Gray Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2011 7:00 PM
Henry Pennell Municipal Complex
24 Main Street, Gray
Peter Gellerson, Don Hutchings, John Redlon, Dan Cobb, Jason Wilson
Doug Webster
Others present and speaking: Robert Cole, Shawn Frank, Liz Metayer, Arthur McVane, Al Palmer, Rick Liberty, Steve Griffin, Joanne Grant, Brad Velek, Amanda St. Peter, Crystal McIntire, Lynn Gallagher, Normand Tanguay, Catherine Murray, Dawn McGraw
Don Hutchings asked how many in attendance were here for the gravel pit application. Don stated that given that the majority of the audience was at the meeting for this issue, he indicated that they would hear this application first and stated that the Planning Board will do a site walk and the public will be notified.
- Minutes of September 21, 2011
John Redlon moved; Peter Gellerson seconded
Motion to accept the minutes as corrected.
Dan Cobb stated that on page 2, 2nd paragraph, the word “is” missing.
5 Yes
- ~Information- Exchange
- Tabled Matters and Old Business
- Public Hearing
- Request by Sebago Technics on behalf of Robert Cole, Rebecca Sarna, and Shirley Heatley (Robert Cole et. Al, owners) for preliminary major subdivision approval and a shoreland zoning permit.~ The proposed seven lot subdivision on Lyons Point Road ~is part of Map 1, lot 1, is shown on Tax Sheets 23, 31,32, 39, and 40, and is located in a Lake and Limited Residential (Shoreland) Zoning Districts.~ The Shoreland Zoning Permit is for access and parking to a common shorefront area on Little Sebago Lake.
Shawn Frank gave a brief overview of the current plan including a visual presentation. There are a total of 7 lots accessed by this roadway. It is18 acres in a cluster subdivision, with 10 acres of open space and is serviced by a private right of way to a dock. He outlined the layout, fire protection, street lighting and the like. Liz Metayer stated that she would like to hear further about the water run-off. Arthur McVane asked about the run-off collection points and the impact of the location in future development.
Don Hutchings stated that the Board can only address the 6 lots in the application and any future development will be brought before a future Planning Board.
Doug Webster commented on the requirement that post development run-off must not exceed pre-development run-off. Therefore, any potential run-off in future development will also be examined.
Arthur McVane asked if there are State laws on the number of moorings. Don Hutchings stated that any body of water over 10 acres is owned by the State and they have control and anything in these waters require State permitting. What happens on the shore is handled by the Town and any wardens.
Doug Webster stated that he spoke with Steve LaVallee and Gorrill Palmer. He reviewed the comments from Gorrill-Palmer (from the Planning Board notes dated October 11, 2011, page 2).
The wooded buffers follow the contour lines and the undisturbed forested areas. Doug Webster outlined some suggestions to maintain and protect these wooded areas. It can include annual inspections, adjusting the lot lines, or keeping them as is and making them part of the homeowners’ deeds.
Peter Gellerson asked if there is an impact to the forested buffer as there has been some logging there. Shawn Frank stated that there has been some logging but that the woods in the area are undisturbed and meets the DEP guidelines.
There was an extensive discussion on how the inspections would be handled, who is responsible and who bears the cost and the forest buffering impact of the phosphorus going into the lake.
John Redlon stated in the interest of full disclosure, he resigned from his Lake Association Board.
Dan Cobb asked the reason for the waiver. Shawn Frank stated that the waiver is for the detention and treatment and they would like to keep the forested buffer area as undisturbed to help this process. The detention in the way it would need to be done would be more of a hindrance.
There was a discussion on the parking lot and the road and where it changes in the zoning from subdivision to Shoreland Zoning. John expressed concerns that the road appears bigger and the impact on the area. Shawn Frank stated that it has always been 16 feet wide. Don Hutchings reminded John that this application and review is for 6 lots only and nothing further. Shawn Frank stated that there intent has always been for the road to simply be an access for the 6 lots to the water.
