Called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Mr. Gregg Varney. Those Members present were Mr. Varney, Mark Morris, Roy Nickerson, Raymond Lavoie, Shirley Twitchell, Margaret Imber and R. Edward Morris. Planner, John Maloney was present this evening. CEO, Roger Williams was also present this evening.
Mr. Varney stated that this evening’s meeting shall end at 9:00pm.
Mr. Varney asked if anyone had any objections to reviewing the proposed changes to meeting minutes before old business. There were no objections. Ms. Imber stated that Hannaford Bros. Co. has suggested making changes to the August 12, 2009 and the September 9, 2009 Planning Board Minutes. Ms. Imber stated that the accepted minutes could not be changed; however the proposed changes could also be filed with the accepted minutes as public record. Ms. Imber also stated that the audio tapes are also preserved as public record. There was then a discussion regarding Hannaford Bros. Co. proposed changes to the October 7, 2009 and the October 14, 2009 minutes. These minutes have not yet been accepted by the Planning Board. Ms. Imber made a motion to accept the minutes from the October 7, 2009 meeting with some revisions made by Ms. Wilcox. Ms. Twitchell seconded the motion. The question was asked how to treat the proposed changes regarding these minutes. It was stated that the proposed changes from Hannaford Bros., Inc. for the October 7, 2009 minutes would also be retained as public record. Ms. Helen Edmonds, an attorney from Pierce Atwood, agreed that this was acceptable. Ms. Twitchell stated that her review of the October 7, 2009 Minutes were accurate and true. Mr. Maloney asked if the proposed changes would or would not be considered by the Board Members. Ms. Imber stated that the proposed changes could again be filed with the accepted minutes and put in the public record. Ms. Twitchell referred to what took place at the Planning Board workshop held on November 4, 2009 and stated that Ms. Eva Leavitt spoke and stated that the minutes are an overview and how years ago there was only a vote and no discussion. Ms. Leavitt also stated that any proposed changes by an applicant could be filed with the accepted minutes. Mr. Maloney asked whose review by the Hannaford was in red and whose review was in blue. It was stated by Mr. Doug Boyce, from Hannaford Bros. Co. and Ms. Edmonds that they did not remember. Ms. Imber again stated that the proposed changes from Hannaford Bros. Co. regarding the October 7, 2009 minutes will be filed with the minutes accepted by the Planning Board and again that the audio tape is preserved as public record. The Planning Board voted 6 in favor and 1 abstention to accept the October 7, 2009 minutes which were revised with corrections made by Ms. Wilcox. Mr. Nickerson abstained from voting. Ms. Wilcox then stated that she had some changes to make to the October 14, 2009 minutes. The Planning Board agreed that these minutes will be reviewed at the December Planning Board meeting.
2
OLD BUSINESS
A
HANNAFORD-SITE REVIEW OF STANDARDS
Mr. Maloney continued with a review of the General Review Standards.
<![if !supportLists]>15. <![endif]>Water
Supply. Mr. Maloney
stated that his conclusion is based on the information provided by
the applicant. The applicant has provided
information that the project will use approximately 3,000 gallons of
water per day. In addition, the applicant
proposed to construct a 40,000-gallon fire suppression water storage
tank. The applicant installed a
well on adjacent property that is a bedrock
well approximately 340 feet deep.
