 |
Town of Gorham
November 3, 2003
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Cafeteria, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, CHAIRMAN DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, VICE CHAIR. AARON SHIELDS, Assistant Planner
THOMAS HUGHES NATALIE BURNS, ESQ., Town Attorney
CLARK NEILY BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2003:
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of October 20, 2003 as written and distributed. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:05 p.m.]
2. SITE PLAN “PLAN-IT” - off LAURENCE DRIVE PLAN-IT RECYCLING &
TRANSFER, INC. / ENVIRON SERVICES, INC., RON SMALLEY, PRIN.
PUBLIC HEARING
Request for approval for a residential & commercial recycling & transfer facility on 8-acres in the Grondin Commercial Subdivision. Zoned I; M12/L26.
Scott Collins, St. Germain & Associates, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Ron Smalley, who was also present. Mr. Collins discussed the proposed facility, stating that it will be located on Lot #1, approximately an 8-acre parcel, of the recently approved Grondin subdivision in the Industrial Park. He said the facility will be composed of three main operations: a residential transfer station, intended to replace the existing transfer station on Huston Road; a commercial transfer and processing facility; and a universal waste collection facility. Mr. Collins demonstrated on a plan where the residential component of the facility will be located, which he said will have a number of bins for a variety of recyclable materials such as demolition wood, sheetrock, metal roofing shingles, cardboard,
brush, white goods, and tires, as well as two “silver bullets” for household recyclables. Mr. Collins said that the universal waste consolidation and handling facility will take place inside an 8,000 square foot building. He described universal waste as cathode ray tubes, TV monitors, mercury devices, batteries, fluorescent lamps, and lamp ballasts. He said that the residents and businesses of Gorham will be able to use the universal waste facility, and the facility will also be used by commercial customers of another of Mr. Smalley s companies, Environ Services. Mr. Collins described the commercial transfer and processing facility as having two areas: one where mixed construction and demolition debris (wood, bricks, concrete, asphalt, roofing shingles, glass, porcelain, etc.) will be sorted into materials which can be recycled, and another area for items which are not recyclable, which will be put into larger trailers for disposal.
Mr. Collins pointed out on the plan five pads in the center of the facility which will be used for sorting, the location of the 8,000 square foot building, which will be heated by propane, and the location of a 1000-gallon diesel tank for fueling the on-site equipment. He said that the facility will be constructed in two phases, with phase one being the 8,000 sf building with up to an acre of pavement and gravel for parking, and phase two being the residential transfer station and the commercial transfer and processing area. He said that water and sewer will come off the new Gorham Industrial Parkway, electric will come overhead from Laurence Drive and then go underground in the site, and there will be two hydrants on site. Mr. Collins discussed the wetland area which will be created and maintained as wetland, and said that buffering for the site will include white pines that will be planted around the perimeter, as well as a grass-lined swale. He said
there would be two signs, one of which will be a lighted sign at the facility entrance. He said they have two applications in at MDEP: one for Chapter 402 Transfer Station License for the residential and commercial transfer stations, and one for the anticipated wetland impact of approximately 18,000 square feet of wetlands, which they proposed to mitigate by the creation of some 20,000 square feet of wetlands on one corner of the site.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that with respect to site plan criteria and standards, the Maine Historic Preservation Commission has looked at the site and has concluded that the survey results indicate no evidence of any historic issues. He said that access to the site will be through the new Gorham Industrial Parkway and that the site is designed to separate the residential and commercial facility areas. Mr. Shields commented that the project operations are limited to daytime hours and the facility will not be lit for nighttime traffic. He said that the Fire Chief had asked that the application be reviewed by a professional fire consultant, which resulted in several recommendations with which the applicant has modified the plans, and the Fire Chief is now satisfied with the final
