Town of Gorham, ME - Planning Board MInutes April 7, 2008

Thomas Hughes MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED the nomination of Susan Robie for the position of Chairwoman. Thomas Hughes MOVED and March Stelmack SECONDED a motion to close the nominations. Motion to close the nominations CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). The motion nominating Ms. Robie as Chairwoman CARRIED, 5 ayes , 1 abstention (Susan Robie) and 1 absence (Michael Parker).

Thomas Hughes MOVED and Edward Zelmanow SECONDED the nomination of Douglas Boyce for Vice Chairman. Thomas Hughes MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion to close the nominations. Motion to close the nominations CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). The motion nominating Mr. Boyce as Vice Chairman CARRIED 5 ayes , 1 abstention (Douglas Boyce) and 1 absence (Michael Parker).

B. Ordinance Review Committee: Ms. Robie reported that the Committee is reviewing letters to be sent to the Town Council, reviewing some changes to administrative planning processes such as some sunset provisions and modifications involving the tracking of applications. The Committee also has a proposal to remove the Planning Board from the street acceptance process.

Ms. Fossum reported that one new minor site plan application has been received during the month of March, from Shaw Earthworks to develop a contractor’s site in the New Portland Parkway Industrial Subdivision. One pending application was finalized, that of John Woods, also a contractor’s site in the New Portland Parkway Industrial Subdivision. There are three additional minor site plan applications currently under review.

No member of the Board and no one from the public wished to remove the item from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Fossum confirmed that Conditions of Approval have been posted and provided to the applicant; Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, indicated that he believes the applicant is comfortable with the Conditions.

Aaron Shields explained that there are two amendments proposed: one would be a transfer of land from Lot 7 to Lot 6, that of co-applicant Bachner, and the other amendment involves a strip of land between Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Shields said they are requesting a waiver to allow preliminary and final approval in one meeting.

Mr. Poirier gave the staff comments, noting that the original application received approval under the then-existing Rural Land Management System, establishing the maximum number of lots in subdivisions in the rural district. Those requirements have since been removed from the Code and replaced with Net Residential Density calculations. Staff has requested revisions to the current Plan Note #34, reflected in Condition of Approval #4 “That the applicant shall amend plan note 34 of the subdivision plan per the Town Attorney’s email dated April 3, 2008 and resubmit the revised subdivision plan for review and approval by Town Staff and Town Attorney prior to endorsement of the mylar by the Planning Board.”

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to grant preliminary and final approval for Sebago Knoll Subdivision’s First Subdivision Amendment with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:22 p.m.

Steve Roberge, SJR Engineering, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained the proposed private way. He said that the road is proposed to be 301 feet long to serve two lots, one existing. A gravity sewer system has been designed to tie into Mosher Road. The lots will be served by underground electric, natural gas and public water from Mosher Road as well.

Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Fickett SECONDED a motion to grant Floyd Brown’s request for approval of the private way plan for “River’s Edge Drive” off 165 Mosher Road with conditions of approval as posted prior to the meeting and discussed with the applicant. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [6:24 p.m.]

Request for approval of a Mineral Extraction Permit for the Brickyard Quarry, a proposed quarry operation on 125.5 acres +/-; zoned: Industrial/Suburban Residential; Map 31/Lots 12, 13, 14, & 15 and a revised Site Plan Application for a hot-mix bituminous asphalt batch plant; zoned Industrial; Map 31/Lot 15 for Shaw Brothers Construction, Inc., on land of S.B. Aggregates, LLC located on Route 237/Mosher Road.

Ms. Robie noted that the first item to be considered is the revised March 31, 2008 Brickyard Quarry Planning Board Decision, Findings of Facts and Conclusions and Conditions of Approval, to determine if the changes made at the last meeting are accurately reflected in that document.

Mr. Stelmack suggested deleting the word “Inc.” in Condition of Approval #24. He also suggested that the word “monitoring” be used exclusively in Conditions of Approval #19 and #21, and that the word “testing” be stricken from these two Conditions. Mr. Boyce suggested adding the word “noise” in the first sentence of Condition #21, so that it would read “…noise monitoring…” Ms. Robie recommended, in Condition #21, that the Code Enforcement Officer also be provided with the monitoring results, as well as the Town Engineer.

