Note: Two hand
written changes made to the final filed copy.
Called to order at
7:04pm 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.
2
OLD BUSINESS
A
HANNAFORD-SITE
REVIEW OF STANDARDS
Mr.
Maloney stated what has already taken place with regards to the
review of Standard 3, Vehicular Access.
Mr. Maloney also stated that all requested information had
been received and identified regarding Standard 3.
Mr.
Maloney continued with a review of General Review Standards.
2. Relation of Proposed Buildings to Environment. 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 environmental and aesthetic qualities of the developed and
neighboring areas. The
Planning Board shall consider the following criteria.
Criteria
Architectural style is not restricted.
Evaluation of the appearance of a project should be based on
the quality of its design and relationship to surroundings.
Findings
The applicant proposes to construct a 36,000 square foot
building to house a supermarket and pharmacy drive-through. The
proposed building would be 220' x 160' with a flat roof. The maximum
height of the building would be 29' at the peak of the vestibule roof
on the east elevation. The east elevation that faces Route 4 will be
220' wide and have an 80' x 15' vestibule. The vestibule will contain
entrance doors and four windows. The remainder of the east elevation
will have one window and a door. The vestibule will have a gable
roof. The south elevation visible from both Route 4 and the
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior design of the building.
The changes included a redesign of the east and south roof lines to a
pitched roof. The pitch of the two main roof slopes (covered walkway
and entry would be 14/12 and the front gables roof pitches would be
6/12. Gable elements have been designed into the colonnade. A pitched
roof has been added over the drive through pharmacy window.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That the architectural design of new commercial development
and characteristics of advertising features including signs are
compatible with the community and surrounding area.
Ms. Imber
then read excerpts from a letter written by attorney Mr. Jeffrey Thaler of Bernstein Shur
who is representing the Turner Village Preservation Committee. A copy of this letter is
attached to the Minutes. Present
this evening from Bernstein Shur is
attorney Ms. Katherine Joyce also representing the Turner Village
Preservation Committee. Noted for the record Ms. Imber
referred to this letter after each standard was reviewed stating any
concerns reflected in said letter.
Condition(s)
NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record the Planning Board finds that this criteria will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
Ms. Twitchell commented that
Hannaford did a great job in the redesigning of the building.
Ms. Twitchell continued by saying
that the colors, the design of the roof and the new look will fit in
much better and it will be something for all to be proud of.
The Board Members then voted unanimously that this standard
has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Buildings should have good scale and be in harmonious
conformance with permanent neighboring development.
Findings
The applicant proposes to construct a 36,000 square foot
building to house a supermarket and pharmacy drive-through. The
proposed building would be 220' x 160' with a flat roof. The maximum
height of the building would be 29' at the peak of the vestibule roof
on the east elevation. Buildings in the vicinity of the proposed site
on the
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior design of the building.
The changes included a redesign of the east and south roof lines to a
pitched roof. The pitch of the two main roof slopes (covered walkway
and entry would be 14/12 and the front gables roof pitches would be
6/12. Gable elements have been designed into the colonnade. A pitched
roof has been added over the area over the drive through pharmacy
window.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That the architectural design of new commercial development
and characteristics of advertising features including signs are
compatible with the community and surrounding area.
There was some discussion
regarding the scale and size of the building.
It was stated that there are no size limits in the ordinance. Ms. Twitchell
stated that she feels there is a lot of leeway in the ordinance.
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Materials should have good architectural character and shall
be selected for harmony of the building with adjoining buildings.
Findings
Primary materials on the east and south elevations, those
elevations primarily visible from public roads, will include
horizontal composite siding with 8" exposure and ivorene
in color, vertical composite siding with 6" exposure and bone white
in color and concrete masonry medium mortar pigment. The vestibule
roof will be standing seam metal roofing and mushroom cap color. The
west and north elevations will be covered with vertical concrete
panels.
In supplemental information dated September 23, 2009
the applicant proposed to cover all sides of the structure with
composite clapboard siding.
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior materials of the building.
Werzalit clapboards will be used on all
sides of the build with bricks on a portion of the east elevation.
