Minutes
Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Members Present: Don Girouard, Vice Chairperson; Rene Ittenbach, Michael O’Toole, Peter Scontras, Donna Bailey, and Bob Hamblen, City Planner. Absent: Neil Schuster, Marty Devlin
1. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman: per Section 4-34.C (6) of Saco City Code, a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected by the Board.
Peter moved to nominate Neil Schuster as Chairperson, and Don Girouard as Vice Chairperson, seconded by Rene. Motion passes 4-1 (Don abstained)
2. Minutes of Dec. 21, 2015.
No minutes were submitted.
3. Old Business: Site Plan review of a proposed 6,000 s.f. commercial building at 730 Portland Road. Tax Map 43, Lot 6. Zoned B-6. Applicant is Michael Doherty. Item was tabled at the Board’s Dec. 21. Meeting.
Hamblen: The Board reviewed this application at its Dec. 15, 2015 meeting, and chose to table further review after requesting that a stormwater management plan be submitted. The applicant has had BH2M do a plan, Joe Laverriere has reviewed the plan, and provided comments dated Jan. 7, 2016.
The abutters to the south, the Morse’s, remain concerned about the impact of this development on their motel property, and have submitted a 12/13/15 letter listing their concerns.
Applicant Michael Doherty proposes to re-develop the 1.7 acre parcel at 730 Portland Road with the construction of a 6,000 s.f. building that would house an “Accessory Retail Sales of Goods Manufactured on the Premises” use. Included would be gravel display areas for the small utility building that “Shed Happens” would be selling, a 3,626 s.f. paved parking area, lighting and landscaping.
This project triggers the need for site plan review due to proposed new construction of a nonresidential building in excess of 1,000 s.f. The building is subject to design review, and building elevations have been submitted.
The stormwater plan submitted clarifies that a future building expansion is being taken into account, and consequently 16,000 s.f. of impervious will contribute to runoff from the site. A proposed grassed under drain filter would be located along the southerly property line, and outlet to the west.
The applicant has agreed to remove the debris from the westerly property line that Joe has identified in his comments.
Determination of Completeness
The Board voted to waive the following items, then to find the application for site plan review complete at the Dec. 15 meeting:
1104-1.2(c) sketch map; 1104-1.2(i) the location and delineation of natural resource areas; 1104-1.9 landscape plan; 1104-1.11 location of sign; 1104-1.12 waste disposal plan; 1104-1.13 medium intensity soils plan; 1104-1.18 lighting plan.
Design Review –No decision was made as to completeness of this application on 12/15. Materials proposed for exterior of building not specified in full – what is the siding on the easterly protuberance that includes the front entrance?
Don Girouard found a couple of corrections in Bob’s memorandum.
1. on page 2 of your cover memo in the packet, you describe a potential motion to waive the specification of exterior building materials required by "728.D". I believe the reference should be "729.D".
2. While the Planning Board certainly can decide whether or not an applicant complies with any standard specified in Section 729, I'm not sure the language anywhere in Section 729 gives us any jurisdiction to waive any of the submission requirements of 729.D. Therefore, any motion to waive submission of the specifications on exterior building materials is probably not one the Planning Board can act on or approve or disapprove. This seems to be a threshold issue, and I'll be interested in hearing input from you and other Board members. If 729 doesn't give us the jurisdiction to waive, then perhaps a future housekeeping issue could be to revise 729 to give us that latitude as does, for instance, Section 1105 for Site Plan.
3. Section 729.D.e specifies that submissions shall include color photographs of existing structures belonging to or being used by the applicantfor similar businesses in locations outside of Saco. The applicant, in his January 15th response to the concerns of the Morse’s, mentions his shop in Standish. The requisite photos of that shop should be made part of the submissions.
4. Section 729.F requires the Planning Board to find that the standards of 729.E have been adequately addressed prior to any final actionon site plan. Hopefully, theapplicant can deal with specifying exterior building materials and getting photos of his Standish shop before the meeting Tuesday night and at least submit them during the meeting so we don't have to postpone action on Design Standards and Site Plan.
