed that Sappi owns that strip, and asked why the shoulder could not be graveled to get people off the road. Mr. Goulet said there are components of the portage route that potentially could be moved, but they still could not move what he considers the most dangerous part of the portage route off Canal Street, which is because of the ditch on the opposite side.
Mr. Zelmanow commented that another safety issue is crossing Mallison Street with the distance to the bridge being an issue. Mr. Fox, speaking on behalf on behalf of Ms. Carrier, asked if there has been any conversation with the Gorham Fire Chief regarding his concerns about the route and if there is any way to satisfy those concerns. Mr. Goulet said there is really no other option than along the road. Mr. Hughes asked if the licensing requirements could be satisfied by simply addressing the area around the power plant, if that area could be improved to increase parking. Mr. Goulet said that the concept is that passage must be provided from above and below the dam; Mallison Street is above the dam and the power station is below the dam and somehow the chicken has to get across the road.
Francis Broadigan, IF&W fisheries biologist for the southern part of Maine, came to the podium to speak about the development of the plan with Sappi to increase recreational angling opportunities associated with the project. He said that there are some parts of the plan which offer great benefits, including access to both the impoundment and tail water areas of the waterway, and said that the site has extreme limitation and there are not many options in trying to put forward what was been developed. He also noted that the number of parking spaces was developed to accommodate the different kinds of users who might access the site.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: Dan Warren, 62 Canal Street, spoke about safety of the portage route, noise, hours of operation, lighting, and trash. Said that although Mr. McDonald told the people who had showed up to fish on the day of the site walk at the powerhouse that they could park there, they were later thrown out later by security, who told them they could not park there. Discussed with Mr. Goulet the timing of the proposed plan; suggested that the old rail road track could present a viable option, provided an easement agreement could be reach with Portland Safe for use of the parking lot.
Mr. Goulet said that due to issues at other sites, the security company hired by Sappi had made a decision that vehicles should be parked along the road and those wanting to fish at the power plant location should walk in to the area. However, Mr. Goulet said that parking will be allowed as part of this plan.
Mr. Goulet introduced Ms. Richards, Normandeau Associates, who gave a history of the negotiations which have occurred since 1995 on the site. One of the original plans first discussed in 1999 for access above and below the dam involved access to Portland Safe property, which was approved by FERC with the provision that it would be FERC that could decide in the future if that access was to be terminated, whereas Portland Safe wanted the option to terminate in the event public access became a nuisance for them in terms of safety and security. So the plan to put portage and fishing access on that side of the river had to be abandoned.
Geoffrey Hart, 7 Union Street, spoke about safety issues. He said that he believes that piece of river between the two dams is rarely fished.
Ryan Jenkins, 56 Canal Street, suggested that Sappi use the area along the canal and raise the concrete retaining wall. Conditions are already unsafe with cars parking along the road. He noted that Sappi could purchase Portland Safe, which is currently for sale, which would give them the land for parking, etc., that they need.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Zelmanow noted that the primary concern involving the two safety issues of crossing Mallison Street and portaging down Canal Street need to be addressed again. Mr. Zelmanow confirmed with the applicants that they have not yet had a chance to address the items in the staff notes dealing with approval criteria. Mr. Poirier said that comments regarding A. Utilization of the Site are minor; he asked if the Board concurred with staff’s comments with the description written by staff about B. Access to the Site and that there are no further comments needed. Mr. Poirier said that the Board must consider the Code Enforcement Officer’s comments under C. Access into the Site that roads and driveways must be 75 feet back from the river and no less than 50 feet with the Board’s approval to make
a finding that the 50 setback has been met. Mr. Zelmanow said he has an issue with D. Internal Vehicular Circulation regarding the lower parking area and the power pole that needs to be either moved or protected from internal vehicle circulation. Mr. Zelmanow said that E. Pedestrian Circulation will be critical. Mr. Zelmanow was advised by Mr. Goulet that the powerhouse has lighting but no lighting is proposed for the lot off Mallison and Canal; no gates are proposed and hours of operation will basically be daylight hours. Mr. McDonald said that the nearest lighting is at the pump station across Canal Street. Mr. Zelmanow expressed concern that the lot could attract an unwelcome usage and problems. Mr. Goulet said that it was felt that a light would actually attract problems rather than deter them and Sappi cannot undertake policing authority, which is best left to the municipality; however, if the Board decides a light is necessary, Sappi would
put a light in the lot. Mr. Poirier confirmed with Mr. Goulet that the Board is looking for a full-cut off light fixture in the upper parking lot.