The horizontal siding will be painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw,
trim ad columns will be painted Sherwin Williams Roycroft Suede, exterior exit doors will be
painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw, window frames to be medium
bronze, entrance door brushed aluminum, brick wainscot Morin
Brick-Hannaford Smooth (red) and pitched roofs are to be covered by
asphalt Certainteed Woodscape Shingles/Driftwood.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That the architectural design of new commercial development
and characteristics of advertising features including signs are
compatible with the community and surrounding area.
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Materials should be
selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in
which they are used. Buildings
shall have the same materials, or those that are architecturally
harmonious, used
for all building walls and other exterior
building components wholly or partly visible from public ways.
Findings
Primary materials on the east and south elevations, those
elevations primarily visible from public roads, will include
horizontal composite siding with 8" exposure and ivorene
in color, vertical composite siding with 6" exposure and bone white
in color and concrete masonry medium mortar pigment. The vestibule
roof will be standing seam metal roofing and mushroom cap color. The
west and north elevations will be covered with vertical concrete
panels. The water supply building will utilize the same siding and
colors as the supermarket building.
In supplemental information dated September 23, 2009
the applicant proposed to cover all sides of the structure with
composite clapboard siding.
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior materials of the building.
Werzalit clapboards will be used on all
sides of the build with bricks on a portion of the east elevation.
The horizontal siding will be painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw,
trim and columns will be painted Sherwin Williams Roycroft Suede, exterior exit doors will be
painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw, window frames to be medium
bronze, entrance door brushed aluminum, brick wainscot Morin
Brick-Hannaford Smooth (red) and pitched roofs are to be covered by
asphalt Certainteed Woodscape Shingles/Driftwood.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
That the architectural design of new commercial development
and characteristics of advertising features including signs are
compatible with the community and surrounding area.
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Materials should be of
durable quality.
Findings
The applicant provided information on exterior building
components. No specific specifications for those components were
submitted.
At the October 7, 2009 public hearing the applicant
provided the Planning Board with samples of the materials proposed
for exterior finishes.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the
Planning Board finds that this criteria will be met.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board
Members voted unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Building components, such
as windows, doors and eaves, should have good proportions and
relationships to one another.
Findings
The five windows on the east elevation are of the same size
and design. Metal doors and frames are similar.
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior building design. The five
window systems on the east elevation are located under dormers.
Window frames to be medium bronze in color. Exterior exit doors will
be painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw,
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued the review of the
standards.
For the record Chairman, Gregg Varney will only vote if there
is a tie.
Criteria
Colors should be
harmonious and shall use compatible accents.
Findings
The applicant provided an exterior materials finish schedule
for the east elevation of the building. Primary colors for that elevation include ivorene,
bone white and mushroom cap.
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior materials of the building.
Werzalit clapboards will be used on all
sides of the build with bricks on a portion of the east elevation.
The horizontal siding will be painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw,
trim and columns will be painted Sherwin Williams Roycroft Suede, exterior exit doors will be
painted Sherwin Williams Downing Straw, window frames to be medium
bronze, entrance door brushed aluminum, brick wainscot Morin
Brick-Hannaford Smooth (red) and pitched roofs are to be covered by
asphalt Certainteed Woodscape Shingles/Driftwood.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Mechanical equipment or
other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened
from public view with materials harmonious with the building, or they
shall be located so visibility from any public way is minimized.
Findings
Mechanical equipment to be located on the roof the supermarket
building includes exhaust fans, condensing units and fluid coolers.
At the rear of the supermarket building will be located a trash
compactor, LP gas tanks, and standby generator. The applicant
proposes to erect a 10' high solid wooden fence along the entire
westerly side of the property. This fence will screen the site from
the residential properties located along
In supplemental information dated September 23, 2009 the
applicant revised screening of the truck loading and utility areas
from the
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant revised the plans to
add a building screen to the left
corner of the structure to provide further screening of the vender
receiving area and the location of the transformer and generator was
moved adjacent to the water supply building.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan).
There was a discussion
regarding whether or not a Condition should be attached to this
standard. Mr. Maloney stated that a
Condition was not needed because any issues are being address under
special features.