The Board wanted to hear from Joe Laverriere about the stormwater on site.
Joe Laverriere, city engineer: This is a nice improvement to the site. It doesn’t have any Stormwater facilities on it currently; for quantity or quality. With this development, it will give us an opportunity to get some treatment on that lot. So he will be treating all the newly developed area, which will help.
Bob: The abutters have raised some legitimate concerns. There is a photo of existing arborvitae plants along the shared property line, on the motel property. Additional plantings, or a fence, could be considered. A copy of the Morse’s’ letter raising concerns is in the packet.
Regarding design review, the building elevations submitted lack only labeling so as to determine exterior building materials. Perhaps the applicant can supply that information at the meeting. The Board should carefully review the standards for design review pertaining to roof and materials.
Mike: Doherty, applicant: 729-D references materials on the building plan. The front of the building will be 20ft x 30ft, and will be dark grey Split faced concrete. The main bldg. will be 60ft x 90ft with 24 gauge steel panels with a break of concrete block every 50ft, and galvanized roofing. The material is noted on the elevation plans.
The Board wanted to see pictures of his Standish shop, which he brought. He hasn’t had any complaints of noise and his shop is in a residential neighborhood.
Mike: “I move that the Board find the application for design review submitted by applicant Michael Doherty to be complete”, seconded by Donna. Motion passes 5-0.
Rene: will you be storing any materials outside? Mike: No
Peter: the low pitch of the building concerns him. And it’s just a building made of metal sheets. With some of the snow we had, especially last year, will it be able to hold that weight? Mike D.: This is a completely engineered steel building, made to meet and exceed snow loads, even with that pitch.
Rene: All the buildings in the Industrial Park are made the same way.
Don: According to the ordinance Sec. 729-C, the intent of the standards; He doesn’t believe the building is visually compatible to any of the surrounding buildings in that area. It fits more in an Industrial Park, not along Rte. One.
Rene: Move to open the public hearing, seconded by Donna. Motion passes 5-0
Kevin Morse, Abutter and owner of the Wagon Wheel Motel: He has already received an approval from the Planning Board, to build 9 more cabins on his lot that are not yet built, but have already been reserved. The applicants building will be 75ft from my property line. This manufacturing business will definitely impact his property and his motel business. He wants to make sure that the applicant follows all the rules of the Conditional Use standards, Sec. 901-5
Bob: He is not subject to a Conditional Use, but Article 11 Site Plan. Some of the standards are very similar, but not exact.
Don suspended the public hearing.
Peter: If he had a business there, he wouldn’t be happy about it either. Is it possible to shift?
your building to the right? That might help to hide some of the activity from the abutting site. It’s just not a place to put a manufacturing building.
Mike D: Trucks need to go out that way. A lot of thought went into designing this lot and the flow of the trucks coming and going. He purposefully designed it so as not to impede the Motel.
Mike O: Move to close the public hearing, seconded by Donna. Motion passes 5-0
Discussion
Donna: The York County Federal Credit Union installed a sound barrier fence between the Saco Motel and their site. I think that would work. Bob: He will contact the engineer for the Credit Union to find out the specifications of the fence.
Don: have you ever manufactured this project in Saco, or on this site? Mike D: No. What are your hours of operation? Mike D: He has one shift 8am to 4:30pm
Don: the B-6 zone was geared for just some business. This would be considered Light Industrial. Bob: B-6 zone has Light Industrial under Conditional Use. Dick Lambert, Code Officer sees it as Retail, with manufacturing on site. Don: The point is, “how does this business affect the surrounding area?” Mike O: It should be a concern whether it is Conditional Use or Site Plan. Don: He disagrees. It belongs under Site Plan, but with conditions. There hasn’t been any manufacturing on this property. Retail sales are permitted. It should have been Light Industrial. We need to look at the Site Plan standards. What will the hours of operation be? Mike D: Manufacturing, 8:00am – 4:30pm Monday thru Friday, and Retail, 8:00am – 5:00pm Monday thru Friday and 10:00am – 4:00pm on Saturday.