Mr. Fickett asked for clarification on Condition # 20, requiring the use of “Smart Alarms.” The Board ultimately agreed that the Condition should be modified to read “That the applicant shall ensure installation of ‘Smart Alarms’ on all equipment operating on the site, excluding vehicles entering and exiting the site that are not involved in site operations.”

The applicant questioned whether Condition of Approval #8, based on a requirement of the Town Engineer, is applicable to new pits. Further discussion between the Board and the applicant resulted in the following change: “That the applicant shall submit accurate plans, including the use of GPS-based information where applicable, and AutoCAD information of existing quarry operation area and conditions as part of the yearly Application for Registration of Existing Pit Operations to the Town Engineer and Code Enforcement Officer.”

The applicant also expressed concern that the wording of Condition of Approval #40 was ambiguous. The Board modified the Condition to read “...shall provide …deeds…and… easements for review and approval of the documents by the Town Attorney prior to the scheduling of the pre-construction meeting.”

The Board next turned its attention to the Brickyard Quarry Blasting Permit Operational Requirements and Conditions of Approval prepared for the April 7, 2008 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Stelmack suggested that the document entitled “License to Blasting” should be amended to read “License to Blast.” The Board concurred.

Ms. Robie said that the Board would next consider the Asphalt Plant site plan application, following the same procedure as had been followed for the quarry application. Applicable requirements are in Chapter I, industrial zone use space and bulk standards and performance standards, all performance standards of Chapter II are applicable, and the submission requirements and waiver requests , and Approval Standards and Criteria “A” through “S” of Chapter IV, Site Plan Review, will also be reviewed. Ms. Robie said that the same procedure for public comment will be followed as was done in the Brickyard Quarry deliberations of taking public comment after the Board has developed conditions of approval. The Chair can recognize someone from the public if it seems appropriate, but there cannot be continual interaction during Board deliberations.

Ms. Robie said the Board would begin with the Industrial Zone standards and drew everyone’s attention to the map showing the Industrial Zones in the Town of Gorham. She said that this is a permitted use and has been ruled a separate use by the Code Enforcement Officer and not an accessory use to the quarry, and therefore can not be located anywhere outside the industrial areas in the Town of Gorham.

Ms. Robie said that Chapter II consists of general standards of performance, which are basically items that are enforced by the Code Enforcement Officer, and all applications that undergo site plan review are subject to applicable performance standards. It is the Planning Board’s job to make sure that the applicant and the application reflect conditions of approval that will cause an application to meet those performance standards. She said that where there are not specific site plan requirements that address the performance standards, there can still be conditions of approval attached to a plan that will make it more probable that the applicant and the application will meet the performance standards of Chapter II. Therefore, as the Board reviews the asphalt plant, those performance standards, particularly environmental which do not have specific site plan requirements, still need to be discussed to make sure that there are conditions of approval attached to the application that will increase the likelihood that the use will meet the general standards of performance it is required to meet. Therefore, as the Board goes through site plan review, it will return to a consideration of the general standards of performance, particularly those on page 128 of the Code, to make sure there are appropriate conditions of approval.

1) There shall be no new access or curb cuts to Main Street, Libby Avenue or New Portland Road from any lots in the Industrial District, when an alternative access exists as of November 30, 1998, provided however, if no such alternative exists than there can be only one access or curb cut per lot in existence at the date of adoption of this ordinance. The Planning Board may allow additional access points onto Main Street or New Portland Road if the developer demonstrates that additional access would provide for better traffic circulation and improved traffic safety, without reducing the level of service on the main travel way.

2) Except where it abuts existing industrial zoned land, all land zoned industrial after November 30,1998 shall have a “perimeter setback” of one hundred feet (100’), which shall be subject to the restrictions set out below. The Planning Board may reduce the perimeter setback by up to 50% if it finds that doing so would result in a better plan of development for the project site.

a) No portion of the “perimeter setback” shall be used for storage of equipment or inventory, service and loading, parking or any buildings or structures. Subject to Paragraph 1) above, access roads and utilities may cross the “perimeter setback” to provide access to and from a street but shall be designed to minimize the disruption of the “perimeter setback.” No direct access to parking stalls shall be provided from an access road located with in the “perimeter setback.”

c) A detailed landscaping plan, prepared by a landscape architect, shall be prepared for the landscaped buffer area and submitted as part of Site Plan Review, for all lots, with a perimeter setback." The landscaped buffer area shall be designed to provide effective visual and auditory buffering from abutting residential properties, create an attractive appearance for the proposed new development and maintain an attractive gateway to Gorham consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town of Gorham Comprehensive Plan. Existing natural features and vegetation may be incorporated into the plan for the buffer area if they are found to create an effective visual and auditory buffer by the Planning Board. All such buffer areas shall be maintained for the life of the project.