The Board is supportive of waiving the flooding standards. (Referencing Section 401.13.12.G that the forested buffer be placed in the common open space, and included in the homeowners’ documents and on the face of the plan.)
Doug stated that the Town is interested in the parts of the homeowners’ documents that are ordinance related (IE: buffers). Dan stated that he wants to see this on the plans, documents and then grant the waiver. Doug stated that he is maintaining a list of items for the homeowners’ documents that will be presented to the applicant.
Road radius: (#10, page 3 of the Planning Board notes dated Oct. 11, 2011) Shawn Frank believes that 200 feet is too wide but will change his plans to 200 as outlined in the ordinance.
Driveway locations: Doug-design the beginning of the driveway for lots 2 and 3 to minimize the pitch. (See #26, page 3 of the Planning Board notes date Oct. 11, 2011) Shawn Frank had no issue with this.
There was a discussion on the hammerhead location in relation to the proposed driveway. There will be a gate across the access road to the shorefront during the winter and related to access to the snowmobile trail. The applicant’s intent is to minimize the size of the trail and have an easement.
(#3, page 4 of the Planning Board notes date Oct. 11, 2011) A minimum of a 20 foot easement from the hammer end to the property line. Shawn Frank stated that as proposed, they have a 50 foot easement.
(#1, bottom page 5 of the Planning Board notes dated Oct 11, 2011). Shawn Frank stated that he will submit the application for the DEP permit.
Peter Gellerson asked about the common waterfront. He asked if the homeowners’ association can change this area. He would like to be sure that there is something in the HO documents to prevent issues in the future.
There was a discussion on the note #12 on sheet 14 regarding the use of common open space and shorefront access. Peter Gellerson stated that he believes that the language, as written, doesn’t allow the homeowner to weigh in on this issue. Dan Cobb stated that he doesn’t agree with this as there is too much intensity of use given the dry area. He believes that this proposal is a good size and nothing further. He believes that the usage of the common area should be used as the present application is proposed and there should not be any incremental option for the future. John Redlon agrees that the impact should address only the 6 lots in this proposal. Peter Gellerson also agreed. He cannot see a potential of 18 boats located there in the future. Jason Wilson reiterated that they
would have to come before the Board in the future for an additional phase and the additional access would be addressed then. Don Hutchings stated that the access point for 6 lots needs to be in the documents and only the 6 lots and they can appear before the Planning Board for any future access. He stated that the Board could not approve the language indicating access for the other lots and the other 11 lots cannot be included in this submission. Otherwise, the project as proposed is fine.
Doug Webster stated that any subsequent Planning Board can change this in future applications.
Shawn Frank believes that the Board is precluding any future development. Don reiterated that the submission was complete and there would be further discussion. Robert Cole stated that the wording proposed by Doug Webster permitted them to come before a Planning Board for future development. Don Hutchings stated that they are responsible to look at this project holistically and that the access to the point cannot be more than the proposed 6 lots.
Robert Cole asked if any wording will be included to prevent them from applying to future Boards. Doug Webster stated that he believes that the Planning Board cannot preclude them from doing this as they can return for amendments.
Don Hutchings suggested tabling this until a legal opinion of what they are doing to date can be done.
There was a discussion the issue of reasonable access to a body of water related to the number of lots.
Doug suggested a slight amendment on the wording on the plan to reference the 6 lots only and not include wording to offer guidance for any future Planning Boards. Shawn Frank agreed to this. The Board agreed to this as well.
There was a discussion on the possible MOU as outlined #10 page 6 of the Planning Board notes dated Oct 11, 2011.
Jason moved to have a draft motion created for approval for the next meeting. Doug stated that preliminary approval should include the outstanding issues that need to be resolved.
Peter Gellerson moved; John Redlon seconded
Motion to instruct Doug Webster to draft a motion for the Lyons Point application with conditions of approval to be voted on at the November 10th meeting.
