1 CALL TO ORDER

Called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Mr. Gregg Varney. Mr. Varney then read the agenda. Those Members present were Mr. Varney, Mark Morris, Roy Nickerson, Raymond Lavoie, Shirley Twitchell and Margaret Imber. Mr. R. Edward Morris arrived at 7:27pm. Planner, John Maloney was present this evening. CEO, Roger Williams was also present this evening.

2 OLD BUSINESS:

A HANNAFORD SITE REVIEW

B IMBER/TWITCHELL PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW

Ms. Imber and Ms. Twitchell were not present at the Public Hearing, which took place on July 8, 2009. Ms. Twitchell stated that she has reviewed the Minutes from the Public Hearing and listened to the audiotape. Ms. Twitchell then stated that she has signed a sworn statement stating that she has reviewed the July 8, 2009 Minutes and listened to the audiotape. Ms. Imber stated that she would review the July 8, 2009 Minutes and review the audiotape by Friday, August 14, 2009 and will also sign a sworn statement.

C COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR THE HANNAFORD PROJECT

Mr. Maloney stated that this application was tabled at the last Planning Board meeting because the MDOT Permit had not been received. Mr. Maloney then stated that the MDOT Permit had been received on August 11, 2009. Mr. Maloney continued and stated that the some additional requested information had been received on July 29, 2009. This information included the proof of right title and interest, the information requested by the Preservation Committee and a Shoreland Zoning Permit. Mr. Maloney also stated that the well was found to be in compliance. Mr. Maloney then continued to review the Application Completeness Checklist for Site Plan Review and stated that items 13, 14, 20, 22, 26, 27, 31, 35, 40 and 50 had been provided. Mr. Maloney stated that a $35,000.00 impact fee would be paid to the MDOT for improvements to Route 4 and Route 117. The Town of Turner and the MDOT are in agreement that a signal light would be needed for the entrance from Route 4 to the project. There are 2 waivers being requested. Discussion of these waivers will be discussed at length shortly. Ms. Twitchell then addressed those present in the audience. Ms. Twitchell explained that by approving the Application Completeness Checklist for Site Plan Review does not mean that the project has been approved. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to find the Application Completeness Checklist for Site Plan Review as complete. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to find the Application Completeness Check for Site Plan Review as complete.

D NEED FOR LEGAL COUNSEL

Mr. Varney asked the Planning Board Members if they felt the need for legal counsel in reviewing the Hannaford project. After a short discussion the Board Members agreed. Ms. Imber made a motion to have Mr. Maloney consult legal counsel on any issues he felt warranted such legal counsel. Ms. Twitchell seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to give Mr. Maloney permission to seek legal counsel as needed.

E PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS

Mr. Maloney stated that additional comments have been coming in from the public regarding the completeness of the application and technical review. Mr. Maloney stated that the Planning Board would consider these comments as the review process proceeds. Ms. Twitchell stated that a workshop is held the week before the Planning Board meeting and that the public is welcome to attend, but it is a workshop, not an open public meeting. Mr. Varney then stated that he felt the applicant has done a good job and asked the applicant to give the Planning Board as much lead time as possible so all parties involved can work together.

F REPORT JULY 21, 2009 DEP PUBLIC INFORMATION

MEETING

It was stated Mr. Maloney, Ms. Imber, Mr. Lavoie and Mr. Nickerson attended this meeting. Some of the items discussed were the NRPA wetlands impact, storm water, fire and water volume and a dug hydrant, water line direction, snow, lighting, signage and traffic volumes. It was stated that the answers to the above-mentioned issues would be addressed the NRPA Permit-By-Rule Application and NRPA Tier 2 Wetland Permit Application in Section 25 (of the blue book). Ms. Imber then stated there were approximately 32 people who attended this meeting. There was then a discussion regarding the moderate wading bird habitat near the Nezinscot River. Mr. Joseph Laverriere from DeLuca-Hoffman Associates addressed the Planning Board. Mr. Laverriere stated that this project would be 250 feet away from the river and that a migration fee of $98,000.00 would be paid to the state. This fee would allow for 28,128 feet to be developed as an In Lieu Fee Program by the DEP for projects written in watersheds. Mr. Varney commented that he felt instead of this type of development it would be better to give such funds to say a food bank rather than developing a ½ acre of property.

G BOARD INPUT ON REVIEW CRITERIA FOR INFORMATION

Ms. Imber commented that the Planning Board should follow customary procedures and practices when reviewing this project. The Board Members agreed.

H PEER REVIEW NEEDS

Mr. Maloney stated there were capabilities for others to conduct peer reviews.

I WAIVERS-SECTIONS 5.e.3.g AND 5.E.3.k

Waiver for Section 5.e.3.g reads:

Where a proposed development is to be located at the intersection of Route 4, 117 or 219 and a minor collector road, entrance(s) to and exit(s) from the site shall be located only on the minor or collector road.

Hannaford Bros. believes that Section 5.e.3.g allows the Planning Board to waive that standard under the following conditions:

This requirement may be 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.