results. Mr. Shields explained that while the traffic study performed by Gorrill-Palmer indicated that the proposed project would not generate 100 or more peak hour trips, it did conclude that a left turn lane for left turning traffic from Route 25 into the Gorham Industrial Parkway is warranted. He said that R.J. Grondin & Sons has committed to constructing the recommended off-site improvements on Route 25 in conjunction with the Portland Water District s water main replacement in the spring of 2004, and in the interim the applicant would like to use Bartlett Road entrance for vehicle access to its site, which would have only a short-term impact, if any, on the Bartlett Road/Route 25 intersection. Mr. Grant asked if the Grondins intended to build the Gorham Industrial Parkway to start at Laurence Drive into this applicant s project; Mr. Smalley said he believed the intent is to build the Parkway all the way to Route 25. Mr. Smalley said he would begin
construction as soon as he receives the Board s approval, and responded to Mr. Grant that in order to build Phase 1, the 8,000 sf building and the parking, no MDEP approvals were required.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
David Cairns, Portland Cover, expressed his concern about the impact of the new development on Portland Cover s parcel at the corner of Route 25 and Bartlett Road. He wished to go on record asking the Board to place a condition of approval on this approval that the new road be fully constructed before the applicant goes forward. He said that the extra traffic on Bartlett Road as announced by Gorrill-Palmer, as well as being studied by his traffic engineer, will certainly have an impact on the future of his development. He said he recognized that the Board cannot take action on what happens in the future with Bartlett Road, but it certainly could put some condition of approval in place that might protect his interests relative to the road being in and constructed. Mr. Neily asked when Portland
Cover intended to do something with its site. Mr. Cairns replied that the problem he is encountering is that in order for the decision making process to occur relative to Bartlett Road s future, it must be done by the Council, and if the Council does take action, that would impact the perimeter of what he could do at his site. He said he could develop the property the way it is now, but it would not make sense to develop the parcel until the outcome of the Town s decision.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED (7:29).
Ms. Robie asked the applicant to distinguish between “hazardous waste” and “universal waste” and to describe what will occur in the 8000 sf building with respect to mercury. Mr. Collins said that “universal waste” now refers to material which in the past was put into landfills or incinerated and which now is recycled. It includes the lead in cathode ray tubes, PCBs in lamp ballasts and mercury, and said that what will occur in the building is simply processing, and that there will be no dismantling of any of the items. He said the items will be properly packaged and wrapped and then taken in large box trailers to a recycling facility. Mr. Collins said that the proposed facility will not be permitted by the State for accepting hazardous waste. He said that
the DEP will allow for a certain quantity of universal waste to be broken and to be picked up and repackaged, and beyond a certain quantity it would be considered a hazardous waste by the DEP. He further said that the facility is required to have a plan in place with a clean up contractor if necessary to clean up spills. Mr. Smalley said that the universal waste is generated at other municipalities, by businesses, and to a lesser extent by residential customers, and that Environ Services will go to the municipalities and consolidate the universal waste at their transfer stations or at a business s facility. He said that DEP regulations will not allow Environ to remove the waste unless it is packaged appropriately and transported back to Environ s facility, where the waste is put into containers that consolidate bigger amounts. Mr. Smalley said that insofar as incidental breakage is concerned, it is limited to whoever delivers from Gorham residential
customers, and there is a spill “drum” to clean up a mercury spill should one occur. Ms. Robie asked what precautions would be in place to deal with asbestos contaminants in construction demolition. Mr. Smalley said that the facility will have certified asbestos inspectors who will be operating the equipment, and if anything is encountered, the operation will cease until the matter has been addressed and remediated. Ms. Robie then asked where the hazardous waste consolidated material will go, and if a designated recipient could not handle the material, would the Town have to deal with it. Mr. Smalley replied that they ship to numerous facilities throughout the country and currently they use at least 6 different facilities in New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Mr. Smalley confirmed that the DEP and the EPA require contingency plans to deal with all of the material under consideration. Mr. Collins said that the Fire Chief has been
provided with the operations manual for the facility, including those instructions on how to deal with any hazardous material that might inadvertently arrive at the facility, and there will be a special container on site for the temporary storage of hazardous waste for no more than 24 hours.
