1 CALL TO ORDER

Called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Mr. Gregg Varney. Mr. Varney stated that this meeting was a continuation of the October 7, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Those Members present were Mr. Varney, Mark Morris, Roy Nickerson, Raymond Lavoie, Shirley Twitchell, Margaret Imber and Mr. R. Edward Morris. Planner, John Maloney was present this evening. CEO, Roger Williams was not present this evening.

Mr. Varney asked if there were any objections to hearing new business first. There were no objections.

2 NEW BUSINESS:

A DENNIS MOREAU-HOME OCCUPATION

Mr. Dennis Moreau stated that he would like to operate his tow truck and motorcycle repair business from his home. His home is located at 413 North Parish Road, Turner, ME. He will be the only employee. Mr. Moreau stated that he had previously operated a business in Canton, ME for 12 years. Mr. Moreau stated that he had met with Mr. Williams to apply for a Home Occupation Permit. Mr. Williams told Mr. Moreau that his home is situated in the Rural 1 Zoning District and according to the Zoning Ordinance 4.27 the Home Occupation Permit would need to be issued by the Planning Board. Mr. Moreau stated that he had a large garage located on his property, which is where all of the repair work would be done. There would be no alterations to the property; there would be no display of motorcycles or vehicles. Mr. Maloney stated that he has reviewed the 10 Standards associated with this request. Mr. Maloney suggested that three Conditions of Approval be added to the Standards. These Conditions of Approval are listed below:

One sign can be erected, but no larger then 6 square feet.
No more then 3 parking spaces.
No storage of hauled vehicles on site.

Mr. Moreau stated that he had a storage facility located on Route 108 in Canton, ME.

It was stated that the CEO would monitor to make sure the Standards and Conditions of Approval are followed. Mr. R. Edward Morris asked if an MDOT driveway entrance permit needed to be applied for since this was a change of use. Mr. Maloney stated that yes it is required. Mr. Maloney then stated that Mr. Moreau should work with Mr. Williams to contact the MDOT. The letter from the MDOT will be another Condition of Approval. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept this application for a Home Occupation Permit with the three above stated Conditions of Approval and the additional Condition of Approval regarding a letter from the MDOT with respect to the entrance permit. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to grant a Home Occupation Permit to Mr. Dennis Moreau with said Conditions of Approval.

B AVCOG-REVIEW SERVICES AGREEMENT

This agenda item was not heard this evening.

3 OLD BUSINESS

A HANNAFORD-REVIEW OF STANDARDS (CONTINUATION)

Mr. Maloney then continued with a review of the General Review Standards.

Ms. Imber had concerns regarding wildlife habitat. Mr. Maloney stated that this would be addressed under another standard.

1. Preservation of Landscape. Mr. Maloney stated that his conclusion is based on the information provided in the record that the Planning Board finds that the landscape will be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practical, by minimizing tree and soil removal, retaining existing vegetation where desirable, and keeping any grade changes in character with the general appearance of neighboring areas. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept this standard. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. It was then stated that this land would stay flat and that the scope of the land would not be changed. The Board Members voted unanimously.

For the record Chairman, Gregg Varney will only vote if there is a tie.