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Exterior lighting shall be
part of the architectural concept.
Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories shall be
harmonious with building design.
Findings
The
applicant proposes to install both pole-mounted and building-mounted
lighting fixtures. All fixtures will be of full cutoff design. The
parking area will be illuminated with five back-back 400-watt high
pressure sodium fixtures placed on 30' tall poles. The primary
entrance, the pharmacy entrance and southwest portion of the site
will be illuminated with single 250-watt high pressure sodium
fixtures placed on 20' tall poles. The exterior of the structure will
have nine wall mounted 70-watt high pressure sodium fixtures placed
at 18' above the finished grade. The truck loading area will have one
wall mounted 250-watt high pressure sodium fixtures placed 18' above
the finished grade.
The
applicant indicated that pole mounted lights except at the primary
entrance will be turned off one hour after store closing.
The
applicant provided a Site Lighting Photometric Plan dated June 18,
2009 prepared by Hubbell Lighting, Inc. That Plan indicates
foot-candles produced by the proposed lighting on and adjacent to the
project site. That Plan indicates no new foot-candles on adjacent
residential properties.
In supplemental information dated January 11, 2010 that
applicant indicated that recessed light cans with 100-watt high
pressure sodium light fixtures at 20' intervals would be located
beneath the front canopy to provide downward illumination of the side
walk.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Criteria
Refuse and waste removal
areas, service yards, storage yards, and exterior work areas shall be
screened from view from public ways, using materials as stated in
criteria for equipment screening.
Findings
The applicant proposes to erect a 10' high solid wooden fence
along the entire westerly side of it property. This fence will screen
the site from the residential properties located along
In supplemental information dated September 23, 2009 the
applicant revised screening of the truck loading and utility areas
from the
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant revised the plans to
add a building screen to the left
corner of the structure to provide further screening of the vender
receiving area and the location of the transformer and generator was
moved adjacent to the water supply building.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Monotony of design in
single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variation of
detail, form and siting shall be used to provide visual
interest. In multiple building
projects, viable siting or individual buildings may be used to
prevent a monotonous appearance.
Findings
The east elevation of the building includes a 80' x 15' vestibule.
The three remaining elevations will be similar except the west and
north elevations will have vertical concrete panel siding.
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant proposed changes to the exterior design of the building.
The changes included a redesign of the east and south roof lines to a
pitched roof. The pitch of the two main roof slopes (covered walkway
and entry would be 14/12 and the front gables roof pitches would be
6/12. Gable elements have been designed into the colonnade. A pitched
roof has been added over the area over the drive through pharmacy
window.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
Overall Conclusion:
Based on the above information and information in the record
the Planning Board finds that proposed structures will 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 environmental and aesthetic
qualities of the developed and neighboring areas.
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued
the review of the standards.
There was then a discussion regarding buffer areas.
Ms. Imber read an Email regarding
the 10 foot
wide easement being proposed along
the easterly side of the 60 foot wide right of way (copy of
Email attached). It
was stated that town council may need to get involved in the review
of this
proposed easement. Ms. Eva Leavitt stated that
MMA has suggested that Mr. Bill Livengood
review this proposal because there
appears to be a conflict of interest with Mr. Norman Rattey
who is the town’s legal council. Mr. Tyler Sterling of
Hannaford Bros. addressed the Planning
Board and stated that they are not in agreement with Mr.
like to pull the buffer area closer
to the building. Ms.
Joyce asked if this would then create a
back lot.
Mr. Varney stated that the back lot issue
would be discussed later on this evening.
It was
agreed that the site plans would have
to be altered if the buffer areas were moved. It was stated
that the same type of proposed fence
would be used and that the planting would now take place
closer to the building thus
eliminating any right of way issues.
Mr. Sterling then stated that he
believed the proposed Condition could
be removed.
Mrs. Angela Chabot an abutter stated that she has lived in her
home for 30 years and was very
concerned about the buffer areas. She hopes that the Planning
Board does a good job with
respect to the buffer areas.