Mr. Neily said he believes the facility is of great potential benefit to the Town of Gorham, and asked if the DEP will inspect the facility on a regular basis. Mr. Collins replied that the DEP will probably make one or two unannounced yearly inspections, and the DEP requires as well an annual report dealing with the facility and its operations. Mr. Collins replied to a query from Mr. Neily by saying that fees have not yet been established for the citizen use of the facility. Mr. Parker asked how runoff will handled, since some material will be stored in the open and be subjected to the elements. Mr. Collins replied that that as Grondin is required to hold all the stormwater within the subdivision, with water from major storms being held on the other side of the new Industrial Parkway, Plan-It is
not required to hold stormwater on their property. He said, however, that due to its DEP permit, the applicant is required to remove suspended solids from stormwater prior to its leaving the site, which the applicant plans to accomplish by using a series of grass-lined dry swales having sand under the sod, gravel under the sand, and perforated pipe on the bottom of the swale. This system filters out suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, and even oil and greases, with the majority of stormwater passing through two swales prior to discharging into a riprap apron. Mr. Hughes commended Grondin on agreeing to construct the left turn lane. Mr. Collins said that the facility s operations will be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday for both residential and commercial customers. Mr. Collins said that the residential transfer station, the front entrance, the parking, and the access road leading to the residential transfer area will be lit
in potential dark hours during the hours of operation, but there will be no activity after hours requiring special lighting, and no floodlights will be directed at the public roads after hours. Mr. Boyce suggested that the applicant consider shoebox light fixtures affixed to the building.
Mr. Shields told the Board that staff and the Town Attorney suggest two additional Conditions of Approval as follows:
1. That the applicant shall meet the requirements and specifications outlined in the Gorham Fire Chief s memo dated July 1, 2003, and in the letter from David P. Demers of Demers Associates, Inc., to Chief Robert Lefebvre of the Gorham Fire Department, dated October 4, 2003, unless otherwise approved in writing by Chief Lefebvre. Mr. Collins indicated that the condition was satisfactory to the applicant.
2. That any waste delivered to Plan-It Recycling that is acceptable waste at Regional Waste Systems, RWS, shall be delivered to RWS in accordance with the requirements of the Town ordinance. Mr. Collins asked for a clarification of the Condition. Ms. Burns said that the intent of the Condition is to state that this applicant s waste removal has to be in accordance with the Town s ordinances which require that certain types of waste will be delivered to RWS, but that the majority of items which the applicant proposes to process on site are not wastes considered “acceptable wastes” by RWS. She said that internal waste created in the office would be considered “acceptable waste,” so the haulers are bound under the
terms of their licensing with the Town to deliver this waste to RWS. Ms. Burns stressed that this Condition does not specify that everything the facility processes has to go to RWS, and the Town Manager could address any questions about this issue which the applicant might have. Mr. Collins said that the applicant could agree to the Condition with that interpretation.
Clark Neily MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to grant the request of Plan-It Recycling & Transfer, Inc./Environ Services, Inc., for approval to construct a residential and commercial recycling and transfer facility on 8 acres in the Grondin Commercial Subdivision, zoned Industrial, Map 12/Lot 26, with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed this evening, and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:55 p.m.].
3. KASPRZAK LAND HOLDINGS, INC.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposal for a contract zoning agreement between the Town of Gorham and Kasprzak Land Holdings, Inc. on 78 acres off Fort Hill Road, on land of Ramsay. Zoned UR/SR; M46/L11.001.
Robert Georgitis appeared on behalf of Kasprzak Land Holdings, Inc., stating that the Contract Zoning Agreement (copy attached hereto and made a part hereof) had been modified in response to Board comments and as a result of negotiations with the Town Attorney.
Mr. Grant explained that the Planning Board would send a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Contract Zoning Agreement, and the Town Council would have the ultimate decision of adopting the Agreement or not.