There was then a discussion regarding the environmental areas and the wetlands. It was stated that these areas should be preserved to the maximum extent. There were some concerns regarding the wetlands being above the water discharge. Mr. Bryan Emerson, a Wetlands Scientist from Stantec Inc. then addressed these issues. He stated that some areas have been disturbed by ATV’s and logging equipment. These areas have filled with water. There should be no significant water flow in these areas, no significant impact. The ground water should be 1 foot to almost even filling in, in between. There may even be a slight decrease in surface water flow. The water source in this area is primarily from ground water. Mr. Varney stated that he had a concern with this conclusion because of the high rainfall this spring and summer. It was stated that part of this analysis was conducted in September. There was then a discussion regarding the removal of tress and the sun now shining on these areas. Would the sun drying up some of these areas make a difference? After some additional discussion Mr. Joseph Laverriere of DeLuca Hoffman Associates, Inc. stated that this area should remain the same as today. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the information in the record and that the Planning Board finds that wetlands will be conserved to the maximum extent. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. For the record there was a discussion regarding the wetlands prior to the vote. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept the conclusion of the wetlands conservation. There was then a discussion regarding wildlife habitat. Mr. Maloney stated that no deer wintering habitats had been located. It was also stated that the IF&W was present for the DEP review. The IF&W has concerns regarding some wading birds and wildlife and has asked for a deed restriction on the stream corridor located on the back of the property. It was stated that this wildlife habitat area would be shown on the plan. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the information in the record and that the Planning Board finds that the area site development does not contain significant wildlife habitat. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept the conclusion of the wildlife habitat. Mr. Maloney then stated that the review of the Town of Turner Comprehensive Plan resulted in no identification of unique natural features or archaeological sites within the project area. Ms. Twitchell made a motion that the criteria regarding archaeological sites is not applicable. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Planning Board Members voted unanimously to find the archaeological sites not applicable. Mr. Maloney then stated that based on the review of the site plans provided as part of the application there are no areas of two or more contiguous areas with sustained slopes greater than 20 percent. Ms. Twitchell made a motion that based on the above information that the Planning Board finds that this criterion is not applicable. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Planning Board Members voted unanimously that the sloping criterion is not applicable. Mr. Maloney then stated that based upon the review of the Town of Turner Comprehensive Plan as adopted on April 8, 2006 the proposed project site is not located in a scenic view location. Mr. Maloney stated that he has viewed this area from the Lower Street scenic view area and all that could be seen was the church steeple. Mr. Maloney stated that he could not see the B & A Variety site or the Duguay site. Mr. Maloney stated that he viewed this area on September 24, 2009 and October 14, 2009. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to find based on the information provided by Mr. Maloney that the Planning Board finds the proposed activity would not have an undue adverse effect on identified scenic views. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously that the proposed activity would not have an undue adverse effect on identified scenic views.

2. Relation of Proposed Buildings to Environment. Mr. Maloney stated that he would like to review this standard piece by piece. Mr. Maloney then read the following: Proposed structures should be related harmoniously to the terrain and to existing buildings in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures so as to have a minimally adverse affect on the environment and aesthetic qualities of the developed and neighboring areas.

There was a discussion regarding the architectural style of the building. Ms. Imber had concerns that the roof is too flat and that the design of this building does not fit in with the surrounding buildings. The building needs to have more of a New England style. Ms. Twitchell stated that the design of the building does not fit in with the scheme of the Village District. There was continued discussion regarding the roof design. Ms. Twitchell also stated that at the site walk those present were told that Hannaford would build something special for the town of Turner. Ms. Twitchell made a motion that based on the above information and information in the record that the Planning Board finds that this criteria will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. Mr. Boyce then apologized to Ms. Twitchell and the Planning Board members for having said such a thing at the site walk and building up any expectations. Mr. Boyce stated that Hannaford is very proud of this building design. The Planning Board agreed that they do not like a flat roof. Mr. Varney stated that the Planning Board should consider deferring the vote on this standard. Discussion continued regarding the roof design. Mr. Varney stated that at the first Public Hearing Ms. Eva Leavitt presented a photo from the Hannaford website depicting a store design with a pitched roof. Mr. Varney stated that he asked Mr. Boyce and Mr. Sterling to consider this particular store design after said Public Hearing and that both of them walked away. Mr. Boyce and Mr. Sterling both agreed to listen to any suggestions the Planning Board may have regarding the design of the store.

Fire alarm went off at 8:12pm. Building evacuated.

All returned at 8:18pm.

Ms. Twitchell and Mr. Lavoie withdrew their first and second motions. This standard will not be voted on this evening. Mr. R. Edward Morris asked if a vote needed to be taken to extend this application. Ms. Helen Edmonds, an attorney, from Pierce Atwood stated that Hannaford Bros. Inc. would agree to an extension. Mr. Varney then gave Mr. Boyce and Mr. Sterling the photo of the building with the pitched roof for possible consideration. There was then continued discussion regarding different ways and ideas on how to achieve a pitched roof. The overall look of the building as well as the building fitting into the community was discussed. Ms. Imber asked if the ordinance provides a set scale for square feet. The answer was no. Mr. Jonathan Murray then stated that how this building would compare to existing buildings could dictate future development. Ms. Twitchell stated that Mr. Duguay was very proud of the design of his building and that it fits nicely into the community. Ms. Twitchell also stated that she was sure that Hannaford would be just as proud of their building. There was then a discussion regarding the size of the store. Mr. Boyce stated that 36,000 square feet is the smallest store that Hannaford would build. Mr. Boyce also stated that this store size works well and that this location is a visible location. The size of the store will not be changed. Mr. Boyce then explained the lengthy process that was taken to design this store.