Ms. Helen Edmonds, an attorney from Pierce Atwood suggested
that the proposed Condition
associated with this standard be
changed. However after
Email correspondence from Mr. Maloney
and Ms. Edmonds the suggested
proposed Condition is not warranted.
The Final Plan shall include that the buffer substandard to
that proposed in the application support
the information dated December 21,
2009 shall be located within the property boundary of the
project.
The back lot issue now becomes null and void since the
buffered area will be on the
Hannaford property.
There was then a discussion regarding the buffer on the side
of Mrs. Chabot’s property as well
as on
buffering would look like from
different angles.
22. Buffer Areas. No industrial or
commercial buildings or uses shall be established in, or adjacent to,
a residential use, or an existing agricultural use unless a
landscaped buffer strip is provided to create a visual screen between
the uses. Where no
natural vegetation can be maintained or due to varying site
conditions, the landscaping screen may consist of fences, walls, tree
plantings, hedges or combinations thereof.
The buffering shall be sufficient to minimize the impacts of
any kind of potential use such as: loading and unloading operations,
outdoor storage areas, vehicle parking, mineral extraction, waste
collection and disposal areas. Where
a potential safety hazard to small children would exist, physical
screening or barriers shall be used to deter entry to such premises.
The buffer areas shall be maintained and vegetation replaced
to insure continuous year-round screening.
Findings
Residential property adjacent to the site include three single
family homes to the west, two single family homes to the south, on
the opposite side of the Snell Hill Road and one single family home
to the north. There is no existing natural vegetation that creates a
visual screen between residential properties along
In supplemental information dated September 23, 2009 the
applicant revised screening of the truck loading and utility areas
from the
In supplemental information dated December 21, 2009 the
applicant revised the buffering plan on the westerly and northerly
portions of the project site. Rather than a 10' high solid wood fence
along
In addition a building screen was added to the left corner of
the structure to provide further screening of the vender receiving
area and the location of the transformer and generator was moved
adjacent to the water supply building.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met with the above Condition.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted 5
in favor and 1 opposed that this standard has been met.
Mr. Nickerson cast the opposing vote.
Mr. Maloney then continued the review of the standards.
23. Financial and Technical Capacity. The
applicant has adequate financial and technical capacity to meet these
standards.
Findings
The applicant indicated project cost to be approximately $6.3
million. In the application dated
June
24, 2009 the applicant stated that Hannaford Bros. has adequate funds
to complete and operate the project. An excerpt from the 2008 Annual
Report of Delhaize Group was provided. The applicant
provided supplemental information in a letter dated July 23, 2009
from Delhaize
The applicant retained the services of a number of consulting
firms to prepare the application. They include but not limited to DeLuca-Hoffman
Associates (civil engineering and landscape design), Gorrill-Palmer
Consulting Engineers (traffic engineering), Owen Haskell, Inc.
(surveying), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (geotechnical and water
supply), Stantec Consulting, Inc.
(wetlands), Albert Frick Associates (soils), R.W. Gillespie &
Associates (hydrogeologic) and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (noise).
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
Condition(s)
Prior to any onsite or off
site construction that does or does not require a permit issued by
the Town of Turner the applicant shall provide a written statement,
acceptable by the Planning Board, that a specific dollar amount has
been dedicated to complete the project as approved.[Revised
01.08.2010].
Mr. Varney asked Ms.
Edmonds if she was okay with this Condition.
Ms. Edmonds stated, yes.
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met with the above stated Condition.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued the review of the standards.
Standard
Findings
The proposed project requires permits under the Natural
Resource Protection Act, Site Location of Development Act, Section
404 of Clean Water Act, Traffic Movement Permit Law, Maine State
Plumbing Code, Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules and Safe Drinking
Water Act.
As of January 1, 2010 the applicant has submitted applicable
approvals for traffic movement, drinking water and subsurface
wastewater disposal.
Relevant comprehensive plan statement(s) related to Review
Standard 24 (The proposed activity is in conformance with the
comprehensive plan)
Condition(s)
The
Code Enforcement Officer shall not issue any required permits until
the applicant provides copies of all applicable State permit
approvals. Should the project, as may be approved by the Planning
Board, require changes as the result of such State permits the
applicant shall submit such changes for review and approval by the
Planning Board. [Revised 01.08.2010]
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
will be met with the above stated Condition.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.