Ms. Fossum commented that the zoning ordinance had recently been amended to permit contract zoning for residential projects provided that there will be significant public benefit to the community as a result of the rezoning and that such public benefit is consistent with and advances the goals and policies of the Town s adopted Comprehensive Plan, and provided that appropriate conditions or restrictions not generally applicable to other properties similarly zoned are imposed by agreement with the property owner. She further said that the rezoning must be compatible with the existing and permitted uses within the original zone and when contract zoning involves residential development, residential development must be allowed by the original zone, which this application is. She said that the Agreement has been
modified to capture the [recreational] fee imposed by whichever ordinance is in effect at the time that building permits are sought, and has been reworded so that the Town has greater flexibility on how much of the [recreational] fees collected is dedicated to the development of recreational facilities on the adjacent Town-owned land. She also said that item 5 on page 3 has been modified by the Town attorney and the applicant s attorney, addressing any type of appeal of a property tax issue that might be made.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Mr. Hughes asked what would happen to the Contract Zone status should the developer, after completing Phase 1 of the project, decide to build single family homes instead of condominiums. Ms. Burns replied that as drafted, the Contract Zone requires the establishment of the residential condominium development, and further states that it must be done as multi-family housing. She said that if the applicant were to decide that it did not wish to construct the units as a residential condominium and instead wanted to do individually owned lots, there would need to be an amendment to the Contract Zone which would require first coming to the Planning Board with the proposed amendment, and this Board making a recommendation to the Town Council for its vote on the amendment. Mr. Grant commented that he believed
all of the Board s comments and concerns about the initial draft Agreement have been addressed.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to find the proposed Pheasant Knoll Contract Zoning Agreement between Kasprzak Landholdings, Inc., and Town of Gorham consistent with the requirements of Chapter I, Section I, H. Contract Zoning and with the Town s 1993 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and to recommend that the Town of Gorham enter into the proposed Contract Zoning Agreement with Kasprzak Landholdings, Inc. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:01 p.m.]
The Chairman announced a ten-minute stretch break.
Stretch Break from 8:01 p.m. to 8:13 p.m.
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN / SITE PLAN “SHEPARD S WAY CONDOMINIUM” 95 LIBBY AVENUE ADAM BLAIKIE & ASSOCIATES, LLC., JOHN CARAMIHALIS/GREG PATTERSON, PRIN.
Request for preliminary approval for a 24-lot residential subdivision with 2 roads on 15.75 acres at 95 Libby Avenue, on land of Shepard. Zoned UR; M27/L1.
Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants and introduced John Caramihalis of Adam Blaikie & Associates. Mr. Frank described the site, saying that about 2-1/2 acres are proposed to be conveyed to the abutting Toddle Inn Daycare facility for any future expansion. He said that the present Shepard house located on Libby Avenue will be cut off and connected to the proposed sewer line in the project s proposed roadway, making that a 15,000 square foot lot to be sold off. This would leave the applicant with just under 13 acres for the proposed development with a wetland area to the rear of the site, the proposal includes an area of contiguous open space of just over 7 acres, with smaller areas of open space throughout the site, so that the subdivision would occur on about 6 acres. Mr. Frank said the development concept consists of 24 single family detached condominium units, accessed via a new roadway intersection off Libby Avenue known as “Shepard s Way,”
which will extend approximately 900-1000 feet into the property, culminating in a hammerhead, and off Shepard s Way will be another road, “Marathon Avenue,” some 500 feet long, ending at a dead end, with its northerly right of way being an access to abutting property. He said the roads would be constructed to urban residential standards, but 24 feet in width, with a sidewalk on one side of the roadways for pedestrian internal access. Mr. Frank said that the existing sidewalk on Libby Avenue from Main Street ends about 200 feet away from the site, and with the understanding that MDOT intends to improve Libby Avenue sometime in 2005, the applicant s intent would be to work with staff to escrow a certain amount of money to allow for the extension of the sidewalk when Libby Avenue is reconstructed. Mr. Frank said that there would be different elevations for the homes in keeping with the neighborhood and, they would be stick built on site with peaked roofs. He said that the project
would be served by municipal water and sewer coming off Libby Avenue installed in the new roadway, the sewer would flow back via gravity to Libby Avenue, a hydrant would be installed in accordance with discussions with the Fire Chief, all the utilities will be underground, street lights are proposed with a total of 6 or 7 throughout the project, and stormwater will be collected via a series of catch basins to a proposed detention basin on site. Mr. Frank mentioned the finger of wetland that will have to be filled, which will be part of their DEP permit application.
