Called to order at
7:02pm by Chairman Mr. Gregg Varney.
Those Members present were Mr. Varney, Mark Morris, Roy
Nickerson, Raymond Lavoie, Shirley Twitchell
and Margaret Imber. R. Edward Morris arrived at
7:06pm Planner, John Maloney
was present this evening. CEO,
Roger Williams was also present this evening.
2
OLD BUSINESS
A
HANNAFORD-SITE REVIEW OF STANDARDS
Mr.
Doug Boyce of Hannaford Bros. Co. addressed the Planning Board. Mr. Boyce began by
explaining the changes to the plan, beginning with the landscape
buffer. Mr. Boyce
outlined these changes by referring to a drawing submitted by
Hannaford. Mr. Boyce
stated a 10 foot wooden fence would run along
Mr.
John Adams of Sebago Technics then
addressed the Planning Board. Mr.
Adams stated that he has performed a traffic study review of this
project. Mr. Adams stated that this
study was conducted in accordance with traffic movement analyses
typical to standards in the State of
Mr. Maloney continued with a review of the
General Review Standards.
3.
Vehicular Access: The proposed development
shall provide safe vehicular access to and from public and private
streets. When conflicts exist between
this section and a Driveway Permit or Entrance Permit onto Route 4
issued by the Maine Department of Transportation, the most stringent
or restrictive shall apply.
Overview
The
applicant proposes to construct a 36,000 square foot building to
house a supermarket and pharmacy drive-through on a site located at
the corner of Route 4 and the
The
applicant retained Gorrill-Palmer
Consulting Engineers, Inc to prepare a Traffic Impact Study. That
analysis considered among others trip generation, trip distribution,
trip composition, trip assignment, study area (Route 4 at Snell Hill
Road, Route 4 at Route 117 and Main Street at Route 117), capacity
analysis, queuing analysis, traffic signal warrant analysis, crash
data, sight line analysis.
Based
on the results of the Traffic Impact Study that applicant proposed to
install a fully actuated traffic signal at the Route4/Snell Hill Road
intersection, construct a separate right-turn lane for south bound
traffic on Route 4 at the intersection with Snell Hill Road,
construct a dedicated left turn lane at the Snell Hill Road and Route
4 intersection, improvement to the Snell Hill Road for access to the
project site and signage.
Due
to the traffic volumes associated with the project a Traffic Movement
Permit issued by the MaineDOT is required.
On August 11, 2009 the MaineDOT issued that Permit and on August 25,
2009 a revised Permit was issued that eliminated Route 4 access. The MaineDOT permit required off-site mitigation
measures including fully actuated traffic signal at the Route 4/Snell
Hill Road intersection, the construction a 170' southbound right turn
lane on Route 4, provide a dedicated right turn lane on the eastbound
approach of the intersection, provide a through/left turn lane for
the eastbound approach of the intersection and pay an impact fee of
$35,000 toward a future improvement of the Route 4 and 117
intersection.
The
In
supplemental information dated September 23, 2009 the applicant
provided further information on the reasons for the design of the
westerly entrance to the project site as well as the easterly
entrance. The applicant also provided information concerning the
impact of the project on the movement into and out of the B&A
Convenience Store. It was the opinion of the applicant that the
benefits of the traffic signal to B&A customers far outweigh any
perceived inconvenience to B&A customers that currently use the
Route 4 curb cut to enter and/or exit the store.
In
supplemental information dated October 2, 2009 the
The
Planning Board retained the services of Sebago Technics
to conduct a peer review of the applicant's Traffic Impact Study. In
a letter dated November 23, 2009 Sebago Technics
reported that the level of service standards will be met for post
development for all intersections studied, that the queue analysis
provided by the applicant is correct, that expected queues on the
Route 4 north bound approach to Snell Hill Road intersection will
block the B&A Convenience Store access to Route 4 at times, that
the Route 4/117 intersection does not warrant a traffic signal at
this time and would not likely be warranted in the future, and that
increase traffic on Main Street as the result of the project would
not likely be significant.
