APPROVED VERSION

MINUTES TOPSHAM PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 2001 ______

MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Connelie; Ronald Bisson; David Giroux; Marie Pennell; Peter Sherwood and David York.

MEMBERS ABSENT: All Present.

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Office Assistant, Doreen Wilson; Chairman of the Board of Appeals, Donald Russell; Recording Secretary Pat Williams and others.

A regular meeting of the Topsham Planning Board was held at the Williams-Cone School Gym on Tuesday, February 27, 2001. Chairman Thomas Connelie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING

1. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 13, 2001 MEETING.

Motion was made by Marie Pennell, seconded by Peter Sherwood and it was

VOTED

To approve the minutes from the February 13, 2001 meeting as corrected.

(Corrections included: Pg. 4, Item 2, number 2): add the word "approximately" before 200,000. No. 3) to read: "Application for approximately 200,000 square foot retail space; the tenants for the three buildings not yet announced."

Pg. 5: remove the last dotted concern and replace with "Chairman Connelie asked if there were plans to build a 12-bay gas station in the mall. (Mr. Wiercinski responded there were no such plans.)"

Pg. 6: first concern, add after "if" "a total of."

Pg. 6: eighth concern, add to end of first sentence: "at the I-95 Interchange."

The Board moved into a Workshop Session. WORKSHOP

1 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION

1. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE RESOURCE PROTECTION BOUNDARY ON THE RANDALL'S FORESIDE ROAD PROPERTY (MAP U08, LOT 20). THE TOPSHAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS TAKEN AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THE 11.65 ACRES.

Mike Steitzer, President of the Library Association made a presentation to the Board on the unanimous decision of the Library Board to build the new library on the Randall Property on the Foreside Road. The Library has an option in place to purchase the land.

A meeting and site visit of the land was conducted on February 23, 2001 with Richard Baker, Shoreland Zoning Coordinator for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Richard Green. Also attending the meeting were Bob Faunce, Doreen Wilson, and Linda Prybylo.

Mr. Steitzer entered a letter into the record from Mr. Baker as follows: “February 23, 2001 to Linda Prybylo, Re: Zoning Associated with the Prospective Library Site in Topsham. Dear Linda: I am writing to summarize my thoughts regarding the shoreland zoning requirements for the proposed library facility, based on our meeting at the Topsham Town Office this morning. The proposed library is located along the Androsoggin River off the Foreside Road on land, in part, zoned for Resource Protection.

After reviewing the existing flood plain and the National Wetland Inventory maps for the area, as well as making an actual site visit, it is clear that the Town has more restrictive shoreland zoning districting on the property than the Department of Environmental Protection’s minimum standards require. If the Town wishes to modify the districting to be only as restrictive as the State’s standards require, it may do so.

Currently, the Town’s shoreland zoning map appears to extend the Resource Protection District beyond the floodplain of the river and its associated small stream, as well as beyond the forested wetland associated with the river and stream. The Resource Protection zone also extends beyond the steep embankment along the river and stream. The Town can reduce the Resource Protection District to include only those areas that are in the 100-year floodplain; those areas on slopes greater than 20% and those areas that are associated with the forested wetland along the stream and river.

Even after our site visit, there is still some question how far up the small stream there is tidal influence. Areas of the stream that are tidally influence must have a 250-foot shoreland zone extending from that area of tidal influence. However, where the stream is not tidally influenced, it is simply a “tributary stream.” Tributary streams within the shoreland zone have a setback requirement of 75-feet for an structural development. However, it is my understanding that your planned construction would occur in the existing field area which is well beyond the required 75-foot setback area.

Please note that if the Town rezones the field area that falls within the shoreland zone to a residential zone, it will also need to change the shoreland ordinance to permit governmental and institutional uses in a residential district. If that change is made to the Town’s ordinance, I believe the Department would approve it. If you have further

2 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION

questions you may contact me at 287-7730. Sincerely, Richard P. Baker, Shoreland Zoning Coordinator."

Mr. Steitzer distributed maps showing a 250-foot setback from the stream and also a 75- foot setback. It was his opinion that the land does not have to be rezoned, but that the Library simply needs a Conditional Use Permit from the Board of Appeals on that portion which falls in the R-2 Zone. This would be after the line setback line is redefined.

Mr. Steitzer said that Mr. Faunce interprets that the land was measured and zoned 250 feet back from the stream but that the State only requires a 75-foot setback. The floodplain lies within the 250-foot setback.

During comments from the Board, Mr. Sherwood said he had no objection to the library being built where the Library Board wished as long as the building is not placed too near the bankings. Mr. Steitzer agreed to work out more detailed maps with Mr. Faunce and to return to the Board at their March 13 meeting for approval before presenting the request to the Board of Selectmen to be placed on the Warrant for the May Town Meeting.

During receipt of public comment, Suzanne Burnham expressed concern over the possible increase in traffic on the Foreside Road. She added that she hoped the library would build a good-looking building with an appropriate setback so the area will not be too brightly lit. Ms. Burnham urged the Board to be sure there was adequate buffering around the parking area.

