TOWN OF FRYEBURG, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DECISION ON NESTLE WATERS APPLICATION
OCTOBER 19, 2005

The Meeting, was at MOM middle school and was called to order at 7:00 pm. Members of the Board present were C. Doughty, P. Hill, C. Gregory,G Bergoffen and H. T. Raymond. associate members present were H. Warren and D. Andrews. Chairman Raymond introduced Mr. Geoffrey Hole Esq. Of Bernstein Shur, who was present as counsel for the Planning Board. The Chairman then distributed to the board members a document prepared by Mr. Gene Bergoffen and recommended that the board review the document section by section. Mr. Bergoffen stated that this document is meant to serve as guidance for the board while making this decision and can be changed as needed. This document is entitled “Decision of the Fryeburg Planning Board October 19, 2005”.

Recording Secretary’s Note: these minutes will entail the board’s decisions and discussions on each section of this document. For each section, the minutes will summarize the section, what was discussed, and the decision of the board on each section.

REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT

FINDINGS OF FACT :

The board first discussed and reviewed this first section of the document. These findings of fact include: property owner, site location, applicant, project title, applicant, project title, applicable ordinance, and specific items proposed for the project. The applicable ordinance included sections 1, 2, 5, 14, 16, and 17 of the Fryeburg Land Use Ordinance. Specific items included: construction specifics of the facility, heated concrete truck pad, above ground water storage silo, installation of pipelines, and security fencing.

The findings of fact also included a history of board decisions, which included:

April 28 th, 2005: Pre-application discussion with Tom Brennan of Nestle
June 28 th, 2005: Received application from Nestle, however the board found that items were missing from the application; these included: evidence of ownership, traffic study statistics, and an elevation drawing. At this meeting, the board determined that the facility would be treated as a “utility facility” under the Land Use Ordinance (LUO).
July 26 th, 2005: Continued discussion of the application wherein the board decided to treat the facility as an “omitted use” under section 5D of the ordinance. Members of the public expressed their concern. The board determined the application complete and decided to take steps to commission a peer review of the traffic study by the applicant.
August 30 th, 2005: The Board received a presentation on the proposal and received public comment, additional information from Poland Spring, and a document from Phillip Merrill, representing Western Maine Residents for Rural Living. The board decided to commission Wilbur Smith to perform the peer review.
September 27 th, 2005: a formal public hearing was held and the decision was scheduled for October 19 th in which the board asked additional questions for the applicant.

Chairman Raymond paused at this point, and asked for a motion to approve the document thus far as findings of fact, a motion was made by C. Doughty and was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. After discussing whether Mr. Bergoffen could move something he wrote, it was determined by counsel that he could. Chairman Raymond reminded the Board that the voting members were Ms. Carol Gregory, Mr. Peter Hill, Mr. Gene Bergoffen, Mr. Ted Raymond, and Ms. Carmen Doughty. The motion passed unanimously.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL REASONING

(The chair continued to read this next section into the record.

General Approach-Public Concern

This section acknowledged the strong amount of public concern raised from this application, and stressed the board necessity to acknowledge these concerns—but also stressed its need to follow the confines of the ordinance. In particular, it would have to follow Section 5D of the LUO—Uses Omitted from the Land Use Table; and stated “The Board does not have the luxury of resolving any ambiguities or lack of clear intent with an assumed amendment to the Ordinance. Thus the following Findings are based on interpretations of the LUO in its current form.”

The Chair paused reading here. Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to accept this portion of the document, which was seconded. Ms. Hannah Warren expressed a desire to have the specifics of what constitutes “signifcant activity” of communication. Mr. Bergoffen stated the language is already in the context of the paragraph, included in the record, — an amendment is not needed. The motion passed 4-1.

The Chair then proceeded to read the next section into the record.

General Ordinance Interpretation Rules:

The document then proceeded to review the rules suggested by the Maine Municipal Planning Board Manual when faced with an ambiguous section; those being: Consistency, Context, Ambiguity Construed in Favor of the Landowner, and Natural Meaning of Undefined Terms.