Peter: He asked Mr. Morse what most concerned him; the visual impact or noise impact? Kevin Morse: Noise impact. How would you feel if you paid $2000 on a vacation, just to listen to a fork lift outside your window?
Donna: She would like to see the noise reducing fence installed. The owners of the Saco Motel seem to be pleased with it. And it’s visually appealing as well.
Kevin Morse: May I make a suggestion? Because I don’t want to battle Mr. Doherty in court. Just move the building 25ft to the North, put up a fence, and keep any sheds on the left hand side 75ft back, keeping in-line with his cabins. Your shed storage area completely covers my cabins. He’s not asking for much. That’s only 35ft.
Mike O: He is ok with all the Standards under Site Plan, except for off-site impacts.
Rene: If I were to propose fencing, it would have to go up to the buffer zone, which would certainly cover the cabins If I proposed any kind of buffering between your property and Mr. Doherty’s, I would say the fence should go almost to, but not quite up to Rte. One. Up enough so it blocks the dust, the visual, and the sound from the property, which is going to block your property anyway. So whether Mr. Doherty puts his cabins further up is going to be a mute point. Either there is a fence, or there isn’t. If there is a fence, it’s going to block Mr. Morse’s cabins anyway. In order to get the greatest impact, I would think you would want the fence to go as close to Rte.One as possible.
The Board discussed where the fence should be place, and determined that on the southerly border from ¾” rebar 6” tall, to the easterly most 5/8” capped rebar flush #2057 that is noted on the plan.
Don: should we condition the applicant on shift and hours of operation? What type of fence? Times of deliveries?
Mike D: He can designate the time of deliveries not to be before 10:00am or after 4:00pm. Deliveries are 1 or 2 times a week, but sometimes none, and sometimes 4 deliveries a day. It depends.
The Board discussed the hours of operation, and whether to limit the hours.
Rene: We shouldn’t hinder the applicant if he needs his people to work overtime after 4:30pm.
Donna: “I move that the Board grant approval for the Shed Happens site plan based on the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval dated January 19, 2016.” With the conditions that the applicant install a sound barrier fence, as discussed tonight to start at the southerly border of property from the ¾” rebar, 6” tall, to the easterly most capped rebar #2057 that is noted on the plan October, 2015, and that the hours of Manufacturing be 8am to 4:30pm Monday through Friday and that Retail be 8am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday, and 10am to 4:00pm on Saturday, seconded by Mike O’Toole. Motion passes 4-0 (Peter was absent for the vote)
Don: for the record: He agrees with the Site plan, but not the Design Standard.
4. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plan review of the proposed Heath Overlook subdivision off Buxton Road. Applicant is J. Thomas Scrivener, LLC. Tax Map 88, Lots 14 and 14-2. Zoned R-1d.
Peter returned to take part in the review of this item
Hamblen: This subdivision is apparently an indicator of an improving economy, as the project got as far as an Oct. 2, 2007 preliminary plan approval as a 10 lot subdivision. A condition of that approval was that the developer provides a connector in the form of a fifty foot wide right of way to the abutting parcel to the west prior to submission of the final plan. That was the subject of a reconsideration request in November of that year, which ended in a tie vote, therefore denied.
An obvious issue given the location of the project on busy Rte. 112 is that of traffic impacts, and the nearby intersection of Rte. 112 and Jenkins Road. As was the case for the Ryan’s Farm II, Warren Woods, and Willow Grove subdivisions, the location of this project qualifies it for an impact fee that may be utilized by the City for future improvements to the intersection: signalization and a turning lane in Rte. 112. This is included as a condition of approval.