5 Yes
- Request by Rick Liberty on behalf of the Liberty Family Foundation for a pre-application conference for an agritourism facility at 23 North Raymond Road as shown on Tax Sheet 13, Map 10, Lots 1 and 4 located in a Rural Residential and Agricultural Zoning District.
Rick Liberty outlined the proposal and follow-up from the last meeting.
He indicated that the original plan for the property was a 50 lot sub-division. Subsequently, Michael Liberty has a different vision for the property which Rick Liberty outlined.
Peter asked about the tie in with Camp Gregory. Rick stated that they would like to work with them to restore and enhance the lodging and property, help the church with its needs and bring back the essence of Camp Gregory whose purposed was to provide access to the water for disadvantaged youth. They met with them to propose their idea.
John Redlon asked about rebuilding the old recreation area. At this point, they have had discussions but nothing definitive. He asked about the proposed lodging (not a hotel). Rick stated that the proposal outlines where it could possibly go. The one room cabins would have access to the snowmobile trail, the lake etc., and would be of interest to those who enjoy nature.
Don Hutchings asked about the total number of staff on site when fully completed. Rick Liberty stated that there would be sub-contractors and maintenance people, volunteers, security and the like. With patrons, depending on the art center size, there could be many. Don stated that there are concerns on the Shaker Road and North Raymond Road intersection accommodating traffic. Rick Liberty stated that they believe it is their responsibility to work on this and provide resources including safety, beautification. He believes it is problematic as it exists now, in particular, during the morning and evening peak periods.
John Redlon asked about the hotel. Rick Liberty stated that they envision about 40 rooms for visiting artists and others. The arts center is intended to also offer classroom and enrichment programs and they hope to offer a first class facility.
They are still collecting research on the garden plots to help with food services. The gardens can also be viewed as an educational tool and offer classes on food preservation.
Rick Liberty stated that they will be sponsor of the Crystal Lake Fishing Derby and will also offer assistance in the planning and have made their property available for parking.
Dan Cobb stated that discussions on intensity of use etc will be ones to have further as this proposal progresses. He asked about the abutting properties. Rick Liberty indicated them on his plans including May Meadows. They are hoping to connect to Libby Hill with trails and they intend to work with the abutters to not disturb their lifestyle and consider the impact to them. He outlined the acquired property which can help access to Crystal Lake with snowmobile trails. Dan Cobb suggested conversations with the Town on the ball fields etc. so that there will not be too much duplication.
Rick Liberty commented on improving the area around Stimson Hall and possibly improving the ball field. If this were to be possible it may eliminate the need for playing fields on their property.
Doug Webster outlined his recommended discussion points (page 7 of the Planning Board notes dated Oct 11, 2011) and outlined some of the items that may need further consideration including lighting, walking paths and the like.
Don Hutchings asked what the Board can do for them on this process. Rick Liberty stated that they are committed to transparency, collaboration and support of this process. They are working on expanding their website to provide more details and keep people informed. This project is about and for the community and they want to enhance the community through this project. The website is www.libertyfamilyfoundation.org
- A request by Storey Brothers Trucking, represented by Gorrill-Palmer, for a gravel pit located off Legrow Road (near #39) as shown on (new) Map/Lot # 027-020-023-000 located in a Rural Residential and Agriculture and two Shoreland Districts; Resource Protection and Limited Residential Zoning Districts.
This item was discussed first on the agenda.
Don asked the Board about a site walk. Thursday, October 20th at 4:30pm prior to the Planning Board’s workshop was determined.
John Redlon asked if this will be the only notification about the site walk. Don and Doug stated that it meets the legal timeframe notification it will be posted on Gray Cable and on the Town’s website.
Steve Griffin, 63 Legrow Rd. stated that as a dead-end road, with little traffic, he is concerned that this gravel pit will ruin the tranquility he currently has. He expressed concerns about noise, well and water table, safety, the value of his property with the gravel pit being located there, and the number of trucks. The road is inadequate for heavy traffic.
Joanne Grant, 6 Ashley Dr. stated that she supports Steve Griffin’s comments and is concerned about the numerous trucks on this road being a safety issue for the children there as well as her property values.