Mr. Shields presented the staff comments, saying that the applicant has prepared a very complete preliminary application based on several rounds of meetings and discussions at staff level, and the engineering and planning staff review is acceptable at this time for preliminary approval. He referred to the sidewalk improvements, citing the applicant s willingness to cooperate with DOT and the Town in bringing a sidewalk down Libby Avenue, and by the time the application gets to final stage, it may be necessary to discuss a monetary value for escrow. Mr. Shields told the Board that the applicant has requested a High Intensity Soil Survey waiver, based on the supporting information submitted by Dale Brewer, Certified Soils Scientist. He said that since the very poorly drained soils are not an issue
regarding water and sewer in the project, staff finds the request for a waiver would be acceptable. Mr. Shields commented that the applicant has asked for the flexibility to move his various building styles around, and reminded the Board of a similar project in the past wherein the Board asked the applicant not to construct more than a percentage of each unit. Mr. Shields said that the applicant has calculated its impervious quantities through DEP based on the largest building footprint, which would be worst-case scenario if the entire project were built on that footprint, but it still would not exceed the 3 acres. He said that the application is not before the Board for site plan approval, which would occur at final plan stages.
Mr. Grant commented that Public Works would like to see a sidewalk on the side of Libby Avenue where both Toddle Inn Daycare is located and this project would be located. Mr. Frank estimated that the distance from the proposed development to Main Street is about 1000 feet. Mr. Boyce suggested that an option would be to obtain an appropriate contribution from this applicant and allow the DOT design process to unfold with hopefully Town staff participation in terms of identifying what and where the sidewalk should be. Mr. Shiers concurred with Mr. Boyce, stating that the applicant has offered to pay their fair share toward a sidewalk and that Mr. Boyce s recommendation seems appropriate. Mr. Neily said he believed that there should be a sidewalk on the same side of Libby as this application, all the
way to Route 25. Mr. Grant asked staff to work with the applicant and with Public Works to see what can be worked out, especially to obtain the rights of way before final plans are signed. Ms. Fossum agreed that staff would work with the applicant, Public Works and MDOT. Mr. Frank said he is trying to get a copy of the DOT design plans for this section of Libby Avenue. Ms. Robie said she is favor of the suggestion that there be a condition regarding the percentage of house styles, so that all are not the biggest style. Mr. Shields said it could be incorporated into the final plans, such as has been done in a previous project. Mr. Frank said the applicant does not intend to have the same style of housing for all 24 units and would be comfortable dealing with percentages. Mr. Shiers asked how many varieties were available. Mr. Caramihalis said that currently there are 5 different designs, but the floor plan layouts are similar, so
there are different elevations for the exteriors, but the interiors would be the same. Mr. Shiers asked if there was any one design more popular than the others; Mr. Caramihalis replied that the most popular seems to be a home having a first floor bedroom, but there are no particular exterior features that are more popular. Mr. Parker asked staff if they recommend waiving the High Intensity Soils Survey; Mr. Shields replied that staff did. Ms. Fossum said that it would be helpful for the applicant if the Board voted on the waiver. Mr. Neily commented that the excess land is mostly wetland; Mr. Frank concurred. Mr. Neily said it appears that the excess land in this case can t be used for either active or passive recreational use because it is mostly wetland. Mr. Frank pointed out that their market is the “empty nester” market and there are options for passive recreation such as connecting to a walking trail and viable uplands.
Mr. Boyce asked how many units are designed with basements or partial basements. Mr. Frank replied that they anticipate full foundations on all the units with associated foundation drains and the units are designed as such, with the foundation drains by gravity alone.
Michael Parker MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to waive the High Intensity Soils Survey. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:35 p.m.]
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary approval of Adam Blaikie, LLC s request for the Shepard s Way Condominiums, a proposed 24-unit condominiums/subdivision on 15.75 acres off Libby Avenue. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [8:36]
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SUBDIVISION PLAN “SPRING FARM” off DINGLEY SPRING ROAD KENNETH & LISA SPILLER
Discussion of a proposal for a 13-lot residential subdivision with 2 internal roads on 171 acres off Dingley Spring Road, on land of Heirs of Alvin Spiller. Zoned Rural; Map 81/Lots 21&22 (and Map 80/Lot 20; Map 79/Lot 15) within the Public Drinking Water Supply Source Water Protection Area for Dingley Spring Estates
Mr. Neily asked that he be recused from participation in this item due to personal reasons.
Michael Parker MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to recuse Mr. Neily from participation in this item. Motion Carried, 6 ayes (Mr. Neily abstaining). [8:40 p.m.]