A 48-hour pumping test and recovery test was conducted by
Goodwin Well and Water. Mr. Maloney then referred to
supplemental information provided in RED on the Preliminary Review of
Site Plan Standards. Reference
was made to a letter dated October 6, 2009 from the
1. Collection of a combined radium sample (due to high gross alpha result).
2. Satisfactory results for the Carbamate tests pending analysis.
3. Submit copy of plans and specifications for the proposed chlorination and dechlorination treatment.
Mr. Maloney then read the proposed Condition. This Condition stated that prior to granting any final approval the applicant shall provide the Planning Board with easements that restrict subsurface sewage disposal within the well head protection area on land not owned by the applicant. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept Standard 15, Water Supply, with the above stated Condition. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. Mr. Mike Gotto of Stoneybrook Consultants, Inc. stated that he has sat with the abutters and there appears to be three dug wells and not just one dug well as depicted on the plan. Mr. Gotto stated that there should be an additional Condition on the plan to replace any wells on abutting property should something happen to them. Mr. Doug Boyce stated that two certified geologists have addressed any concerns and that there will be no adverse impacts. Mr. Stephen Kelley from Haley & Aldrich, Inc. addressed the Planning Board and stated that there will be no impact on dug wells. Mr. Kelly also stated that the water for these wells is not from the same source, there is no connection. Mr. Varney stated that the Planning Board had not considered that there was more than one dug well. Mr. Kelley stated that these wells are coming from sand at the surface of the site and that the dug wells can supply enough water for the home. The Hannaford well is a drilled well approximately 340 feet deep. Mr. Kelly stated that there is no hydraulic connection. Mr. Maloney asked where the dug wells were located on the plan. Mr. Joseph Laverriere of DeLuca-Hoffman Associates, Inc., showed where the wells were located. Mr. Gotto then stated that underground pipes could interfere with the neighboring wells and that the neighbors needed to be protected. It was stated that Ken Jordan’s dug well is his primary source of water. It was also stated that the Bizier family is not using their dug well; they are using a drilled well. There was a discussion regarding pumping of water to the store affecting the whole neighborhood. There was then a discussion regarding fractures not always being horizontal and possibly coming to the surface. It was also stated that there should be some type of “insurance policy” for the town and Hannaford. Mr. Boyce then stated that he believes this discussion should be continued under Standard 16. There was then a discussion regarding the Condition and the reference to easements. It was agreed upon by all that the wording should be changed to:
Prior to granting a building permit the applicant shall provide the Planning Board with easements that restrict subsurface sewage disposal within the well head protection area on land not owned by the applicant.
The first and second motions were amended to change the above wording of the Condition. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept Standard 15, Water Supply with the above Condition.
16. Ground Water. Mr. Maloney reviewed this Standard for the Planning Board. Mr. Maloney stated that his office has reviewed the communications regarding ground water. There is a concern regarding quantity, quality and depletion of water associated with this project. Mr. Maloney also referred to System Summary Reports submitted by Hannaford. Mr. Maloney then stated that there has been a lot of information submitted on this subject. There was then reference made to a letter received from R. W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc. This letter was dated October 13, 2009. Mr. Maloney read this letter. Part of the letter reads as follows:
RWGA&A testified that the significant sand and gravel aquifer shown on certain plans and documents does not classify as such. This letter will be attached to the minutes.
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion to accept Standard 16, Ground Water.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
There was then a discussion regarding the questions raised by
the abutters. Quantity
and quality and depletion of the wells were again discussed along
with the possibility of wells being replaced.
There was then a discussion regarding prior data and a whole
range of things that could do damage.
Ms. Imber stated that many things
could harm a well and that there could be the presumption that
Hannaford caused the problems. Mr.
Boyce stated that there should be no condition placed upon Hannaford
because there has been more than enough information provided on this
subject. Mr. Varney then
stated that the Planning Board had not been aware until this evening
that 2 additional dug wells had been located.
Mr. Boyce stated that these wells are side radiant and flow
away from the project, there should be no concern.
Mr. Varney stated that Mr. Boyce is opposed to adding a
condition regarding the wells going dry. If this is the case then who
is responsible? Mr. Tyler Sterling of
Hannaford Bros. Co. then addressed the Planning Board.
Mr. Sterling stated that Ms. Imber
made a good point regarding Hannaford causing a problem; however peer
review has been conducted by Mr. Ferus Lea
of AVCOG and he has signed off on this review.
Mr. Kelley then stated that he was confident that there will
be no impact on any existing wells. Mr. Kelley then referred to
the findings of R. W. Gillespie & Associates Inc.
There was then a discussion regarding a survey on the existing
wells as an evaluation. Ms.
Twitchell stated that such an evaluation
could benefit Hannaford. It was stated that the
objective is to protect the abutters before starting a project.
Evaluations of other projects have been done in the past. Such projects were the DeCoster
farm and the
1. Standard water quality analysis.
2. Information from either the well cap, the well driller or the home owner.
3. How deep is the well.
4. Any odor from the well.
5. History of usage.
6. How close to the septic system is the well located.
7. Any treatments done to the well.
Ms. Imber stated that she would like the pre-development survey specified by Mr. Maloney and the applicant.
There are two Conditions associated with this Standard. They read as follows:
1. On annual basis Hannaford shall submit to the Town of Turner Code Enforcement Officer copies of Septic Tank Pumping Report (form #6) and Annual Septic Tank System Report (Form #7). This Condition was presented by Mr. Maloney.
2. The applicant shall provide to the town a pre-development evaluation of the wells of the abutters. This Condition was presented by Ms. Imber.
The motion to accept Standard 16, with the 2 above stated Conditions was unanimously accepted by the Planning Board.