Ms. Carmen Doughty made a motion to accept the language as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.

The Chair then proceeded to read the next section into the record.

APPLICATION OF SECTION 5D-USES OMITTED FROM THE LAND USE TABLE

Section 5D from the LUO was read into the record as listed on the document. The Chair paused at this point and asked for a motion regarding this section. Ms. Doughty made a motion to approve the language under section 5D, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.

The Chair continued to read the rest of the document into the record.

Rejection of Proposed Use on its Face:

According to the document, the Board finds that the uses of the facility is not completely outside those for Rural Residential Areas, but falls under the uses under “Omitted Uses”; and that the board finds this to be a natural resource based business. Mr. Gene Bergoffen made a motion to accept the draft as written, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. Ms. Hannah Warren said that given the large amount of activity, she urged the board to defeat the language at face value. Mr. Bergoffen suggested the board can decide whether it is a use within the purpose of the Rural residential Zone later. The motion passed 4-1.

The Chair continued to read the document into the record:

Application of standards implied in Section 5D

Soils location and lot location : According to the document, the board found that the applicant adequately demonstrated compliance with storm water and other suitability requirements for the location and the lot for use itself. Thus, the Board came to the conclusion that the board finds that the applicant has met the first standard of Section 5D. During the discussion portion of the review of this section, Ms. Warren expressed a concern of reviewing this document piecemeal and not as a whole. The Chair said that this method better enables the board to remember what it is making a decision on. Town counsel said that either method was possible and suggested this current method because it better gives the board an opportunity to explain its decision. Mr. Gene Bergoffen made a motion to accept the sentence of the document that states that the Board finds that the applicant has met the first standard of Section 5D, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed 4 to 1

The Chair continued to read the document into the record.

Unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of property by adjacent landowners : According to the document, the board found that steps have been taken to avoid unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of their property by landowners in close proximity. These steps included: landscaping and screening plans included by the applicant in the June 17 th application, there is no current evidence that that the transmission of fumes over and through the vegetative buffer will occur, there will be limited lighting glows to comply with the ordinance, the applicant has proven that it meets noise requirements and it has said that it will further reduce noise through the creation of a noise barrier, the applicant has agreed to work with the Maine DOT to finance signs prohibiting “jake brake” use. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to maintain the remainder of the undeveloped area in tree growth. The board also found that the highway safety concern is not an adequate basis for a finding of unreasonable interference, and that there is no foundation for determining that the use will unreasonable interfere with the use and enjoyment of their property apart from their concerns about highway safety.

Ms. Doughty made a motion to approve the language of this section, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. Ms. Warren made the comment that this is a commercial/industrial use by the applicant’s own admission regarding lighting and glare on the site; and this is incompatible with the permitted uses in a rural residential district. Mr. Gene Bergoffen pointed out that the lighting and glare are covered under section16. The motion passed 4 to 1.

The Chair continued to read the rest of the document into the record.

Conformance with all other requirements of the district involved and the performance standards of section Sixteen and Seventeen of this Ordinance: The board found that the applicant has shown its compliance with the Dimensional Requirements of Section 14C and has met the requirements of the District Involved. In addition, the board finds that if the intent of the Ordinance is that the applicant should meet the Purpose elements of Section 14, the proposed use is not inconsistent with the Purpose of the Rural Residential District. Thus the applicant has further met the “requirements of the district involved”. In addition, the board determined that the use was a natural resource based business; that the proposed use will maintain over 90% of the area in tree growth; that the impact and use of overall pattern is not dissimilar from uses that exist within the Rural Residential District, and the board will stipulate a specific number of trips allowed to the site during peak periods. Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to approve the language as drafted, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. There was a general concern over who would enforce the stipulations expressed, and Mr. Bergoffen said that such would be by the CEO and the latter portion of the document discusses this.