The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued the review of the standards.
Standard
26. Specific Standard<![if
!supportNestedAnchors]><![endif]>/Sand
and Gravel Pits
Conclusion
Based on the above information, information in the record and
condition the Planning Board finds that this standard is not
applicable.
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
is not applicable. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously that this standard has been met.
Mr. Maloney then continued the review of
the standards.
Standard
27. Specific Standard/Ground Water Protection
In
addition to the standards contained in Section 5. E. 16., the following standards shall be utilized
by the Planning Board for reviewing development applications located
on a mapped sand and gravel aquifer.
The boundaries of sand and
gravel aquifers shall be as delineated on the Sand and Gravel Aquifer
Map prepared by the Maine Geological Survey labeled Map 16 and
identified as Open-File Report No. 85-82d, Plate 3 of 5.
When the boundaries of the
sand and gravel aquifer are disputed due to lack of sufficient detail
on available maps, the applicant or agent may submit hydr
geologic evidence prepared by a geologist certified in the State of
Hydrogeologic Study. Based
on the size, location, surrounding uses or other characteristics of
the proposed use or site to determine compliance with the
requirements of this section and the water quality criteria of the
Site Plan Review, the Planning Board may require submittal by the
applicant of a hydrogeologic impact study.
The impact study shall be prepared by a State of
A map showing: (1) soil
types; (2) surficial geology on the property; (3) the
recommended sites for individual subsurface waste water disposal
systems and wells in the development; and (4) direction of ground
water flow. (The Planning Board expects the detail of this study to
vary with the intensity of the development.)
The relationship of
surface drainage conditions to ground water conditions.
Documentation of existing
ground water quality for the site.
A
nitrate nitrogen analysis or other contaminant analysis as applicable
including calculation of levels of the property line(s) and well(s)
on the property.
A statement indicating the
potential sources of contamination to ground water from the proposed
use and recommendations on the best technologies to reduce the risks.
For
water intensive uses, analysis of the effects of aquifer drawdown on
the quantity and quality of water available for other water supplies
or potential water supplies.
The Planning Board may
require installation and regular sampling of water quality monitoring
wells for any use or proposed use deemed to be a significant actual
or potential source of pollutants or excessive drawdown.
The number, location and depth of monitoring wells shall be
determined as part of the hydro geologic study,
and wells shall be installed and sampled in accordance with
"Guidelines for Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling" (Tolman,
Maine Geologic Survey, 1983). Water
quality sample results from monitoring wells shall be submitted to
the Code Enforcement Officer with evidence showing that contaminant
concentrations meet the performance standard for pollution levels.
A list of assumptions made to produce the
required information.
Conditions/Standards
In addition to the standards contained in
Section 5.D. 16, the following standards shall be met:
No use including home occupations shall
dispose of other than normal domestic waste water on-site without
approval of the permit granting authority.
Disposal of waste water shall be in strict compliance with the
Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules and other relevant State
and local laws, rules and ordinances.
Indoor use or storage facilities where
hazardous materials, wastes or other liquids with the potential to
threatened ground water quality are used or stored shall be provided
with containment which is impervious to the material being stored and
have the capacity to contain 10 percent of total volume of the
containers, or 110 percent of the volume of the largest container,
whichever is larger.
Petroleum and Other
Hazardous Material or Waste Transfer. A Spill Control and
Countermeasure Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Board.
In those areas identified as sand and
gravel aquifers as defined in Section 5.F.2.b. the following land
uses are prohibited unless the Planning Board finds that no
discharges will occur such that water quality at the property line
will fall below State Drinking Water Standards and all provisions of
this ordinance are met.
dry cleaners
photo processors
printers
auto washes
Laundromats
meat packers/slaughter houses
salt piles/sand-salt piles
wood preservers
leather and leather products
electrical equipment manufacturers
plastic/fiberglass fabricating
chemical reclamation facilities
industrial waste disposal/impoundment areas
landfills/dumps/transfer stations
junk and salvage yards
graveyards
chemical manufacturing
Findings:
The Sand and Gravel Aquifer Map prepared by the Maine
Geological Survey labeled Map 16 and identified as Open-File Report
No. 85-82d, Plate 3 of 5 indicates that the project site is located
on a sand and gravel aquifer (10-50 gallons per minute). Potential
threats to groundwater quality include the subsurface waste water
disposal system, and spills of hazardous or petroleum products
in the structure and on the project site. The quantity of ground water could be altered by the 3.2 acres
of impervious area changing recharge characteristics.