In
supplemental information dated December 8, 2009 the applicant
provided additional information on the traffic impact of the project
on the B&A Convenience Store's driveways. Based on a SimTraffic
analyses the level of service for both B&A driveways would be A
for post development. The average queue for the peak PM north bound
traffic would reach the B&A
Route 4 driveway. The 95th percentile queue would extend
the Route 4 B & A driveway. The applicant reported blockage at
the Route 4 B&A driveway would about 15% of the time during the
PM peak hour and 8% during the Saturday peak hour and that it is
anticipated to operate acceptable without any reassignment.
Standard
The applicant for a development to be
located on a parcel of land of ten (10) acres or greater or five
hundred (500) feet or more of frontage on a public street shall file
a conceptual Access Master Plan with the Planning Board.
The conceptual Access Master Plan shall address the overall
use of the parcel, the overall vehicular circulation system within
the parcel, and the coordination of access into and out of the site.
The conceptual Access Master Plan shall demonstrate how the
requirements for access as contained in this section will be met.
Findings
The project site is less than 10 acres but does have
approximately 560' of frontage on the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record the Planning Board finds that this standard will be
met. Mr. Lavoie
seconded the motion. The
Board Members voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed that this standard has
been met. Mr. Nickerson made the
opposing vote.
For the record Mr. Varney
will not vote unless there is a tie.
Mr. Maloney then continued
with a review of the Standards.
Standard
Vehicular access to the site shall be on roads which have
adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by
the development. Intersections on major
access routes to the site within one half (1/2) mile of any entrance
road which are functioning at a Level of Service of C or better prior
to the development must 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 must not reduce the current level of
service.
Findings
All access to the project site will be via the
The analysis conducted by the applicant indicates that all the
intersections studied, with the installation of a traffic signal at
the
The Route 4/Route 117 intersection is considered as a High
Crash Location by MaineDOT based on the most recent reporting
period (2006-2008). The
A
95th Percentile Queues Analysis submitted by the applicant
indicates that with the signalization of the
In
supplemental information dated December 8, 2009 the applicant
provided additional information on the traffic impact of the project
on the B & A Convenience Store's driveways. Based on a SimTraffic
analyses the level of service for both B & A driveways would be A
for post development. The average queue for the peak PM north bound
traffic would reach the B & A Route 4 driveway. The
95th percentile queue would extend the Route 4 B & A
driveway. The applicant reported blockage at the Route 4 B & A
driveway would about 15% of the time during the PM peak hour and 8%
during the Saturday peak hour and that it is anticipated to operate
acceptable without any reassignment.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Require the developers of new or redeveloped projects which
will exceed existing public roadway and intersection capacity to make
improvements necessary for anticipated traffic volumes.
That new development or redevelopment does not create or
aggravate high crash
locations.
That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117
and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic
carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.
Condition(s) as follows:
The applicant shall
conduct traffic counts on
The applicant shall
prepare with the owners of B & A Convenience Store a circulation
plan that addresses traffic movement into, out of and through that
property.
There was then a lengthy
discussion regarding the above Conditions.
This discussion included
level of service being met as well as the effects of traffic entering
and exiting B & A Variety. It
was stated that the variety store will generate more traffic.
Mr. Maloney stated that a Traffic Movement Permit is required. There was then a discussion
regarding the model that was used in the traffic study.
Accidents were the next issue discussed.
There was some discussion regarding the left turn out of B
& A Variety. It was
suggested that the possibility of moving the entrance further south
on Route 4 might be a solution to alleviate possible problems.
Mr. Tyler Sterling of Hannaford Bros. Co. stated that he had
concerns with the way the above Conditions were written.
He felt that the wording was too general and that the impact
of the signal will have benefits.
Ms. Joan Bryant Deschenes stated that she cooperated with MDOT
when they took away one of her entrances.
Ms. Bryant Deschenes believes that
the queuing of vehicles will cut off entrance to her business.
She also stated that moving the entrance further south on
Route 4 is not the solution and that she would like to see any future
problems addressed now rather than later.
There was continued discussion regarding the wording of
Condition 1. Ms. Helen Edmonds of Pierce
Atwood suggested changing the wording of Condition 1 to read as
follows:
Within a time period no sooner than six months
and no later than 12 months from the date of store opening the
applicant shall conduct traffic counts on
There was then discussion regarding
Condition 2. Ms. Imber
felt that there is a significant safety issue regarding the entering
and exiting at the B & A Variety.