3) Fencing, screening, landscaped berms, natural features, or combination thereof, shall be utilized to shield from the view of abutting residential properties and public ways, along the perimeter setback of the Industrial District, all loading and unloading operations, storage and repair work areas, commercial vehicle parking, and waste disposal and collection areas.

The applicant proposes to use landscaped berms, natural features, and the Morin Brick Building on the adjacent lot (Map 34, Lot 9) to shield the view of abutting residential properties as well as Mosher Road public way. The asphalt plant tanks and silos, loading operations of the asphalt plant, and vehicle parking will be located behind the existing Morin Brick Building.

A. Utilization of the Site _ The plan for the development will reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development. Buildings, lots, and support facilities will be clustered in those portions of the site that have the most suitable conditions for development. Environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, flood plains and unique natural features will be maintained and preserved to the maximum extent. Natural drainage areas will be preserved to the maximum extent.

A. Utilization of the Site- The developer is proposing to excavate up to 30’ into the existing hill to install the asphalt plant and associated infrastructure. The plans show leaving a portion of existing trees located around the stormwater pond, and the applicant is proposing to limit the amount of wetland impacts associated with the stormwater ponds, earthen landscaped berm, and access roads. The applicant has moved the asphalt plant to a portion of the site that is the furthest distance from abutting residences and provides a greater buffering area than that originally proposed.

The application for site plan review of a major development shall contain at least the following exhibits and information for review. Ms. Robie suggested that the Board combined a. General Information and b. Existing Conditions and find that the applicant has met these requirements.

The applicant has submitted information pertaining to the ten general information submission requirements required under major site plan review on the site plans and site plan application. The Planning Board may elect to discuss any of the required submission requirements with the applicant.

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 2 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:35 p.m.]

The applicant has submitted information pertaining to the proposed treatment of any on-site collection and storage facilities. The applicant has also submitted a Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) as well as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the Operations Plan Notebook dated January 2008 and as amended March 2008.

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 3 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:36 p.m.]

The applicant has shown the location and dimensions of lot 1’s buildings and structures on the Partial Site Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 4 of 18 as well as the Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18. The applicant has proposed a typical asphalt plant layout but has not provided specific dimensions of what will be placed on the lot. Condition of Approval #33: that the applicant shall be required to return to the Planning Board if the footprint or location of buildings changes from what is shown on the site plan.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Robie noted that there should be a Condition of Approval which would require the applicant to return to the Planning Board should the footprint or location of buildings changes from that shown on the site plan. She said that the applicant has proposed a typical asphalt plant layout but not specific dimensions of what will be placed on the lot.

The applicant has shown the locations of lot 1’s proposed driveways, parking, and loading areas on the Partial Site Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 4 of 18 as well as the Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18. A condition of approval was added to address the location of the walkways. The asphalt plant condition of approval number # 30 states, “That the applicant shall provide for OSHA approved painted walkways between the scale house and the control house as well as any other locations required by OSHA.”

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 5, and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [7:47 p.m.]

The applicant has shown the location of lot 1’s exterior lighting on the Partial Site Plan: Asphalt Plant: Sheet 4 of 18. The applicant has also submitted a Site Lighting Photometric Plan on March 12, 2008. Lighting catalog sheets were submitted on January 2008 in the Supplemental Information Site Plan Application Exhibit 16. The applicant has stated that lights located on the pavement silos and fuel & liquid asphalt storage tanks will be limited to a height of twenty feet. The applicant has also indicated that the lights will be turned off when the asphalt plant is not in use but would like the ability to have security lights on lot 1.

d. Engineering calculations used to determine drainage requirements based upon the 25-year 24-hour storm frequency, if the project will significantly alter the existing drainage pattern due to such factors as the amount of new impervious surfaces (such as paving and building area) being proposed and the pre and post development rates of runoff; provided, if clearly warranted in the professional opinion of the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer may require information on the storm frequency greater than that for the 25-year 24-hour storm.