Brad Velek, Legrow Rd. stated that he has put in a lot of work on his house and property and the location of the gravel pit. He indicated that the proposed entrance is too small, and dangerous. The road is in poor condition to accommodate the number of trucks going in and out. He is also concerned about the noise level, in particular, early in the day.
Amanda St. Peter, 43 Legrow Rd stated that she owns an income property and the adjoining property is being converted to condos and their values will be impacted.
She cited a 2004 Portland Press Herald article stated that there are 17 gravel pits in Gray and Storrey Brothers is a Cumberland Business.
Crystal McIntire, 27 Legrow Rd has concerns about the traffic impacting those who want to walk (children, walking pets etc). She would like to know the impact on her well and foundation from the traffic.
Lynn Gallagher, 13 Legrow Rd. returned back to the Town and her neighborhood for the community value. She also asked about the economic impact (IE: real estate taxes, road maintenance) and asked what the economic benefit is to the Town. She is also concerned about her animals, and accidents and the overall public safety. She also commented on the long term wetland effects.
Normand Tanguay, 39 Legrow Rd (abutting the property in question) commented on the haul back provision as part of their proposal. He is concerned about the types of materials that may be stored there and the potential environmental impact in the Town.
Catherine Murray, 63 Legrow Rd expressed similar concerns as the others. She stated that she understood that this meeting was for the Board to determine if the application is complete. She has extensive questions on the application.
Don Hutchings stated that the site walk will help them with the initial information on the application and then following that, a public hearing will be held at a subsequent meeting.
Doug Webster and John Redlon expressed concerns about taking public comment without having discussed anything with the applicant. The Board is on legal thin ice by proceeding this way.
Dawn McGraw, 27 Legrow Rd, stated that her property will run parallel to the property in the application. She stated that a Town staff person stated to her that someone can do what they wish with their property.
Normand Tanguay asked the Board also do the site walk at the entrance to Foster Hill Rd.
Don reiterated that the site walk will be done.
At 10:05pm, Al Palmer arrived to give an overview of the project.
He indicated that they propose to develop a gravel extraction project on 30 acres. The site has 50% open field, and borders near the 7th tee of Spring Meadows. The total area used would be 11 acres to the back of the property. There would be a gravel access road. He outlined where the Resource Protection Zone is located on this property. No gravel work would take place in the Shoreland Zoning area. It requires a 75 foot setback from a stream and a 50 foot setback of other property lines. They would construct berms around the area. 3 test pits have been created for water testing. The operations would be used during off peak times (December/January) to gather materials to bring to their Cumberland location.
The anticipated life of extraction and restoration would be 10 years. He outlined the progression of the extraction over the life of the pit. Upon completion the area would be reclaimed and restored. It is possible that in the future, home lots could be developed. He also presented visuals indicating the vegetation around the property and the brook at different times of the year.
They are working the Town and MaineDOT on options: 1. Improving the top of Foster Hill Rd to create a proper intersection. Option 2: Take Legrow Rd and tie it in to Route 100 with Foster Hill as a dead-end with access across from Dean & Allyn. They will work on this further and bring a proposal back to the Planning Board. He discussed the necessary permitting for such a project.
Don Hutchings stated that they will do a site walk and come back to the Board. Al Palmer stated that they met with those who attended this meeting.
Al Palmer asked if they can proceed with the peer review and would like their recommendations. Doug stated that the clarification is to determine which elements require peer review. (#4, page 13 of the Planning Board notes dated Oct 11, 2011). The Board stated that they support peer review.
Doug commented that there is a procedural conditional versus allowed use issue about mineral extraction vis a vis the Town’s Ordinances. This will need some discussion.
Don Hutchings commented on the Town’s attorney’s comments on this and others agreed that this should be discussed further when the public is here.
John Redlon moved; Dan Cobb seconded
Motion to adjourn
5 Yes
The meeting ended at 10:28pm
| 