This discussion included whether a right and left turn
analysis was warranted, plus a volume count and turning analysis.
Recess was taken from
8:57pm until 9:09pm.
Mr. Varney stated that
Traffic Peer Review Study found the MDOT Study to be accurate. Mr. Varney stated that he is
not sure if Condition 2 is warranted.
There was continued discussion regarding whether a right turn
lane was warranted and if Condition 2 should be approved.
Mr. Varney asked the Board Members to vote as to whether to
include Condition 2 or not. By
a show of hands 3 Board Members agreed to include Condition 2 and 3
Board Members did not want to include Condition 2.
Mr. Varney was forced to vote and he was in agreement not to
include Condition 2. Mr. Nickerson asked if the
Town of
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record with Condition 1 that the Planning Board finds that
this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed. Ms Imber
made the opposing vote.
Mr. Maloney continued to
review the Standards.
Standard
The geometrics of intersections that will serve the proposed
development shall be of such
design to provide for safe turning
movements.
Any exit driveway or
driveway lane shall be so designed in profile and grading and so
located as to provide the following minimum sight distance measured
in each direction.
Posted Speed Limit
Sight Distance
Sight Distance
(Standard Vehicle) (Larger
Vehicle)
35 mph
305'
455'
Findings
All exits from the project site will be onto the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That new development or redevelopment does not create or
aggravate high crash locations.
That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117
and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic
carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
The grade of any exit driveway or proposed street for a
distance of fifty (50) feet from its intersection with any existing
street shall be a maximum of three (3) percent.
Findings
The grades of all exit drives for 50' from their
intersection with the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That new development or redevelopment does not create or
aggravate high crash locations.
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
The intersection of any access drive or proposed street must
function at a Level of Service of C following development if the
project will generate 400 or more vehicle trips per 24-hour period or
a level which will allow safe access into and out of the project if
less than 400 trips are generated.
Findings
The analysis conducted by the applicant indicates that all
the intersections studied, with the installation of a traffic signal
at the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Require the developers of new or redeveloped projects which
will exceed existing public roadway and intersection capacity to make
improvements necessary for anticipated traffic volumes.
That new development or redevelopment does not create or or
aggravate high crash
locations.
That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117
and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic
carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
Projects generating 400 or
more vehicle trips per 24-hour period must provide two or more
separate points of vehicular access into and out of the site.
Findings
The proposed project will generate more than 400 vehicle trips
per 24-hour period. Two separate points of vehicular access into the
site have been provided.
Relevant comprehensive plan statement(s) related to Review
Standard 24 (The proposed activity is in conformance with the
comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
Where a proposed
development is to be located at the intersection of Route 4, and a
minor or collector road, entrance(s) to and exit(s) from the site
shall be located only on the minor or collector road provided that
this requirement maybe waived where the applicant demonstrates that
existing site conditions preclude the location of a driveway on the
minor or collector road, or that the location of the driveway on the
minor or collector road would interfere with a predominately
residential neighborhood.
Findings
The project site has frontage on both Route 4 and the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117
and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic
carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Curb cuts or access points
shall be limited to one per lot for all lots with less than 200
linear feet or less of road frontage.
For lots with greater than 200 feet of frontage, a maximum of
one curb cut per 200 feet of frontage shall be permitted to a maximum
of three, provided the Planning Board makes a finding that (a) the
driveway design relative to the site characteristics and site design
provides safe entrance and exit to the site and (b) no other
practical alternative exists.
Findings
The project site has approximately 580' of frontage on the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
No medium or high volume traffic generator shall have more
than two two-way accesses or three accesses in total onto a single
roadway.
Findings
The proposed project is a high volume traffic generator.