Mr. Poirier said that it would appear that the stumbling block is the portage route. He asked if the Board felt if the portage route were removed, it could move forward with the other aspects of parking above and below the dam. If a poll of the Board finds that a majority does not have an issue with the portage route, the applicant could move forward on that aspect as well. Mr. Goulet said that it would be important to provide fisherman access to both the impoundment and the bypass reach, which would still entail at least a crosswalk on Mallison Street. Mr. Fox asked what is the difference between allowing a fisherman to walk back and forth and a kayaker or canoeist doing the same thing in the same place. Mr. Zelmanow said in the best case scenario no one should be crossing there if they didn’t have to, but it is understood there still needs to be access to the upper part. Mr. Hughes said he does not want to give approval to portaging along Canal Street; he would approve the
lower parking lot area with modifications, and the upper parking lot.
Mr. Goulet asked for the Board’s recommendations on how to proceed with the permit, based on the various prescriptions of the license of angler access in the impoundment area upstream and in the downstream area, providing parking for the angler access, and other than creating a long pedestrian path down Canal Street, there needs to be parking close to the Mallison Street or impoundment side and parking down at the station side. There must be some level of access on the upstream side of the Mallison Street bridge, where Sappi’s land ownership is very restricted but not much would change on the plan to give that access. It appears to Mr. Goulet that what should not be done is formalizing the portage route. Mr. Zelmanow and Mr. Goulet discussed the economic impracticality of constructing a
footbridge over Mallison Street based on the size of the project. Mr. Goulet and Mr. Hickey discussed Sappi’s utility pole in the lot at the powerhouse.
A poll of the Board resulted in the following: Mr. Hughes would support the gravel parking lot on Mallison Street, against a portage to get in to the river, and supports enhancement of the parking lot at the powerhouse. Mr. Fickett concurred with Mr. Hughes’ comments, noting that there should be no signage indicating a portage route across the road. Mr. Fox articulated Ms. Carrier’s request that the Fire Chief’s support be obtained and that she would prefer not to support the project as proposed without that. Mr. Fox said nothing should be done to encourage portage although there is probably little physical difference between encouraging it and not encouraging it. Mr. Hickey had no further comments. Mr. McCullough said that having two parking lots would be beneficial
to the public, with access on the lower portion having as many parking spots as possible, lighting would be a concern to be sure that it is not intrusive to abutters and neighbors, and the Board should avoid creating a possible “hang out” area so lighting becomes important. Mr. Zelmanow likes the idea of the upper 8-spot parking lot being either gated or lighted with full cut off lights or perhaps motion-activated, providing angler access across Mallison down to the river, some way to get portage just off Canal Street with reinforcing the shoulders, and developing the lower parking area into a more substantial recreation area.
Dan Warren, 62 Canal Street, returned to the podium and suggested that fencing be installed at the upper lot. He asked if portaging would not occur anyway between the two lots.
Mr. Poirier returned to the criteria standards, C. Access into the Site, noting that the Board is required to determine that no reasonable alternative exists for the location of the driveway and that it meets the setback requirement of 50 feet in the Shoreland Zoning Overlay district. Mr. McDonald said that the closest distance is about 43 feet for the entrance. Mr. McDonald said that shifting the entrance 7 feet to gain the required 50 involves additional impact to the wetlands area and moving it closer to the intersection makes maneuvering vehicles more difficult. Mr. Poirier said that staff, the Police Chief and the Fire Chief went to the site and looked at the possibility of an exit onto Canal Street, but due to the crest of the hill, the Fire Chief and Police Chief believe that safety issues
preclude such an exit. Mr. Zelmanow said that the Code does not allow the Board to waive the 50 foot requirement so the applicant needs to work on that part of the plan.
The Board discussed the requirements of criteria standard F. Stormwater Management and the location of the present culvert. [9:45 p.m.]
ITEM 6: PRELIMINARY REVIEW -Preliminary Subdivision Plan: Peterson Fields Subdivision at 30 Brackett Road by Norman Berube Builders, Owner - a proposal for a seven lot clustered subdivision to be served by a 1,232 ft. road built to the Town’s rural access
standards on 17.186 acres at 30 Brackett Road, located on Map 28 Lot 7 situated in the Rural - Manufactured Housing (R-MH) and Black Brook and Brackett Road Special Protection zoning districts.
