Town of Fryeburg Maine
Settled 1763,  Incorporated 11 January 1777

   Thank you for visiting the Fryeburg Planing Board archive page.

Back

TOWN OF FRYEBURG PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES FROM AUGUST 30TH, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm, and began with the approval of the minutes. Ms. C. Doughty moved to approve the minutes of 6/28/05 as amended, which was seconded by Mr. P. Hill. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. C. Doughty moved to accept the 7/26/05 minutes as amended, which was seconded by Mr. G. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Raymond provided the members of the board with the MMA Handbook information on conflicts of interest and bias due the fact that he had received calls and observed letters in the local paper suggesting board members Carmen Doughty, Hannah Warren, Gene Bergoffen, and David Andrews, might have conflicts or bias. He asked for anyone with concerns to bring them forth. No individuals spoke.

POLAND SPRING (NESTLE) PRESENTATION and REVIEW, continued
Tom Brennan provided 7 pages of supplemental material from Poland Spring.(Nestle) John Edgerton representing Poland Spring (Nestle), went through a detailed presentation discussing the proposed project, including history of pumping facilities and the purchase of the land. He then went through section 16 of the ordinance entailing the requirements for any facilities cited as an omitted use.

Poland Spring (Nestle) then responded to questions from the board. Mr. Bergoffen then proposed three questions relating to the noise, the driveway, and the fleet operation. In regards to the noise, the question was what the noise level should be. Poland Spring (Nestle) said that a study had been done, and that it was not estimated to be problematic. In addition, to alleviate concerns of residents at night, a vegetative buffer could be considered. The question regarding the driveway was whether 90 degrees was enough of a turning radius. According to Poland Spring (Nestle), such would be enough to see in both directions. In regards to the Fleet Operation, the question was about third party operators, what number they would be, and how would they be selected. According to Poland Spring (Nestle), these operators have good safety records and they use them for grocery transports. The reason for these operators is that the summer is a busy period that requires increased activity. Poland Springs prefers to use local drivers, in the case of Fryeburg those drivers would be coming from Hollis. Poland Springs (Nestle) will terminate if records are inaccurate. Currently Poland Springs (Nestle) has been using contract carriers for 2-5% of loads. For the most part, the fleet will be company owned and operated. In regards to a question about a Conway Daily Sun article Tom Brennan, representing Poland Springs (Nestle) stated redistribution of trucks in Fryeburg wouldn’t necessarily mean an overall reduction in the number now traveling Rts 5/113 and 302. Except for the facility site development Poland Springs (Nestle) said that there would be very little change to the remainder of the property.

Upon discussion with the Board concerning Section 14 compatible uses in the Rural Residential District Poland Springs (Nestle) assured the board that it has set the facility back from the highway, away from the neighbors and located the driveway so not be prominent visually and to “fit in” with the residential area.

At this time, Poland Springs (Nestle) agreed to answer questions from the public.
Poland Springs (Nestle) Representatives responded to questions from Mr. Philip Merrill, attorney for a group of citizens from “East” Fryeburg. He presented a 5-page summary of concerns from his clients. Poland springs (Nestle) also responded to citizen questions about truck frequency, an entrance gate, the affect on area beauty, environmental impact studies, affects on the roadside vegetation leading to the facility, the size of trucks, the increase of danger to people using the Hemlock Bridge Road intersection, the potential of a future bottling plant, the silo capacity, and the amount of gallons to be withdrawn per day.
In regards to truck frequency, Poland Springs (Nestle) said that it used the 50 trucks in 10 hours (during peak periods) number to be conservative, likely it will occur over 24 hours. The gate will be placed some distance down the driveway; and the facility will be set back as to not affect the local beauty. Poland Springs (Nestle) has already conducted an environmental impact study and has met DEP requirements, it is the Town’s responsibility to regulate any additional requirements. In addition, the facility has met DOT requirements in regards to the facility access being at a safe location. In regards to citizens’ concerns regarding buffers and noise, Poland Springs (Nestle) was willing to consider putting up buffers or barriers to reduce noise if required. At this point Poland Springs (Nestle) does not plan on putting in a bottling plant.

At this point, the Board discussed the possibility of a peer review that was brought up at a previous meeting. Mr.Bergoffen and Ms. Warren worked on aspects for a peer review and have sought out potential contractors. Potential contractors considered were a Mr. Tom Gorrill (Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers), Mr. Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), and Mr. Jack Murphy, PE. Mr. Gorrill declined the bid and felt that the DOT permit was issued correctly. Mr. Murphy felt that he could not complete with the scope of Work discussed; Mr. Murphy proposed $2600 for traffic study review. Mr. Smith proposed $2200 for traffic study review. Noise investigation would cost an additional $2200.The recommendation before the board was to go with the Wilbur Smith Associates proposal.

Mr. Gene Bergoffen moved that the board conduct a peer review of the Rte 302 traffic elements including the intersection at Hemlock Bridge Rd. providing that there are no conflicts of interest and that the scope of work is to include all scope of work within the peer review. In addition, it is to be noted that is not a new study but would be a review of the traffic study analysis to include other roadways. Ms. Gregory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Poland Spring agreed to provide sound information from another facility similar to the subject facility for the boards review.
Mr. Gene Bergoffen moved to hold a public hearing at the next scheduled meeting, September 27th, which was seconded by Ms.Doughty. The motion passed unanimously. The board agreed that if the additional information requested from the applicant is not submitted seven days prior to the next meeting, the public hearing will continue to the next meeting. Currently, the application is complete and the Board is requesting additional information.

PRE-APPLICATION FOR FRYEBURG WATER COMPANY
Mr. Hugh Hastings would like to divide a five-acre lot with a restriction against doing it from an earlier Board decision. The Boards counsel indicated the Board had the authority to waive or lift the restriction. Mr. Bergoffen moved to hold a public hearing, which was seconded by Mr. Peter Hill and passed unanimously. The Public hearing was scheduled for 9/20/05 at 7:00PM at the Rescue Barn.
.
RESTRICTION ON PUMP #3
The board determined that a restriction on development of land where the Water Co.’s “Pump #3” is located was not intended to restrict the approval granted by the Board for a “treatment area” addition. Mr. Bergoffen moved the restriction be waived as it didn’t affect the intent of the addition. Ms. Doughty offered the second. The motion passed unanimously.

WATER POLICY
The board discussed the need to draft an amendment to the water ordinance and would like recommendations from Peter Garret for sustainability procedures on the Aquifer.

The motion to adjourn was made at 11:00, which was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Reviewed and approved as amended 11/29/05
H T Raymond Chairman

Back