The project does not have more than two two-way accesses or three
accesses in total onto a single roadway.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117
and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic
carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
Curb cut widths and design
shall conform to the following standards:
Median volume driveways with
more than 50 vehicle trips/day but fewer than 200 peak hour vehicle
trips, based on the latest edition of the
have either two-way or one-way operation;
intersect the road at an angle as close to 90
degrees as site conditions permit, but at no less than 60 degrees;
not require a median;
slope upward from the gutter line on a
straight slope of 3 percent or less for at least 50 feet and a slope
of no more than 6 percent thereafter, with the preferred grade being
a 4 1/2 percent, depending on the site; and
comply with the following geometric standards:
NOTE:
The Planning Board may vary these standards due to unique
factors such as a significant level of truck traffic.
|
Item |
Desired
Value (ft.) |
Minimum
Value (ft.) |
Maximum
Value (ft.) |
|
R1
(radius) R2
(radius) W
(drive width) |
30
5
20 |
25
5
20 |
40
10
24 |
|
TWO WAY R WD |
30
26-36* |
25
24 |
40
30-40* |
*Where separate left and right exit lanes are desirable.
Findings
The
pharmacy drive through and delivery/service entrance is considered a
median volume driveway. The proposed driveway will provide two-way
operation in that it is expected the most delivery/service vehicles
will exit from it. Based on Sheet C-2.0 of the
application it appears that the driveway has an angle of less than 60
degrees. The grade of the driveway for 50' from their intersection
with the
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan).
That new development or redevelopment does not create or
aggravate high crash locations.
Condition(s) NONE
Mr. Mike Gotto of Stoneybrook
Consultants Inc. stated that he had concerns regarding
turning movements and site distance. Mr. Gotto
showed graphics depicting 34
degrees exiting the driveway of the store with a
turning movement on an angle. Mr.
Gotto stated that Hannaford might want to look
at this issue. Mr. Laverriere
stated
that when a truck reaches the
intersection it will square up to the intersection to see
to the right.
Mr. Boyce stated that the larger trucks are driven by
Hannaford drivers
and that they are safe drivers.
Mr. Boyce also stated that all other delivery trucks
are smaller than the Hannaford
trucks.
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in the record that
the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Mr. Maloney continued to review the Standards.
Standard
High volume driveways defined as driveways
with more than 200 peak hour vehicle trips shall:
have two-way operations separated by a raised
median of 6 to 10 feet in width and a 50 to 100 feet length depending
upon necessary storage length for queued vehicles;
intersect with the road at an angle as close to
90 degrees as possible, but at no less than 60 degrees;
be striped for 2 to 4 lanes with each lane
12 feet wide;
slope upward from the gutter line on a straight
slope of 3 percent or less for at least 75 feet and a slope of no
more than 5 percent thereafter;
have a "STOP" sign control and appropriate
"Keep Right" and "Yield" sign controls for channelization; signalization may be required. Level of service and traffic
signal warrants should be conducted for all high volume driveways;
and comply with the following geometric standards:
NOTE:
The Planning Board may vary these standards due to unique
factors such as a significant level of truck traffic.
|
Item |
Desired
Value (ft.) |
Minimum
Value (ft.) |
Maximum
Value (ft.) |
|
W/O CHANNELIZATION R (Radii) W (Width of Access lanes) M (Median width) |
50
24
6 |
30
20
6 |
50
26
10 |
|
W/CHANNELIZATION R WD M WR |
100
24
6
20 |
75
20
6
16 |
100
26
10
20 |
*
For industrial developments with a high percentage of truck
traffic maximum values are required.
Findings
The primary driveway is considered to be a high volume
driveway. The proposed primary driveway will be of two-way operation
with a total width of 27' with two 13.5' travel Lane. A 4" solid
yellow line would separate the entrance and exit lanes. This design
does not comply with Section 5.E.3.j.3) of the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed design does not have two-way operations separated by a
raised median of 6' to 10' in width.
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant revised the design of the primary driveway. The driveway
width is 40' with a 17.5' wide entrance lane, a 6' wide raised median
island and a 15' wide exit lane. The primary driveway has a throat
length of 65'. In supplemental information dated January 8, 2010
provided additional information concerning the primary driveway
design. The applicant indicated that the primary driveway will be all
design criteria except for the driveway width standard which is 20'
minimum and 26' maximum. The
applicant proposes a 17.5' wide entrance lane, and a 15' wide exit
lane.
Ms. Imber
read Section 5.6 as follows:
Section 5.G of the Town of
In
voting to waive the 20' minimum lane requirement that the Planning
Board found that the standards of the Ordinance would be met, the
public, health, safety and welfare would be protected, and the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan would be met and the performance standards
of the ordinance have been or will be met.