Ms. Warren expressed concern over trips during sleeping periods, the board’s enforcement of these trips, and how this was a natural resource based business. The motion passed 3 to 2; and Ms. Doughty said that she was opposed to this section at this moment.

The Chairman read the next section into the record.

SECTION 16: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

16A: Applicability and Purpose: The document stated that the board has taken this provision into account in its decision process

16B: Access Control and Traffic Impacts : The board received a large amount of letters and input from the public regarding the impact this project would have on road safety. According to the document, the board finds that the subject use, as proposed, and with the conditions imposed by the board, meets the requirements of Access Control and Traffic Impacts in Section 16-B of the ordinance. In regards to Safe Access to and from streets, the board finds that the applicant has provided safe access in the aspects contemplated by this subsection and the ordinance as a whole. The board found that the level of traffic would not significantly exacerbate any risk factor that may not exist. In addition, the slope at intersection, carrying capacity, buffer areas, safe entering and exiting, and the construction materials complies with state standards. The board intends to require a post occupancy study and require that the applicant make a fair money contribution to potential road maintenance. The board noted the following actions to further mitigate any potential increased truck traffic generated by public use:

The discussed section of route 302 is scheduled for maintenance by DOT
The applicant will post signs alerting motorists that truck entering and exiting is present in the area.
The board will require the applicant to expand its proposed shoulder widening to 10 feet.
The maximum and minimum number of exits and entries will not exceed 8 per hour, which will likely be more in the range of 4-5 per hour, and these will be limited to 4 per hour at specified times.
The applicant will be required to take part in a post occupancy study as suggested by the Wilbur Smith Peer Review.
The board will decrease the allowable number of exits and entries during peak school bus traffic periods.
A media campaign relating to truck traffic will be required.
A driveway permit was granted to the project with conditions that exceeded those required by the Fryeburg LUO

In discussion of the above conditions no determination was made on the question of how a media campaign would reach non-residents or whether the added road width would become a travel lane. Hannah Warren raised the issue in regards to trucks exiting.

In regards to safe entering and exiting/sight distance, sight distance at the location of the proposed use exceeds Fryeburg and state standards. The use of standard in subsection 2 was not applicable here. In regards to slopes and intersection angles, the design complies with this subsection. For driveways through residential districts, this was not applicable here; and carrying capacity, the use would not affect the carrying capacity of Route 302, and provides adequate capacity for the use itself. In regards to the street improvements, the board will require the applicant to expand its proposal to a 10 foot shoulder, which will be more appropriate to the area, as noted in the Wilbur Smith Peer Review. For queuing, the proposed design meets this requirement and the circulation connections are not applicable here. As in sight distance, as noted above, sight distance from the entry and exit areas exceeds Fryeburg and State standards. For distance to intersection on roads posted 45 miles per hour or higher, the proposed design complies with this requirement. The proposed design complies with these requirements for construction materials and driveways and streets crossing setback and buffer areas the proposed design meets this requirement.

Ms. Doughty made a motion to accept the language, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen.

The board raised questions regarding the DOT numbers, the reason for the exclusion of public comments/reports, enforceability, consistency with sections 1ai and 1aii, of the document, and potential publicity campaigns to address highway safety. Mr. Bergoffen moved to strike section 1aii, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed 4-1. The vote on the motion as amended, to approve the language starting with access control impacts, passed 4-1.

The Chair read the next section into the record.

(The following relate to the board’s decision relating to additional subsections of section 16 of the ordinance)

16-C: Access to Lots : this section does not apply to the application

16-D: Building and Site Review : This section does not apply to the subject application

16-E: Dust, Fumes, Vapor, and Gases : This section does not apply in a rural residential district

16-F: Explosives : The proposed use will not use explosive materials except for heating fuel.

16-G: Glare : The applicant has imposed procedures to comply with the ordinance as well as work nearby residents to mitigate glow.