19. Noise. Mr. Maloney then reviewed the Noise Standard. There was a discussion regarding 36dba versus 44dba. There was also a discussion regarding delivery truck noise as well as noise generated from snow removal equipment. Mr. Maloney then proceed to read the following Condition:
Within six months, or other time period determined to be appropriate, from the date of opening the Town at the expense of the applicant shall conduct an environmental sound evaluation to determine the compliance with this standard.
It was stated that if this standard was not met that the applicant would have to fix any noise issues. The Code Enforcement Officer will monitor and enforce this Condition. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to include that the Code Enforcement Officer will enforce and monitor this Condition. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept Standard 19, Noise, with the 2 Conditions.
20. Sewage Disposal. Mr. Maloney read the Findings regarding sewage disposal. Mr. Maloney also stated that there have been 50-60 pages submitted regarding this standard. These Findings contained the following Conditions:
The reserved areas for the second waste water disposal areas shall not be altered in any way that makes the area unsuitable for a waste water disposal system, unless an alternate site is designated and approved by the Planning Board.
On annual basis Hannaford shall submit to the Town of Turner Code Enforcement Officer copies of Septic Tank Pumping/Inspection Report (form #6) and Annual Septic Tank system Summary Report (form #7).
Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept Standard 20. Sewage Disposal, with the 2 Conditions. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept Standard 20. Sewage Disposal with the 2 above stated Conditions.
21. Waste Disposal. Mr. Maloney read the Findings regarding Waste Disposal. Mr. Sterling stated that a contract would not be completed until the store is opened. Mr. Maloney asked if the contractor for the other stores would be utilized. Mr. Boyce stated that Hannaford has an ongoing relationship with its current contractor. After continued discussion about what services this contractor provides Mr. Boyce stated that he should be able to provide the Planning Board with an agreement regarding waste disposal in writing.
The following Condition is attached to this standard:
Prior to any final approval the applicant shall provide the Planning Board with evidence of a contractual agreement with Environmental Projects, Inc.
Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept Standard 21. Waste Disposal with the above stated Condition. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board members voted unanimously to accept Standard 21. with 1 Condition.
22. Buffer Area. Mr. Maloney read the Findings regarding Buffer Area. There was a discussion regarding the proposal for a 10 foot fence to be installed on the western portion of the property. It appears that the property owner Mr. Jordan wants a 10 foot fence along the whole buffered area. Mr. Boyce stated that the proposed fence will be structurally sound and custom designed, it will be constructed of natural wood and will be of a neutral stain.
Mr. Gotto stated
that 4 of the abutters do not want to look at a 10 foot high fence. These abutters would prefer
a landscape buffer. Mr.
Maloney then read the requirements of the Standard.
There was continued discussion regarding fencing versus
vegetation. It appears that the seller
of the property is stating that he wants a 10 foot high fence.
It was agreed upon by all that a fence is more costly and that
landscape is more desirable. Mr.
Boyce stated that Hannaford would go back to Mr.
Mr. Lavoie left the Board table at 9:08pm and returned at 9:12pm.
It was again stated that the applicant
would need to have a discussion with Mr.
B
AVCOG-REVIEW SERVICES AGREEMENT
Mr. Maloney distributed a draft of the
Agreement between the inhabitants of the Town of
Recess taken from 9:21pm until 9:23pm.
Mr. Maloney stated that the billing rate
for this agreement is less than $6.00 to $7.00 per hour than his
normal billing rate. The
Planning Board reviewed the draft of this agreement.
The Board Members agreed that this draft had been reviewed and
approved by them this evening. Ms.
Twitchell made a motion to send this draft
to the Board of Selectmen for their review and approval.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously to send this draft contract to the Board of Selectmen for
their approval.
Mr. Maloney reviewed a list of possible Ordinance Changes for 2010. This list is attached to this evening’s minutes. Mr. Williams then stated that the following items might also be considered as ordinance amendments:
Restrictions for RV’s
Rental Housing Code
Windmill Ordinance
There was then some discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan and is it only a plan and not part of an ordinance? This discussion was prompted by an article published in the Maine Townsman, October, 2009.
None.
Mr. Williams stated that
he has had a discussion with Mr. James Hanson regarding having a lot
of cars on his property in the woods and along the road.
Mr. Williams then stated that Mr. Champion may be coming
before the Planning Board with an application for a truck and car
business. Mr. Williams had a
conversation with Mr. Taylor and he may be coming before the Planning
Board in the future with a plan for a storage building.
Mr. Williams stated also that
the Maverick business may be relocated from Route 4 to
6
REVIEW
OF PLANNER ESCROW
No action required.
None.
Motion made by Ms. Twitchell for adjournment, unanimously accepted. The meeting adjourned at 9:35pm.
Respectfully submitted by
Karen Wilcox