The applicant has shown the proposed method for handling stormwater runoff, the direction of runoff flow, location, elevation, and sizes of all catch basins, drainage ditches, swales, retention basins, storm sewers, and culverts on the Partial Grading & Utility Plan: Sheet 9 of 18, Details: Sheet 14 of 18, Wet pond #1 Cross-section: Sheet 16 of 18, Wet pond #2 Cross-section: Sheet 17 of 18, Pre-development Watershed Map: Sheet 1 of 2, and Post-development Watershed Map: Sheet 2 of 2. The applicant has also provided the required stormwater calculations based upon the code and the Town Engineers request for a greater storm frequency, which is the 100-year storm events for the watershed outletting along the northeasterly property boundary.

The applicant has provided the location of the structures to be located on lot 1 as well as providing a plant layout plan in the January 8, 2008 submission. The asphalt plant layout plan shows the possible dimensions of the asphalt plant, conveyors, asphalt silos, and aggregate bins.

The Board concurred that there should be a reference in this finding of fact to the proposed Condition of Approval #33 that the applicant shall be required to return to the Planning Board if the footprint or location of buildings changes from what is shown on the site plan. Ms. Robie suggested that the Board consider another new Condition of Approval stating that “Any silos or buildings visible from the public way and/or nearby residences shall be made of materials conducive to blending with the environment and shall be painted a neutral color so as to blend as far as possible with the natural surroundings. Further, there shall be no signage on the silos.” Ms. Robie quoted from Item E3 of the Industrial District’s Performance Standards that “Fencing, screening, landscaped berms, natural features, or combination thereof, shall be utilized to shield from view of abutting residential properties and public ways, along the perimeter setback of the Industrial District, all loading and unloading operations, storage and repair work areas, commercial vehicle parking, and waste disposal and collection areas.” She said that as these facilities cannot be hidden, the best way to deal with them is to paint them.

Mr. Hughes said he did not agree with the proposed Condition #34. Mr. Stelmack said he does not believe the color can be dictated under the Code, and the applicant has agreed to neutralize the color of the permanent plant, which, in conjunction with the extensive proposed landscaping, should be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Code. Mr. Fickett concurred with Mr. Stelmack, and Mr. Boyce indicated he thought the color scheme should be relaxed for both the temporary and the permanent plants. Mr. Zelmanow said he would like to maintain the signage restriction on the silos.

The finding of fact as modified reads: The applicant has provided the location of the structures to be located on lot 1 as well as providing a plant layout plan in the January 8, 2008 submission. The asphalt plant layout plan shows the possible dimensions of the asphalt plant, conveyors, asphalt silos, and aggregate bins. Condition of Approval #33: that the applicant shall be required to return to the Planning Board if the footprint or location of buildings changes from what is shown on the site plan. Condition of Approval #34: that any permanent structure on the site visible from the public way and/or nearby residences shall be constructed of materials conducive to blending with the environment and shall be of a neutral palette so as to blend as far as possible with the natural surroundings. This Condition of Approval applies to the permanent asphalt plant. There shall be no signage on the silos.

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 10 and to adopt the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:25 p.m.]

Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 11 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:45 p.m.]

The applicant is proposing to run an 8” water main onto lot 1 which will service a fire hydrant. The fire hydrant will be installed approximately 700’ west from the eastern property line and adjacent to the access road. The fire hydrant’s location and installation shall meet the approval of Gorham’s Fire Chief.

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, C.) 1, c. 12 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:47 p.m.]

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section VIII, c.) 1, c. 14 and to adopt the finding of fact as written and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [8:50 p.m.]

1. A groundwater impact analysis prepared by groundwater hydrologist for projects involving on-site water supply or sewage disposal facilities with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater. In addition, the Planning Board may require such an analysis if it determines that the relationship of the project to other activities creates concern about the quality or quantity of the groundwater.

2. A traffic impact analysis demonstrating the impact of the proposed project on the capacity, level of service, and safety of adjacent streets, if the project will provide parking for fifty (50) or more vehicles or generate more than one hundred (100) trips during the A.M. or P.M. peak hour based on the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

The applicant’s prepared traffic study indicates that the applicant’s project will not generate more than one hundred trips during the A.M. or P.M. peak hour. The applicant has a traffic impact analysis demonstrating the impact of the proposed project on the capacity and level of service at State Route 237.