Ray Chapman told the Board he was excited about having the library in his neighborhood and asked that there be appropriate access for the elderly members of the public.

Mr. Steitzer said he will work with Mr. Faunce and will seek the advise of Attorney Hornbeck, if necessary, before coming back before the Planning Board. Another site walk will be arranged when weather conditions are appropriate. Mr. Faunce’s February 24 memo to the Board said he recommended that the Planning Board approve the revision to the Shoreland Zoning Boundaries on the property as well as the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit governmental and institutional uses in the LR District, subject to site plan review.

2. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE SKETCH P LAN APPLICATION FOR WA12, LLC OFFICE BUILDING (MAP R-5, LOT 21D-2), 34 PARK DRIVE.

Memo from Bob Faunce, dated February 25, 2001, was reviewed In the memo Mr. Faunce made reference to Lot 2 having two drainage easements, which reflect the presence of several large drainage swales on the site. The swales are located towards the front of the lot and will require improvements to be set back away from the street. Mr. Faunce was concerned that this may result in some incursion into the 50-foot rear setback, which is required when an MUC district is adjacent to a residential district. The memo mentioned that the Planning Board has the authority to modify setbacks under Sections 175-13 and 225-71 and that the applicant has requested such modification. The

3 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION applicant is proposing to minimize the intrusion into the setback and has submitted a signoff from the abutting residential property owner.

Mr. Faunce’s memo also mentioned that access to the building site from the front of the lot would be difficult because of the presence of the swales, probably necessitating the construction of a bridge structure. Mr. Faunce noted that when he visited the site he noted that the abutter has constructed a drainage swale on the applicant's lot. He said the applicant should address the presence of this apparent encroachment prior to submission of a complete application.

The Board told the applicant that he would need to submit drainage calculations and a plan and provide for on-site drainage facilities.

Steve Pelletier, the Vice President of Woodlot Alternatives spoke to the Board and reviewed the sketch plan. Mr. Pelletier said he wanted to present the project and respond to any questions the Board might have in order to continue with the plan. Woodlot Alternatives plans to begin construction this coming summer.

Mr. Sherwood inquired if the building was at least 35-feet from the slope on the property. Mr. Pelletier said he wasn’t sure but would make certain it would be.

Mr. Pelletier said Woodlot Alternatives is a consulting business and that most of their work is done away from the property. He shows where UPS truck deliveries and pick ups would be made, reviewed parking and the general parameters of the building.

Mr. Pelletier questioned the need for additional drainage on the site. He said there are already two drainage ditches on site which act as a detention pond.

Don Russell asked Mr. Pelletier if the project had gone before the TDI Board. Mr. Pelletier said the project received unanimous approval from the TDI Board. Mr. Russell asked if Mr. Pelletier was familiar with the written covenant, which is recorded on the deed of the property. Mr. Pelletier said he was not aware there was a covenant but would investigate before returning before the Board.

The Design Consultants on the project include DiDonato Architects from Kennebunkport, Ouellet Associates, from Brunswick and Sevee & Maher Engineers from Cumberland.

4 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION

3. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE 2001 AMENDMENT REVISIONS TO SECTIONS 225-17a, 60.3.C, 14,B, AND SECTIONS 191-5, 10 AS SUGGESTED BY ROBERT FAUNCE, INTERIM TOWN PLANNER.

The Board moved back into regular session to discuss Item 3 in order to be able to take action.

Suggested revisions and changes in the ordinance to be presented at the upcoming May Town Meeting were discussed. Mr. Faunce had prepared suggested wording which the Board reviewed. The changes suggested in Section 174-4 Applicability - were acceptable as written.

Section 225-17A, 11. was proposed as follows: 11. Parking and drives shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line except that parking and drives may not be located within a side or rear setback adjacent to a parcel in residential use.

Ms. Wilson noted that some typo corrections were necessary but they did not have to go before Town Meeting as they had already been voted at a previous Town Meeting but simply not correctly typed in the ordinance.

Ms. Wilson will work with Mr. Faunce on Footnote 11 and bring acceptable wording back to the Board for review at the March 13 meeting.

On 225-60.3.C, Mr. Sherwood asked for wording to make it necessary to measure the height of a tower from the top of the tower back to the bottom of the ground, not simply to the structure which the tower is mounted.

On 175-6.A and B – The Board was in unanimous agreement to extend the time of review as written.

On 191-5, the Board was in unanimous agreement to increase number of preliminary plans from 17 to 18 and to add the wording “Such submission shall be 21 days prior to a scheduled Planning Board meeting.

On 191-10, the Board was in agreement to changing from 17 sets of prints to 18 and also supported the 21-days prior to a scheduled meeting wording.

On 125-14.B – Changes to Non-conforming Uses. The Board did not reach an agreement on the suggested wording provided for 225-14.B. Don Russell, Chairman of the Board of Appeals said the item was worded well. However, fine tuning the use to such a fine degree would restrict what type of business goes into a former use even more than the present restriction. This change will be discussed further at the March meeting.