Thomas Greer, Pinkham & Greer, appeared on behalf of the applicants, Kenneth and Lisa Spiller. Mr. Greer said the applicants were looking to subdivide approximately 28 acres out of a 172-acre parcel. He said the proposal was for 13 lots, approximately 2 acres in size to meet density calculations, soils and wetlands mapping have not been completed, but based on the site walk, they have added the 300 foot circle from the Dingley Spring well on the drawing, and the front quarters of two of the lots fall within that 300 foot zone. He pointed out the 2500-foot zone, commenting that the entire project falls within that zone. He showed the parameters of the project, showing frontage on both Spiller Road and Buck Street, the road is about 1500 feet long to a hammerhead, which will allow for future
extension of the road. Mr. Greer said that the site is wooded, with some wetlands. Mr. Greer said they will do a High Intensity Soils Survey map, a nitrate impact analysis, a stormwater management plan will be provided, as currently designed the project does not require DEP approval for site location of development but may require a stormwater permit, as well as a wetlands permit.
Mr. Shields said there were no staff comments at this time.
Mr. Grant commented that public comment was inadvertently omitted during the discussion of Item 4, and after the conclusion of this project, public comment would be invited on the Shepard s Way Condominiums project.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Steve Fermanis, President of Dingley Spring Water Association, called the Board s attention to the 300 foot radius which requires no leaching of any kind and is part of the 1996 Clean Air and Water Act, as well as the 2500 foot radius which is part of the watershed, saying that any construction will need to keep these features in mind. He said that at this time the Association has no immediate objection to the project per se, but they certainly want to make sure that the record shows they have done their duty as an Association as regulated by the PUC to come forward and make known the existence of the watershed area and the detriment to the Town that could be caused by any such construction project.
Norman Wedge, Sanborn Street, a Director of Dingley Spring Water Association, spoke about the past history of what had been turned down by the Town in this area in 1986, and suggested that there be no building on the property at least to the depth of Lots 9 and 10.
Mr. Grant commented about the possibility of three developments totaling some 50 units in this general area, the advantages of getting public water extended to these developments, and encouraged Mr. Spiller to try to work with the other developers in trying to extend public water. Mr. Hughes concurred, saying that now is the time to get public water in. Mr. Grant commented that Dingley Spring Estates should be getting involved. Mr. Shiers concurred, saying that it would take the united efforts of the three developers, plus Dingley Spring Estates, to cover the expense of getting public water extended.
Mr. Fermanis returned to the podium, saying that a questionnaire will be circulated among the 35 residents of the Estates asking their opinion about 4 water options, the first two options being public water, either public water to each household or public water to the reservoir. If a choice is made to extend public water to each house, the Association can dissolve, but if it is to the reservoir, then the Association must remain because the distribution process would still be the Association s responsibility. Mr. Fermanis said he has been in touch with Jim Pandiscio of the Portland Water District, who is preparing cost estimates for the two options. He said that in option 1 the PWD will measure every street from Maple Ridge Road off of Shaw s Mill Road, about 600 feet to close the loop to Shaw s Mill,
then coming down Shaw s Mill to the top of Sanborn Street, and down Sanborn Street to the reservoir. Mr. Fermanis went on to say that option two would involve measuring to each of the homes in the development, including going back up Gloria Street, down Shaw s Mill, down Jane Street, back up Marion Street and probably coming back to Jane Street to close the loop. He said that he has been told that the PWD s ten year plan anticipates having the entire run from Shaw s Mill Road go down Dingley Spring and up Buck Street to close the loop for themselves, that PWD would require 12” water mains down that stretch of road, but would require Dingley Spring residents to pay for only 8” water mains because PWD would pay the difference. He said that the 1996 Clean Air and Water Act regulations could potentially impose some fees on the Association to have a licensed operator on staff, so they are looking at ways to either deal with the issue or not. He said
they have made good faith efforts in approaching the three builders, and one estimate from one of the builders includes rates much higher than PWD s, and the estimate they will get from PWD will put public water right at Sanborn Street, right across from this proposed development, an option that should be considered by all three builders. Another consideration Mr. Fermanis suggested was the Town making the area a separate water district, whereby everyone would be sharing the cost. He said that the questionnaire results should be available within the month.