B. Access to the Site _ Vehicular access to the site will be on roads, which have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. For developments which generate one hundred (100) or more peak hour trips based on the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, intersections on major access routes to the site within one (1) mile of any entrance road which are functioning at a Level of Service of C or better prior to the development will function at a minimum at Level of Service C after development. If any intersection is functioning at a Level of Service D or lower prior to the development, the project will not reduce the current level of service.

B. Access to the Site – Access to the site is via State Route 237, also known as Mosher Road. The applicant’s traffic study shows Route 237 to have adequate capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the asphalt plant project, which is estimated to generate 600 truck trips per day.

3) The grade of any proposed drive or street will be a _2.0% for a minimum of five (5) feet from the existing pavement edge or to the centerline of the existing drainage swale. From the above control point, a grade of not more than -3% shall be required for a minimum of two (2) car lengths or forty (40) feet.

4) The intersection of any access drive or proposed street will function at a Level of Service of C following development if the project will generate an ADT of one thousand (1,000) or more vehicle trips, or at a level which will allow safe access into and out of the project if less than one thousand (1,000) trips are generated.

C. Access into the Site - The access to the site will occur via a paved driveway located off Route 237. The main entrance and exit for the asphalt plant will also be the main entrance for the Brickyard quarry. The applicant is proposing to pave 500 feet of the access road with a 65 foot entrance radii to allow trucks to enter the site with a faster turning speed than would occur with a tighter radius allowed under the ordinance. The access drive sight distance onto Mosher Road exceeds the Maine Department of Transportation minimum sight distance. The proposed requirements of the Maine DEP are necessary to meet point 2, which is that points of access will be located to avoid hazardous conflicts with existing turning movements and traffic flows.

DISCUSSON: Ms. Robie suggested adding into the finding of fact that the proposed requirements of the Maine DEP are necessary to meet point 2, which is that points of access will be located to avoid hazardous conflicts with existing turning movements and traffic flows.

E. Pedestrian Circulation _ The development plan will provide for a system of pedestrian circulation within and to the development. If the project is located in a village area, this system will connect with existing sidewalks if they exist in the vicinity of the project.

E. Pedestrian Circulation – No pedestrian improvements are proposed. The Board has discussed this issue with the applicant, who has agreed to Condition of Approval #30, which requires OSHA-approved painted walkways between the scale house and the control house as well as any other location required by OSHA.

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Mark Stelmack SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapter IV, Section IX, E., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:12 p.m.]

F. Storm water Management _ Adequate provisions will be made for the disposal of all storm water collected on streets, parking areas, roofs or other impervious surfaces through a storm water drainage system and maintenance plan which will not have adverse impacts on abutting or downstream properties:

1) To the extent possible, the plan will detain storm water on the land at the site of development, and do so through the wise use of the natural features of the site. Storm water runoff systems will detain or retain water falling on the site such that the rate of flow from the site does not exceed the predevelopment rate. Discharge of additional storm water caused by the development onto adjacent properties will be prohibited unless written easements are obtained from the owners of such adjacent properties.

2) If the post development runoff is greater than predevelopment runoff, the developer will demonstrate that downstream channel or system capacity is sufficient to carry the flow without adverse effects, or will be responsible for the improvements to provide the required increase in capacity.

4) The design of storm water drainage systems will be based upon a storm frequency established by the Town Engineer, consistent with the frequency that would otherwise be required under the Town's subdivision ordinance, and shall provide for the disposal of storm water without damage to streets, adjacent properties, or downstream properties.

6) The biological and chemical properties of the receiving waters will not be degraded by the storm water runoff from the development site. The use of oil and grease traps in manholes, the use of on_site vegetated waterways, and the reduction in use of deicing salts and fertilizers may be required, especially where the development storm water discharges into a gravel aquifer area or other water supply source.

F. Storm water Management – The applicant has made provisions to provide for the control and disposal of stormwater from the project. Based on the Town and Third Party Engineers’ review of the applicant’s “Stormwater Management Report,” prepared by Shawn Frank, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, Sebago Technics, Inc., the post-development peak rates of run-off for the 2, 10, and 25-year storm events are less than the pre-developed peak rates at all study points. The stormwater infrastructure will control runoff from

a minimum of 95% of the site’s impervious area along with providing effective channel protection and temperature control by filtering runoff at a controlled rate. All proposed stormwater drainage structures are to be located on lot 1 (asphalt plant) with the exception of a culvert under the quarry access road that flows into Stormwater Pond 2. The applicant has submitted a “Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan” (SPCC) and a “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” that addresses protection for stormwater from fuel spills.