The proposed driveway on Route 4 would allow for a right turn in right turn out only with a declaration lane. It was stated that traffic engineer Bill Bray determined that this entrance would allow for 115 trips in the pm peak hour and 141 trips on Saturday and that it would minimize commercial traffic on Snell Hill Road. Mr. Maloney asked what effect would there be to Snell Hill Road without this entrance from Route 4. Mr. Peter Hedrich, from Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc. referred to the Site Plan Application for the answers to any questions. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the requested waiver for Section 5.e.3.g. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. Ms. Imber stated that she was opposed to granting this waiver because there was not sufficient evidence that this entrance would reduce the interference of the residential neighborhood on Snell Hill Road. Ms. Twitchell then stated that she felt this waiver could not be granted because the ordinance needed to be followed to the letter of the law. Mr. Nickerson stated that we have turned down such requests in the past and that this project should not be given any special treatment. Mr. R. Edward Morris agreed with Ms. Twitchell and stated that the Planning Board should look into the possibility of changing this ordinance in the future. Mr. Mark Morris agreed with the statements made by the other Planning Board Members, as did Mr. Lavoie. Those Board Members in favor of the motion were none. Those Board Members opposed to the motion were unanimous. The motion for waiver for Section 5.e.3.g fails.

Waiver for Section 5.e.3.k reads:

Distance from edge of driveway corner (point of tangency) to edge of intersection (point of tangency) by type of driveway should be as follows:

High Volume>200 trips/hour: 500 feet for signalized intersection, 250 for unsignalized intersection.

Hannaford Bros. believes that Section 5.e.3.k allows the Planning Board to waive that standard under the following conditions:

The applicant proposes a high volume driveway on Snell Hill Road with approximately 130 feet of separation from the Route 4 intersection when measuring between the tangent points of the corner radi. The separation as defined understates the functional separation due to the angle of the intersection and radius required for trucks at the Route 4/ Snell Hill Road intersection. The edge-to-edge driveway separation is approximately 220 feet.

Mr. Maloney stated that after review of this requested waiver he believes this can work. Mr. Maloney stated that this waiver is being requested because of special circumstances and that it will benefit the public’s safety and welfare. Ms. Jennifer Simmons, a member of the audience, stated that she was in favor of this waiver but wanted to know why the other waiver was not granted when it was accepted by the MDOT. Mr. Hedrich stated that the town has the right to be stricter and does not have to accept what the MDOT has approved. Ms. Paula Swindell Leavitt, a member of the audience, stated that she believes that the town should accept what the MDOT has approved. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the waiver for Section 5.e.3.k. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. Ms. Imber stated that she was in favor of approving this waiver request. Ms. Imber also stated that this provision should be looked at in the future since this will be the first traffic signal in the town and that if this waiver were not granted this project would not proceed. Ms. Twitchell stated that this waiver would be in the best interest for health and safety. Mr. Lavoie, Mr. Mark Morris and Mr. R. Edward Morris were in favor of this waiver. Mr. Nickerson was opposed to this waiver. The Board Members voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed to granting the waiver for Section 5.e.3.k. The waiver request passes.

There was then some discussion regarding how this application would proceed. It was suggested by the applicant to meet more than once a month. Mr. Varney stated that a workshop would be held before the September meeting and that the Planning Board would not consider any additional meetings. It was stated that the Planning Board might consider another Public Hearing.

Recess taken from 8:10pm until 8:18pm.

3 NEW BUSINESS:

NONE.

4 OTHER BUSINESS

TWENTY-MILE OVERLOOK SUBDIVISION

Mr. Jason Courbron and Mr. George Courbron from Survey Works, Inc. are representing this project this evening. Ms. Eva Leavitt, the Town Manager, was present this evening. Ms. Leavitt addressed the Planning Board and referred to a letter she has sent to Mr. Jason Courbron, this letter was regarding the paving of the roads approved in Phases I, II and III. This approval has already been declared in the Finding of Facts. Said letter is attached. After a lengthy discussion regarding this letter is was determined that item C in Ms. Leavitt’s letter will be eliminated and disbursed into items A and B. Another Performance Guarantee would be needed for Phase III. No building permits would be issued for Phase III until the Performance Guarantee is received. Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the above stated changes to how the Performance Guarentee would be handled in regards to Phases I, II and III. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to accept said changes. Note that the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law required Planning Board approval for the Performance Guarantee.

5 CEO REPORT

Mr. Williams stated that he has had a discussion with Greg Trask regarding land he owns on Harlow Hill Road and the access to this land. Mr. Williams stated that this land is zoned commercial and that Mr. Trask would like to have it rezoned to residential. He is requesting this so that he can put a camper or trailer on this property. After some discussion the suggestion was made to possibly move the zoning line not the property line.

6 REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM JULY 8, 2009

Ms. Twitchell made a motion to accept the Minutes from the July 8, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted 6 in favor and 1 abstention to accept the July 8, 2009 Planning Board Minutes. Ms. Imber abstained from voting because she was not present at the July 8, 2009 meeting.

7 REVIEW OF PLANNER ESCROW

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Maloney if there would be any more bills from AVCOG for the Twenty-Mile Overlook project. Mr. Maloney stated, no. Mr. Williams stated that since there will not be any more bills from AVCOG Twenty-Mike Overlook is due a refund of $101.00. Mr. R. Edward Morris made a motion to refund Twenty-Mile Overlook $101.00. Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion. The Board Members voted unanimously to refund Twenty-Mile Overlook $101.00.

8 OTHER ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Ms. Imber suggested having a discussion at the next workshop regarding the possibility of holding another hearing for the Hannaford project.

9 ADJOURNMENT

Motion made by Ms. Twitchell for adjournment, unanimously accepted. The meeting adjourned at 8:48pm.

Respectfully submitted by

Karen Wilcox

Recording Secretary