The applicant provided information prepared by Haley &
Aldrich relating to geologic site conditions including if the site
was covered by a sand and gravel aquifer.
The applicant reported that more than 30 exploration holes
were drilled on site that indicated that portions of the site are
underlain by alluvial or marine deposits consisting of silty
sand. The surficial alluvial deposits are underlain by
marine deposits consisting of stiff to soft clay. The Planning Board
received public testimony at public hearing from Haley & Aldrich
that surficial geology of the site does not
meet the criteria for significant sand and gravel aquifer. In
supplementary information the applicant provided a letter dated
October 13, 2009 from R. W. Gillespie & Associates relating to
the existence of a significant sand and gravel aquifer on the project
site. Gillespie reported that the combination of low hydraulic
conductivity and thin saturated thickness indicate yields of 10 GPM
are unlikely and are unsupportable for extended durations for all but
a small area at the southeastern extremities of the site.
The applicant retained R.W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc to
prepare a Septic Effluent Fate Analysis (nitrate loading). The
analysis considered nitrate impacts on groundwater quality. Gillespie
used a modified Domenico and Palciauskas
model to estimate the maximum contamination level down gradient form
leach fields. Gillespie conclude that designed to State of Maine
standards, the wastewater disposal system would not adversely affect
any existing private or public drinking water supplies. The
proposed subsurface waste water disposal system will dispose of other than normal domestic waste
water. In supplemental information September 23, 2009 the applicant
addressed groundwater elevations and flow directions, leachfield
mounding and groundwater contamination. The applicant provided a
letter dated October 16, 2009 from the
In supplemental information dated September 23, 2009 and
October 16, 2009 relating to the types of hazardous material on site
and the procedures to respond to spills of such materials in store
and outside of the store.
In supplemental
information dated September 24, 2009 the applicant provided an
estimate of the magnitude of drawdown that could occur in nearby
wells after the Hannaford well is operational. Haley & Aldrich
constructed a model using MODFLOW 2000 with the processor Visual
MODFLOW Pro v.4.3. The model input variables included a pumping rate
of 2.1 gpm, extent of fracture zone, the hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock
fracture zone and width of the bedrock fracture zone. Haley &
Aldrich concluded that the Hannaford well will not impact the well
yield or water quality of nearby bedrock or dug wells.
Relevant comprehensive
plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)
To protect the quality and quantity of ground
water resources for current and future use.
Condition(s)
On annual basis Hannaford
shall submit to the Town of
Conclusion
Based on the above information, information in the record and
condition(s) Ms. Twitchell made a motion
that the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met with the
above Condition. In voting to find that these
standards will be met the Planning Board also approves the
subsurface waste water disposal system that will dispose of other than
normal domestic waste water.
Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board
Members voted unanimously that this standard has been met.
Standard
24. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
Findings
Under each review standard relevant comprehensive plan
statement(s) related that specific standard were identified and
considered by the Planning Board.
Mr. Varney referred to
Section 5 and stated that the Planning Board’s job is to balance
the
property being developed with the
neighbors. Mr. Varney
believes this has been accomplished.
Ms. Imber
stated that the specific criteria has been followed by not only the
Planning Board but
also by the Board of Selectmen
Condition(s) NONE
Conclusion
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion that based on the above information and information
in the record
the Planning Board finds that this criteria
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 cast the opposing vote.
Mr. Maloney stated that he
would prepare the Findings of Facts for Planning Board consideration. It was agreed by all parties
that legal council should review the Findings of Facts.