4. Pedestrian and Trail Access. Mr. Maloney then reviewed the Pedestrian and Trail Access Standard. Mr. Maloney stated that the MDOT would not allow crosswalks because the speed limit would not be lowered to 35 MPH; however the MDOT is proposing lowering the speed limit to 45 MPH. Mr. Boyce stated that Hannaford would have installed crosswalks if the speed limit were lowered to 35 MPH. There was then a discussion regarding sidewalks and bike lanes. There was also a discussion regarding a right turning lane with a 5-foot width and a 2-foot curb offset. Mr. Maloney suggested that two Conditions be included in this Finding. The conditions are as follows:

1. The Site Plan shall indicate that an easement has been granted to the Androscoggin Land Trust for use of the trailhead.

2. Should MDOT policies relating to crosswalks locations change to allow a crosswalk and/or posted speed limit is reduced to 35 MPH within a five year time period from the date of any final application approval that the applicant shall install a crosswalk meeting MDOT specifications.

Ms. Twitchell then made a motion that based on the information provided and the information in the record and conditions the Planning Board finds that the proposed development shall provide safe pedestrian access within the project and interconnection with existing facilities on abutting properties. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Planning Board Members voted unanimously that the proposed development shall provide safe pedestrian access within the project and interconnection with existing facilities on abutting properties with the above stated conditions.

6. Surface Water. Mr. Maloney read the Findings regarding surface water. Ms. Imber commented on the letter from Mr. Ferg Lea of AVOCG and stated she felt Mr. Lee’s comments were appropriate, all the Board Members agreed. Ms. Twitchell made a motion that based on the information provided by Mr. Maloney that the Planning Board finds that the proposed development will not result in undue surface water pollution. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously that the proposed development will not result in undue surface water pollution.

11. Standard Features. Mr. Maloney read the Findings regarding standard features. These Findings contained the following Condition:

Exposed storage areas, exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures, and similar accessory structures shall be subject to such setbacks, plantings or other screening methods as shall reasonably be required to prevent their being incompatible with the existing or contemplated environment and the surrounding properties.

Ms. Twitchell made a motion that based on the information provided by Mr. Maloney that the Planning Board finds the proposed development will comply with the standards for special features. This motion also includes the Condition of Approval. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. Mr. R. Edward Morris asked how any propane tanks would be stored. The answer was that they would be stored on a concrete pad. It was then stated that the refrigerated truck issue would be discussed under noise. There was then a discussion regarding the originally proposed 10-foot high fence. It was stated that part of the fence might be lowered to 6 feet. Mr. Sterling stated that there has been continued discussion with Mr. Jordan as to the height of this fence. Mr. Maloney stated that the lowering of any section of the fence would be discussed under the Buffer Standards. The Board Members then voted unanimously to accept that the proposed development will comply with the standards for special features and included the Condition of Approval.

It was then concluded by all that there were 13 Standards left to review. Mr. Maloney then distributed a Review of Use and Bulk and Space Standards. Mr. Maloney stated that this information should be included in the record. Mr. Maloney then reviewed these standards. There was then another discussion regarding extending the site plan review period. Ms. Edmonds again stated that the applicant was comfortable with any extension and that they were sure we would eventually get to the end. It was suggested that the discussion involving extensions be discussed at every Planning Board meeting. Ms. Edmonds stated for the record that site plan review extension past October 14, 2009 was fine. The next Planning Board meeting will be held on November 11, 2009. Although this is Veteran’s Day, all agreed to hold the meeting on this date.

4 OTHER BUSINESS

None.

5 CEO REPORT

No action required.

Recess taken from 9:25pm until 9:27pm.

6 REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the Minutes from the September 9, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept the September 2009 Planning Board Minutes.

7 REVIEW OF PLANNER ESCROW

No action required.

8 OTHER ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

None.

9 ADJOURNMENT

Motion made by Ms. Twitchell for adjournment, unanimously accepted. The meeting adjourned at 9:28pm.

Respectfully submitted by

Karen Wilcox

Recording Secretary