Mr. Poirier said that the applicant was last before the Board at the July 12, 2010 meeting, at which time the applicant showed both clustered and conventional subdivision plans and discussed each with the Board. On August 26, 2010, a site walk was held; site walk notes are included in the staff notes. The project is being reviewed under the Town’s subdivision ordinance as well as the clustered subdivision ordinance as the applicant is proceeding under the approval criteria of that ordinance. The Black Brook and Brackett Road Special Protection district criteria must be reviewed as well, as a portion of the northwest corner of the parcel is located within that district. Regarding the running of public water down Brackett Road, there is a 5-year DOT moratorium on Brackett Road; this issue will
be addressed by the Public Works Director, who is checking with DOT to determine the end of construction date which Mr. Poirier believes was last year. The moratorium would be five years from that date. Based on the agreement between the Town and DOT, research is needed to determine if the moratorium can be waived.
William Thompson, BH2M Engineers, came to the podium to give an overview of the current status of the 7-lot subdivision. The site is an open field of 17 acres, with 11 acres of open space; a clustered subdivision is being proposed. A cluster subdivision application has been prepared, as well as homeowners’ documents. Lot sizes range from 25,000 to about 35,000 square feet. It is proposed to serve the project with public water extended from Black Brook Road and on-site septic systems. There are two test pits on each lot. There will be underground electric. A Stormwater Permit will be required from the DEP, who look on the design favorably. Most of the stormwater will be brought to a pond on the eastern end of the project, with drainage from a high point on the road going to
an 18-inch culvert on Brackett Road. The road design calls for a 20-foot wide road with 4-foot gravel shoulders, there will be no curbing as drainage will all be done by ditches. Mr. Thompson discussed items at issue from the Town’s review engineer, the Fire Chief and staff, and acknowledged that responses will be prepared to these comments. Mr. Thompson referred to the Public Works Director’s preference for a right-turning t-turnaround; Mr. Thompson said he cannot accomplish that and make this plan work.
Mr. Thompson said he has discussed with the Portland Water District the issue of the water main and there will be the opportunity to jack under the road and not cut the road. Details are being prepared for the District’s review. He said the water main would be on the west side of Brackett Road and would jack under on the east side. Mr. Thompson said basically the 7 lots of the subdivision are outside the limits of the Black Brook Special Protection district and asked if drilled wells would be permitted should the public water line not be extended.
Mr. Thompson said that the proposed open space will be passive recreation space, with post-mounted signs to promote cross-country skiing and snowshoe trails. In response to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said that the open space in warmer weather will be a wide-open field for passive enjoyment, dictated by the kind of season, either wet or dry, but there are no open streams or brooks. Mr. Hughes brought up the issue expressed at the site walk by an abutter of buffering his property and asked if additional buffering could be added along that property line. Mr. Thompson said there is an existing white pine buffer they propose to extend out to the property line. Mr. Zelmanow asked about the 50-foot right-of-way to adjacent developments; Mr. Thompson pointed out the only piece of abutting property with
potential development and said a right-of-way has been provided along that line. Mr. Poirier noted that private roads do not need to meet the requirement to provide access to adjacent undeveloped land until the point when they become public.
Mr. Zelmanow said that the Board needs to see the overall plans for and orientations of the buildings under the cluster criteria, as well as the driveways, which Mr. Thompson said would be provided. The Board concurred that the cluster subdivision plan is preferable to the standard subdivision plan. Mr. Thompson asked that the Board consider a waiver of a nitrate study, inasmuch as public water is proposed, the site drains to the east, and nothing leaves the site for stormwater. Mr. Zelmanow commented that the Board in the past has waived nitrate studies where public water is proposed. Mr. Poirier recommended that before that requirement is waived, the applicant should meet with staff to discuss a water line extension down Brackett Road. Mr. Poirier confirmed with Mr. Thompson that there have
been no further discussions with the abutter about the possibility of reversing the direction of the hammerhead.
OTHER BUSINESS – None
ADJOURNMENT
Thomas Fickett MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [10:05 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Barbara C. Skinner, Clerk of the Board
__________________________, 2010
| 