A
waiver can be requested for this section.
After some discussion it was determined by all that this
section should be waived. Ms.
Twitchell made a motion to accept the above
stated waiver. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously to accept the above stated waiver.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in
the record that the Planning Board finds that this standard
will be met with the waiver.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met with the waiver.
Standard
Driveway Spacing: Distance from edge of driveway comer (point
of tangency) to edge of intersection comer (point of tangency) by
type of driveway should be as follows:
|
Driveway |
Minimum Corner Clearance (feet) |
|
|
Intersection
Signalization |
Intersection
Unsignalization |
|
|
Medium Volume >50-100
trips/day
<200 trips/hour |
150 |
50 |
|
High Volume >200
trips/hour |
500 |
250 |
Findings
The
applicant proposed to locate a high volume primary driveway on the
Snell Hill Road 130' as measured from the edge of that
driveway corner (point of tangency) to edge of
the Route 4 intersection corner (point of tangency). The
standard is 500'. Hannaford requested, in a letter dated July 7, 2009
to John Maloney, that Section 5.E.3.k of the zoning ordinance be
waived to reduce for a minimum corner clearance from 500' to 130'
from the primary driveway on the Snell Hill Road as measured from the
edge of the driveway corner (point of tangency) to edge of
intersection corner (point of tangency). In considering the request
of waiver the Planning Board considered the following. The
The minimum corner clearance for the pharmacy drive through
and delivery/service entrance will comply with standards.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117
and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic
carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.
Condition(s) NONE
It was stated that on
August 12, 2009 a waiver requirement regarding this standard was
granted.
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in
the record
that the Planning Board finds that this standard will
be met. Mr. Lavoie
seconded the motion. The Board Members voted 5 in
favor and 1 opposed. Mr.
R. Edward made the opposing vote.
Standard
Minimum distances between driveways serving the same parcel,
measured from point of tangency to point of tangency by type of
driveway, should be as follows:
|
Driveway Type |
Minimum
Spacing to Adjacent Driveway
by Driveway Type |
||
|
Medium
(feet) |
High w/o RT
(feet) |
High
w/RT
(feet) |
|
|
Medium Volume |
75 |
|
|
|
High Volume W/O RT (without right-turn channelization) |
75 |
150 |
|
|
High Volume W/RT (with right-turn channelization) |
75 |
250 |
500 |
Findings
Minimum
distances between driveways serving the parcel, measured from point
of tangency to point of tangency will be met.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in
the record that the Planning Board finds that this standard
will be met with the waiver.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Standard
The minimum distance between driveway
to property line, as measured from point of tangency, should be:
|
Driveway Type |
Minimum Spacing to
Property Line (ft.) |
|
Medium Volume High Volume (without right-turn channelization) High Volume (with right-turn channelization) |
20
75
75 |
Findings
The minimum distance between driveway to property line, as measured from
point of tangency, will be met.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Ms. Twitchell made a motion that
based on the above information and information in
the record that the Planning Board finds that this standard
will be met with the waiver.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted unanimously to find this standard has
been met.
Mr. Maloney then stated that the following Standards still
need to be reviewed:
Relation of Proposed Buildings to Environment
Buffer Areas
Financial and Technical Capacity
Comprehensive Plan
State and Federal Permits
Specific Standards/Sand and Gravel Pits
Specific Standard/Ground Water Protection
Recess taken from
10:03pm until 10:05pm.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
After some discussion
the Planning Board agreed to hold the Public Hearing on
February 3, 2010 at 7:00pm.
The Public Hearing will be held before the scheduled
Planning Board workshop.
No action required.
5
REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 14, 2009 AND
NOVEMBER 11, 2009
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion to accept the October 14, 2009 Minutes. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously to accept the October 14, 2009 Minutes.
Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the November
11, 2009 Minutes. Mr.
Lavoie seconded the motion. The
Board Members voted unanimously to accept the November 11, 2009
Minutes.
6
REVIEW OF PLANNER ESCROW
No action required.
None.
Motion made by Ms. Twitchell
for adjournment, unanimously accepted.
The meeting adjourned at 10:14pm.
Respectfully submitted by
Karen Wilcox