Town of Fryeburg Maine
Settled 1763,  Incorporated 11 January 1777

   Thank you for visiting the Fryeburg Planing Board archive page.

Back

TOWN OF FRYEBURG, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

Public Hearing for Poland Springs Application

The public hearing was called to order at 7:00 PM, at the Fryeburg fire station.
Planning Board members present were T. Raymond, Chair, C Doughty, P Hill, C Gregory, G Bergoffen, H Warren, Alt and D Andrews, Alt.

Chairman Raymond handed out a procedure the hearing would follow.

Presentation by Applicant:
Tom Brennen provided an overview of the Nestle application and proceedings thus far. Additionally, he gave the board a record of Poland Spring’s previous presentation and stated that it would provide additional requested information. Todd Edgerton provided an explanation of the supplemental information. The additional information included noise data, data on trucking impacts, geotechnical information on soil suitability, a statement on tree growth intentions, confirmation from DOT that confirmed that the proposed shoulder width was adequate, data on acceleration of tanker trucks, response to data on future public access—no plans for posting, and historical truck volumes’ impact—unfortunately DOT has not been tracking differences in vehicle factorization but has assessed the impact of vehicle generators.

After the applicant’s presentation the meeting opened to questions.
Gene Bergoffen went through items mentioned in the peer review of the traffic study. The first item was in regards to the reviewers desire to supply additional information on those crash reports with Nestle’s comments. Poland Springs has already come with this information, as well as the raw data and analysis of said data, and is willing to supply it to the board. The second item is in regards to the passing zone and whether or not it should be allowed. According to Randy Denton from the MDOT, the proposed location of the access driveway does not affect it, he indicated passing lanes are only affected by the sight distance and sight distance is acceptable for the proposed location. Gene reminded the Board that this is a general concern, and presents the need for signage warning of trucks entering and restricting use of “jake brakes”. The third item is in regards to the need for improvement or pavement overlay. According to Poland Springs, the MDOT already has plans to improve that stretch of road.

Gene Bergoffen then suggested that noise mitigation by use of barriers would significantly improve any noise factor. Nestle, indicated that if requested by the Board, Nestle would do it.

Hannah Warren brought up the lack of sound report from Pierce Pond/Spruce Spring. Poland Spring directed Ms. Warren to find the requested information.

Carol Gregory brought up the Hemlock Road intersection and the need for a post occupancy study and potentially contributing for improvement—and whether this would this be something that Poland Springs would entertain. Poland Springs said that it would entertain such a proposal.

Questions from Abutters:
The abutters, determined by the list provided by the tax collector, were given a chance to ask questions to the applicant. The following were the questions/comments made by the abutters:

Bob and Lucille Kennerson addressed their concerns regarding the location of the traffic circle and the noise accrued by its distance to their home. He suggested putting the facility on the other side of the loop. Nestle responded that is was hoping to use the building located on the site as a noise buffer.

Mr. Froscelle expressed a concern regarding the traffic impact and general concern regarding water withdrawal from aquifer.

Mr. Zipper asked the ME DOT representative whether he would be able to put in a road/driveway if he adds in a house on his property. Considering that this was not sufficient information ME DOT was not able to address this question at this time.

Ed and Terresa Price stated they had not received notification of the hearing. The Board chairman said that he would check the certified mail receipts. At the close of the hearing, it was determined that the applicant did send out the certified letters as required, but the one in question had been sent to a former address from the tax collector’s records.

Questions from those who will be directly affected:
Attorney, Phillip Merrill, representing Western Maine Residents for Rural Living, spoke against the application on behalf of some of the town residents who had hired him. He read his comments into the record and provided written copies for the board members.

Mr. Elbridge Russell, an East Fryeburg Resident spoke in favor of the application. He stated he had visited the Pierce Pond facility and the Spruce Spring area to see the impact of Poland Springs on the town. After talking to local townspeople, editors of local papers, and staying at a local inn, he said that there was very little negative comments regarding the Poland Springs trucks and their drivers. He visited sites similar to the one proposed, and stated that they were safe, professional, and quiet. He stated that Poland Springs does fall under a Natural Resource based business and that Poland Springs provides better opportunities for Maine Residents.

Robin Johnson, another area resident, read into the record a letter she sent to the Planning Board that addressed general concerns regarding property valuation effects, peaceful enjoyment, safety, traffic and other issues.

A letter from Gary MacDonald, Superintendent of Schools, was read into the record that addressed safety and traffic concerns; his concern was that an adequate traffic study has been conducted

Mr. David Knapp, Selectmen in Town of Fryeburg, made a statement against the application. He reminded the public that it was not the purview of Planning Board to decide whether any project will economically benefit the town. He also expressed that the proposed project was inconsistent with uses of rural residential district, and that passing this application would be allowing activity that is either prohibited or not encouraged 0.2 miles away.

Questions by Applicant/Board Members to those Directly Affected:
The applicant’s attorney, Phillip Ahrens of Pierce Atwood, asked a general question to attorney of those directly affected regarding their argument. Mr. Ted Raymond asked Attorney Merrill to expand on his earlier reference discounting the applicant’s argument that this activity was similar to logging. According to Mr. Merrill this is a very different activity; logging occurs over a shorter period of time and consists of a low intensive use; in addition, logging is a conditional use not necessarily an accepted use

Rebuttal Statements:
The attorney for the applicant, Mr. Ahrens, in response to Mr. Merrill’s earlier statements, stated the uses listed in land use table do not include activities at the proposed Poland Springs facility, therefore it is considered an omitted use. The activity constitutes a natural resource-based business for which there is no specific definition. There is definition for resource-based business that includes land use category use 2. He also presented a letter from DOT, which implies the reasonableness of project. He stated that Nestle recognizes the concerns of the public and said that Nestle would provide a written set of responses to the concerns to the planning board.

Attorney Merrill rebutted and stated that the board should use the enumerated uses as guidance for what should be allowed.

Comments or Questions from Interested Individuals:
Members of the public stated numerous concerns, that included the use of “jake brakes”, the use (and potential danger) of contract carriers, consequences of violators of safe driving practices, deceleration and acceleration of tanker trucks, the 24hr operations, the dangerous section of road where the facility would be located. A few individuals stated that this was the wrong business for the wrong location.

The board reminded the public that on October 18th there would be a Water Workshop sponsored by the planning board and water resource workshop committee.

The public hearing adjourned and the public was invited to a continued board meeting moved to another room of the fire station. Mr. Raymond gave each member of the board, the applicant and attorney Merrill a document titled “Preliminary Findings for Discussion”.

Regular Meeting

Minutes from previous meeting tabled.

Scheduling of Decision:
Mr. Gene Bergoffen recommended that the board act at the next regularly scheduled meeting, and review documents given by attorneys, he moved to schedule a decision at the next meeting on October 25th, which was seconded by Peter Hill,

The board requested additional information from Nestle which included answering questions within the peer review, noise ordinance, noise buffer, “tree growth” plans, truck vehicle stoppage and acceleration distances. Nestle said that these would be easily provided.

Ms. Carmen Doughty made a personal comment regarding the animosity regarding this project and stated that she would not be able to attend the meeting on the 25th.

Mr. Gene Bergoffen withdrew his motion to select another date, he made a motion to hold a special meeting to make a decision on Wednesday, October 19th which was seconded by Mr. Peter Hill.

Mr. David Knapp expressed concern over potential scheduling around a regular voting member’s absence. Mr. Raymond said that he didn’t believe the special meeting date violated any rules and that the regular meeting would be held on the 25th of October.

The motion to meet on the 19th passed unanimously.

As there was not other business, the motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.

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

Back