16-I: Off-street Parking : The proposed plans shows adequate parking

16-J: Landscaping and Screening: The plan meets requirements

16-K: Refuse Disposal : Plans indicate full compliance

16-L: Historically Significant Properties : none have been identified

16-M: Sanitary Standards : The applicant’s representations indicate full compliance with the requirements of this subsection

16-N: Signs : The applicant has met the requirements of the subsection and will be required to arrange for installation of appropriate signs.

16-O: Erosion Control : The plans fully comply with requirements

17-P: Storm Water Run Off : the plans comply with the requirements of the subsection

16-Q: Water Quality Protection : This fully complies with this section of the ordinance.

16-R: Aquifer: This plan is not within a standing aquifer.

16-S: Wellhead Protection Area : This plan is not within a well head protected designated area.

Other Regulations: The applicant has expressed a desire to comply with all relevant regulations

Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to accept the board’s findings for sections 16C—16S, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed unanimously.

The Chair continued to read the remainder of the document into the record.

CONDITIONS

The following are conditions for approval of the permit which were detailed by the document.

NOISE ABATEMENTS: The permittee will construct a barrier which will be approved by the CEO. Ms. Carmen Doughty made a motion to approve as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. After discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

GLARE: The permittee will work with landowners to reduce and eliminate sources of glare. Mr. Ted Raymond moved to accept as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The Motion passed 4-0, with one abstention

ENGINE BRAKES : The permittee will put up signs prohibiting usage of engine brakes from (Elkins Brook to Stanley Hill Road). Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to adopt the amended language, which was seconded by Mr. Ted Raymond. The motion passed unanimously. (amended language)

HIGHWAY SIGNAGE: Working with the DOT, the permittee will put in place signs indicating truck entrance and exit. Ms. Doughty made a motion to approve the language, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.

SHOULDER WIDTH: The permittee will expand shoulder width to 10ft. Ms. Doughty made a motion to adopt this language as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.

POST OCCUPANCY STUDY: The permittee will finance a post occupancy study and will be required to make monetary contributions to identified improvements. After discussion, whether to put in a percentage of funding, a motion was made by Ms. Doughty to accept the condition as written, that was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.

TRAFFIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN: The permittee will work with MSAD 72 to introduce a “share the road” campaign. Ms. Doughty made a motion to accept the condition as written, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously.

MAINTENANCE OF AREA IN TREE GROWTH: The applicant will maintain all areas not involved in the areas cleared for loading, and pipeline construction; and no trees shall be cut without prior approval. Mr. Raymond moved to accept the language, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed unanimously

LIMIT ON TRUCK LOADING EVENTS: This condition stated that truck loadings would be limited during peak school bus and traffic periods. After considerable discussion, Mr. Raymond proposed adding that if the school schedule changes, the limit on truck loading events could be amended. Mr. Bergoffen moved to accept the amendment, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made to accept the condition as amended, which was seconded and passed unanimously.

REPORTING OF WATER LOADING: This requirement would require monthly reports on daily volume to be sent to the CEO by the applicant. There was some discussion, and a motion was made to accept the condition, which was seconded, and passed unanimously.

INSPECTIONS OF FACILITY: Inspections by the CEO of the facility must be allowed and will be given “reasonable notice” to the applicant and at will during construction of the facility. A motion was made to accept the condition as drafted, which was seconded. After discussion over the enforcement power of the CEO, the motion passed unanimously.

PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION: The applicant will be expected to use best management practices during pipeline construction. Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to accept as drafted, which was seconded, and passed unanimously.

The Chair asked if there was any motion to reconsider any votes or further discussion of the document.

No motion was made to reconsider any other condition or section.

DECISION OF THE BOARD:

Mr. Bergoffen made a motion that the Fryeburg Planning Board approves the permit for the Cold Water Springs facility with the findings of fact and law along with the conditions, as amended, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty.