There was then a discussion regarding how the site would be
inspected and by whom. There
was also a discussion regarding who will be assigned as legal
council. It was then stated that a
new site plan will need to be submitted showing the new buffering.
Recess
taken from 8:35pm until 8:45pm.
3
NEW BUSINESS
A
GLEN DUBE-SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN
Mr.
Douglas Johnson of Brian Smith Surveying, Inc. addressed the Planning
Board. Mr. Johnson stated that this
proposal is for a 13 lot open space subdivision.
This site had previously been approved for a gravel mine
operation; however it never came to fruition.
This property is 86 acres with the possibility of having a
second phase of development. The subdivision sketch plan
showed how the dwellings would be surrounded by open space areas. It was stated that some of
these lots will be gifted to Mr. Dube’s
children. There was also mention that
the snowmobile placement will be determined after reviewing several
options. The proposal is for 30,000
square foot lots. Mr. Johnson showed how the
house, septic and well would all fit.
Mr. Johnson also showed where the buffer areas would be
located. Mr. Varney asked if
there were a wildlife corridor. Mr.
Johnson showed that there was a wildlife corridor is located at the
back of the property. There was some discussion
regarding whether this subdivision should be open space or
traditional. There was a discussion
regarding a site visit, and Mr. Maloney preparing a narrative after
said visit advising the applicant of the Planning Board’s
recommendation. It was stated that an open
space subdivision reduces the infrastructure which reduces the
proposed road. Mr. Johnson stated that the
open space subdivision would encompass 55.2 acres.
There was some discussion regarding the scenic view from the
road. Mr. Johnson stated that from
2
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED
Mr.
Maloney reviewed the proposed Zoning Amendments which were dated
February 10,
2010. Mr. Maloney began by
reviewing the Shoreland Zoning Standards Adopted on April
4, 2009. He
continued by reviewing the Proposed Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
and
the Proposed
Street Construction Amendments. Mr.
Maloney stated that the proposed
amendments could be reviewed
together or reviewed separately at the Town meeting. Ms.
Eva Leavitt stated that there were some language issues on
page 6. Mr. Maloney agreed to
make said changes.
There was then a discussion regarding having another Public
Hearing regarding Route 4
access specifically regarding right turn status.
There was a discussion regarding if there were
enough time to hold a Public Hearing and to
decide what will be on the Warrant Articles.
It
was agreed that, yes, there was enough time. The discussion turned to the
right turn in from
Route 4 into the Hannaford project. Mr. Dennis Richardson stated
that this is what MDOT
had suggested for safety reasons. There was some discussion
regarding Section 3.G,
Vehicular Access, Pages 5-13.
Mr. Tyler Sterling of Hannaford Bros., suggested a Condition
which the Planning Board would not accept. The discussion turned to the
right turn in and a
right turn out plan versus a right turn in only. There was also some
discussion regarding the
possibility of another traffic light. There was continued
discussion regarding the safety
issues of the access in and out of the Hannaford
project. It was decided
that the Planning
Board will continue this discussion at the March 3, 2010
Planning Board workshop. It was
agreed upon by all that a Public Hearing
regarding the proposed Ordinance Amendments
would be held at 6:30pm on March 10, 2010. There was then some
discussion regarding a
conflict with the Planning Board proposing an
Ordinance Amendment Change regarding
Route 219. It was agreed that this item
should be on the Warrant Articles as a proposal from
The Board of Selectmen and not the Planning Board.
No action required.
5
REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 12, 2010
Ms. Twitchell
made a motion to accept the January 12, 2010 Minutes. Mr. Lavoie seconded the
motion. The Board Members voted
unanimously to accept the January 12, 2010 Minutes.
6
REVIEW OF PLANNER ESCROW
Mr. Williams stated that
Hannaford Bros. needed to be billed for $4,023.03.
Ms. Twitchell made a motion to bill
Hannaford Bros. for $4,023.03. Mr.
Lavoie seconded the motion. The
Planning Board Members voted unanimously to bill Hannaford Bros. for
$4,023.03.
None.
Motion made by Ms. Twitchell
for adjournment, unanimously accepted.
The meeting adjourned at 9:57pm.
Respectfully submitted by
Karen Wilcox