Mr. Grant commented that the Board cannot require that the developers “team up,” but the Board is asking the developers look at the issue once more to see if there are any viable options. Ms. Robie said that the Planning staff should be asked to develop some suggestions on what can be done to make it more beneficial to developers to cooperate, such as special density bonuses, and perhaps even to delay the projects until the situation has been thoroughly investigated and all avenues to make it happen have been pursued. Mr. Boyce concurred with Ms. Robie, and said the impact fee avenue should be explored as well. Mr. Greer said that what is holding back public water in this instance is the question of who is going to finance the big piece of this to get the water there, not that the individual
projects won t pay their fair share. He said it is the $800,000 upfront financing that is preventing the water extension, and said that the Town is in the best position to do that. Mr. Greer said he did not believe there was any developer would mind paying the impact fee when the houses are built to hook on to public water and pay the fees if the Town stepped forward and paid the upfront costs. Ms. Fossum said that the Town is not in a position to provide the $800,000+ to initiate this, not without some very careful creative thinking to come up with a method to extend water in this area. She said that presently the only option open would be the same one that other neighborhoods requesting water extension have had to follow of the neighborhood undertaking a referendum for water extension, and then a second referendum must be held Town-wide in support. She said that some of the other options mentioned tonight might be possible but would require zoning
amendment, and this issue could be discussed in conjunction with the Ordinance Committee s deliberations on the water extension ordinance. Ms. Robie asked if the water extension ordinance can be made retroactive to cover the three developments under discussion if the Board so requests; Ms. Fossum replied that the ordinance as it is written now is retroactive to August 5. Mr. Greer said that his interpretation of the draft is that none of the three projects will fall within the purview of the ordinance, they cannot be required to extend water based on that ordinance, because even if they come together, there would not be enough lots there with enough money to pay for extending the line. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Greer to confirm that the amount is not the onerous part, but the necessity of doing it upfront makes it impossible; Mr. Greer agreed, saying coming up with the money upfront is the hard part, that money on projects like these flows when the lot or house is sold
and closed, making money available through long-term financing, and that you have to be able to get to that point in order to pay those types of fees. He said that doubling the amount needed to drill a well, from perhaps $5000 to $10,000, to be able to hook up to public water is in the range of “doable” and is not that much of a surcharge.
In accordance with the Chairman's request, the Public Comment Period was opened on the following item:
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN / SITE PLAN “SHEPARD S WAY CONDOMINIUM” 95 LIBBY AVENUE ADAM BLAIKIE & ASSOCIATES, LLC., JOHN CARAMIHALIS/GREG PATTERSON, PRIN.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Raymond Bouffard said he was surprised that procedurally the public hearing on Item 4 was not originally opened, but said he had no comment to make about the project itself.
Steve Fermanis, Dingley Spring, asked about the density involved in the Shepard s Way project. Mr. Grant replied that the density was not out of character for the neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Susan Robie MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Mr. Neily recused). [9:15 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
_____________________________, 2003
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\Minutes\PBMN04FY\PBMN110303.doc
2. SITE PLAN “PLAN-IT” - off LAURENCE DRIVE PLAN-IT RECYCLING & TRANSFER, INC. / ENVIRON SERVICES, INC., RON SMALLEY, PRIN.
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 is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project;
3. 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, dated March, 1991;
4. That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated with the approved site plan, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the selected Review Engineer, Portland Water District, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director, to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
5. That the site improvements shall be completed as shown on the approved plans prior to request for either temporary or final occupancy permits for the building; or a performance guarantee, covering the remaining site improvements of the Phase shall be established through the Planning Department;
6. That the applicant shall meet the requirements and specifications outlined in the Gorham Fire Chief s memo dated July 1, 2003, and in the letter from David P. Demers of Demers Associates, Inc., to Chief Robert Lefebvre of the Gorham Fire Department, dated October 4, 2003, unless otherwise approved in writing by Chief Lefebvre;
7. That any waste delivered to Plan-It Recycling that is acceptable waste at Regional Waste Systems, RWS, shall be delivered to RWS in accordance with the requirements of the Town ordinance; and
8. 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.
| |