5 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION

4. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY DISCUSS OLD BUSINESS.

Howard Sports

Memo, dated 2/24/01, to the Board from Bob Faunce reviewed history of Howard Sports as follows: “The Planning Board discussed this project at its February 13 meeting. The applicant wishes to revise one of the conditions of approval to permit year-round use of the fabric dome. The Board expressed a number of concerns at the meeting and requested the CEO to review the life, safety and sanitary standards that should apply to a structure in permanent use. The Board was also concerned that existing buffering would be inadequate for a permanent building. The CEO has determined that the structure is in substantial conformance with applicable BOCA standards as long as occupancy is limited to sporting events and no more than 300 individuals. This would, of course, prohibit uses such as auctions, conventions, meetings and other non-sporting events. While the State Plumbing Codes does not specifically address the number of plumbing fixtures required for a dome, a place of assembly with a similar occupant load would require seven toilets, one urinal, three lavatories and four drinking water fountains. Since the applicant is proposing to use the dome year-round, it should be treated as a permanent building. Therefore, I recommend that, as a condition of approval, these improvements be installed within the dome on instructions attached to the dome. Portable toilets or existing facilities in any other building are not acceptable alternatives. In addition, I asked the CEO to suggest to the applicant that he retain a landscape architect to prepare a plan for effectively buffering views of the dome from Route 201. The Board should be prepared to provide guidance to the applicant on these issues but delay action until the March 13 meeting. “

A memo is also in file from CEO Bruce Lavoie in conjunction with the above statements. Mr. Lavoie said “I have no objections to the dome being utilized on a year-round basis for sporting events providing back up systems are maintained and the occupant load is not increased prior to approval of the State Fire Marshall and local officials.”

Mr. Howard asked the Board to grant approval with the facility using the bathroom facilities already in place in the former Roller World building and proposed to build a covered walkway from the dome to the RollerWorld entrance.

Following discussion, Chairman Connelie asked for comments from members of the Board.

Mr. Bisson said he didn’t see why the applicant should be required to put toilets in the dome if they already have appropriate nearby facilities. All other Board Members said they would require at least a stand-alone rest room building with separate facilities for male and female use.

Exterior lighting was discussed. Mr. Howard said there are existing light poles which the former owner of Roller World used but several of the bulbs have burned out. He said they will get them working. The Board was in agreement that they wanted to receive a lighting plan done by a registered engineering according to appropriate codes.

6 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION

During a discussion of the requirement for trees in the parking lot, the Board was in agreement that it would waiver that requirement.

The Board asked the applicant to provide a landscaping plan to effectively buffer views of the dome from Route 201. Chairman Connelie asked if there was appropriate buffering next to the Atwood Road. The applicant said there were trees in place but that he was willing to construct a three-foot berm with additional trees.

Route 196 Rezoning

The written petition from property owners on the west side of Route 196 asking that the westerly side of 196 be rezoned from R-2 to Rural Commercial was discussed.

A memo dated February 26, 2001 from Bob Faunce was reviewed. Mr. Faunce said that since the petition did not have the required number of signatures, the Board is not required to make a formal recommendation or pass it on to the Selectmen.

After further discussion, motion was made by Mrs. Pennell, seconded by Mr. York and it was

VOTED

To deny the request for Rezoning on the westerly side of Route 196.

(Voting in favor: Pennell, York, Sherwood and Connelie. Voting against: Giroux and Bisson.)

It was noted that since the Board denied the request for rezoning, the applicant can now petition the Board of Selectmen or obtain signatures on a new petition of at least 5% of the number of attendees of the last Town Meeting and place the item on a warrant for a future Town Meeting.

5. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY DISCUSS NEW BUSINESS.

Peer Review for Traffic on Wal-Mart Study

Chairman Connelie told the Board that Mr. Faunce is still seeking someone to do the peer review on the Wal-Mart Project. Tom Gorrill will not be able to do the study due to a possible conflict of interest, as he is involved with another project relative to the site. The name of Peter Hendrick was mentioned. Mr. Hendrick was involved in the Topsham Pilot Project Study in 1995 that addressed plans for the mall. The Board was in agreement to hire Mr. Hendrick to conduct the Peer Review Study.

Letters were entered into the record as follows:

 February 25, 2001 from Larry and Marj Wooten expressing concerns related to the Wal-Mart Project.

7 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins. APPROVED VERSION

 February 14, 2001 from Richard L. and Sherry Thacker asking to be sent any and all minutes of meetings regarding the Wal-Mart Project.  February 12, 2001 from Kenneth J. Freye, Manager, Property Management of Central Maine Power Company asking that the Planning Board make any required permits or approvals conditional upon satisfactory resolution of the issues and completion of written agreements with CMP.

The Board returned to a Workshop Session, but as there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Williams, Recording Secretary

8 2/27/01 Pl. Brd. Mins.