Ms. Robie suggested that Condition of Approval #29 for the quarry should be duplicated for the asphalt plant as Condition of Approval #24, as follows: that the applicant shall maintain on site copies of all required visual and laboratory monitoring of stormwater samples as required by the Multi-Sector General Permit and must provide to the Town Engineer and the Code Enforcement Officer any report of deviations required to be submitted to the DEP.

Mark Stelmack MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, F., and to accept the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record, with the Condition of Approval as stated above. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:15 p.m.]

G. Erosion Control _ For all projects, building and site designs and roadway layouts will fit and utilize existing topography and desirable natural surroundings to the fullest extent possible. Filling, excavation and earth moving activity will be kept to a minimum. Parking lots on sloped areas will be terraced to avoid undue cuts and fills, and the need for retaining walls. Natural vegetation will be preserved and protected wherever possible.

G. Erosion Control – The applicant will employ Best Management Practices to provide adequate erosion control during all construction and operation activities. The Board also finds that the applicant’s best management proposal is adequate to meet the General Performance Standard for erosion listed on page 97, Chapter II, Section 1.B,

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to amend the finding of fact to include the Chairwoman’s recommendation about the applicant’s best management proposal sufficient to address the erosion item of the Performance Standards in Chapter II. Motion as amended, CARRIED, 6 ayes (Michael Parker absent). [9:21 p.m.]

H. Water Supply _ The development will be provided with a system of water supply that provides each use with an adequate supply of water meeting the standards of the State of Maine for drinking water. When required by Chapter II, Section IX., the project shall be served by public water provided by the Portland Water District.

If a public water supply system is to be used, the developer has secured in writing a statement from the Water District that the proposed water supply system conforms with its design and construction standards, will not result in an undue burden on the source or distribution system, and will be installed in a manner adequate to serve domestic water and fire protection needs.

H. Water Supply – The site is supplied with public water from a Portland Water District watermain located at Mosher Road. The applicant is proposing to run a 8” watermain to a fire hydrant where the waterline will then be reduced to a 4” watermain to serve the scale house located on Lot 2 (quarry lot). No waterline is being proposed to serve the asphalt plant or the asphalt plant control house on Lot 1.

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.

2) All components of sanitary sewerage facilities that connect to the Town system have been designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Maine and will be tested in full compliance with the design specifications and construction practices as established by the Town Engineer. The construction of sewer lines will include the construction of laterals to the property line of each lot where individual lots are created.

3) All individual on_site systems will be designed by a licensed soil evaluator in full compliance with the Maine State Plumbing Code, as amended. Upon the recommendation of the Local Plumbing Inspector, the Site Plan Review Committee or Planning Board may require the location of reserve areas for replacement systems.

I. Sewage Disposal – No sewage disposal is being proposed on Lot 1 (asphalt plant lot) but a septic system is designed to service the proposed scale house on Lot 2 (Quarry Lot). The Performance Standard of Chapter II concerning soil suitability is not an issue for Lot 1.

Edward Zelmanow MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion that the applicant has met the requirement of Chapter IV, Section IX, I, and to adopt the finding of fact as written, amended and read into the record. Motion CARRIED, 6 ayes. (Michael Parker absent). [9:24 p.m.]

J. Utilities –The electrical and telecommunication utilities supplying the site will originate from the Morin Brick Company lot (Map 34, Lot 9) and go underground to the control house. Natural gas will also be utilized on site and will be extended into the site from Mosher Road.

K. Natural Features – The site is hilly and predominately wooded with a small amount of forested wetlands and wet meadows. The proposal will impact 10, 777 sq. ft. of wetland as well as require the removal of some of the trees. The applicant has obtained a Tier I Wetland Alteration Permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The applicant is proposing to excavate 30’ into the hill to assist in buffering the view of the asphalt plant from the abutters. The applicant is also proposing to save as many trees as possible around the stormwater ponds to act as additional vegetative buffers.