Ms. Warren was recognized and read into the record a statement asking board members to explain their positions. Mr. Raymond stressed that there were procedures to change the ordinances if people felt that such is needed. Ms. Doughty also stressed that the board has to follow the ordinance and do what is legally right. Mr. Bergoffen said that as a citizen, he agrees with their concerns; however according to his responsibilities as a member of the board, he has to follow the ordinance. He would like to change the ordinance so this problem is not revisited.

The motion to approve the permit passed, 4 to 1.

Mr. Hill made a motion to adjourn for the evening, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty, the motion passed unanimously.

A copy of the subject document, as amended, is in the record in the CEO’s office.

Reviewed and approved as amended, 11/29/05

H T Raymond, Chariman

Back

Archives Planning Board Minutes
	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 MINUTES DECISION ON NESTLE WATERS APPLICATION OCTOBER 19, 2005 The Meeting, was at MOM middle school and was called to order at 7:00 pm. Members of the Board present were C. Doughty, P. Hill, C. Gregory,G Bergoffen and H. T. Raymond. associate members present were H. Warren and D. Andrews. Chairman Raymond introduced Mr. Geoffrey Hole Esq. Of Bernstein Shur, who was present as counsel for the Planning Board. The Chairman then distributed to the board members a document prepared by Mr. Gene Bergoffen and recommended that the board review the document section by section. Mr. Bergoffen stated that this document is meant to serve as guidance for the board while making this decision and can be changed as needed. This document is entitled “Decision of the Fryeburg Planning Board October 19, 2005”. Recording Secretary’s Note: these minutes will entail the board’s decisions and discussions on each section of this document. For each section, the minutes will summarize the section, what was discussed, and the decision of the board on each section. REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT FINDINGS OF FACT : The board first discussed and reviewed this first section of the document. These findings of fact include: property owner, site location, applicant, project title, applicant, project title, applicable ordinance, and specific items proposed for the project. The applicable ordinance included sections 1, 2, 5, 14, 16, and 17 of the Fryeburg Land Use Ordinance. Specific items included: construction specifics of the facility, heated concrete truck pad, above ground water storage silo, installation of pipelines, and security fencing. The findings of fact also included a history of board decisions, which included: April 28 th, 2005: Pre-application discussion with Tom Brennan of Nestle June 28 th, 2005: Received application from Nestle, however the board found that items were missing from the application; these included: evidence of ownership, traffic study statistics, and an elevation drawing. At this meeting, the board determined that the facility would be treated as a “utility facility” under the Land Use Ordinance (LUO). July 26 th, 2005: Continued discussion of the application wherein the board decided to treat the facility as an “omitted use” under section 5D of the ordinance. Members of the public expressed their concern. The board determined the application complete and decided to take steps to commission a peer review of the traffic study by the applicant. August 30 th, 2005: The Board received a presentation on the proposal and received public comment, additional information from Poland Spring, and a document from Phillip Merrill, representing Western Maine Residents for Rural Living. The board decided to commission Wilbur Smith to perform the peer review. September 27 th, 2005: a formal public hearing was held and the decision was scheduled for October 19 th in which the board asked additional questions for the applicant. Chairman Raymond paused at this point, and asked for a motion to approve the document thus far as findings of fact, a motion was made by C. Doughty and was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. After discussing whether Mr. Bergoffen could move something he wrote, it was determined by counsel that he could. Chairman Raymond reminded the Board that the voting members were Ms. Carol Gregory, Mr. Peter Hill, Mr. Gene Bergoffen, Mr. Ted Raymond, and Ms. Carmen Doughty. The motion passed unanimously. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL REASONING (The chair continued to read this next section into the record. General Approach-Public Concern This section acknowledged the strong amount of public concern raised from this application, and stressed the board necessity to acknowledge these concerns—but also stressed its need to follow the confines of the ordinance. In particular, it would have to follow Section 5D of the LUO—Uses Omitted from the Land Use Table; and stated “The Board does not have the luxury of resolving any ambiguities or lack of clear intent with an assumed amendment to the Ordinance. Thus the following Findings are based on interpretations of the LUO in its current form.” The Chair paused reading here. Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to accept this portion of the document, which was seconded. Ms. Hannah Warren expressed a desire to have the specifics of what constitutes “signifcant activity” of communication. Mr. Bergoffen stated the language is already in the context of the paragraph, included in the record, — an amendment is not needed. The motion passed 4-1. The Chair then proceeded to read the next section into the record. General Ordinance Interpretation Rules: The document then proceeded to review the rules suggested by the Maine Municipal Planning Board Manual when faced with an ambiguous section; those being: Consistency, Context, Ambiguity Construed in Favor of the Landowner, and Natural Meaning of Undefined Terms. Ms. Carmen Doughty made a motion to accept the language as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair then proceeded to read the next section into the record. APPLICATION OF SECTION 5D-USES OMITTED FROM THE LAND USE TABLE Section 5D from the LUO was read into the record as listed on the document. The Chair paused at this point and asked for a motion regarding this section. Ms. Doughty made a motion to approve the language under section 5D, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair continued to read the rest of the document into the record. Rejection of Proposed Use on its Face: According to the document, the Board finds that the uses of the facility is not completely outside those for Rural Residential Areas, but falls under the uses under “Omitted Uses”; and that the board finds this to be a natural resource based business. Mr. Gene Bergoffen made a motion to accept the draft as written, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. Ms. Hannah Warren said that given the large amount of activity, she urged the board to defeat the language at face value. Mr. Bergoffen suggested the board can decide whether it is a use within the purpose of the Rural residential Zone later. The motion passed 4-1. The Chair continued to read the document into the record: Application of standards implied in Section 5D Soils location and lot location : According to the document, the board found that the applicant adequately demonstrated compliance with storm water and other suitability requirements for the location and the lot for use itself. Thus, the Board came to the conclusion that the board finds that the applicant has met the first standard of Section 5D. During the discussion portion of the review of this section, Ms. Warren expressed a concern of reviewing this document piecemeal and not as a whole. The Chair said that this method better enables the board to remember what it is making a decision on. Town counsel said that either method was possible and suggested this current method because it better gives the board an opportunity to explain its decision. Mr. Gene Bergoffen made a motion to accept the sentence of the document that states that the Board finds that the applicant has met the first standard of Section 5D, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed 4 to 1 The Chair continued to read the document into the record. Unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of property by adjacent landowners : According to the document, the board found that steps have been taken to avoid unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of their property by landowners in close proximity. These steps included: landscaping and screening plans included by the applicant in the June 17 th application, there is no current evidence that that the transmission of fumes over and through the vegetative buffer will occur, there will be limited lighting glows to comply with the ordinance, the applicant has proven that it meets noise requirements and it has said that it will further reduce noise through the creation of a noise barrier, the applicant has agreed to work with the Maine DOT to finance signs prohibiting “jake brake” use. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to maintain the remainder of the undeveloped area in tree growth. The board also found that the highway safety concern is not an adequate basis for a finding of unreasonable interference, and that there is no foundation for determining that the use will unreasonable interfere with the use and enjoyment of their property apart from their concerns about highway safety. Ms. Doughty made a motion to approve the language of this section, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. Ms. Warren made the comment that this is a commercial/industrial use by the applicant’s own admission regarding lighting and glare on the site; and this is incompatible with the permitted uses in a rural residential district. Mr. Gene Bergoffen pointed out that the lighting and glare are covered under section16. The motion passed 4 to 1. The Chair continued to read the rest of the document into the record. Conformance with all other requirements of the district involved and the performance standards of section Sixteen and Seventeen of this Ordinance: The board found that the applicant has shown its compliance with the Dimensional Requirements of Section 14C and has met the requirements of the District Involved. In addition, the board finds that if the intent of the Ordinance is that the applicant should meet the Purpose elements of Section 14, the proposed use is not inconsistent with the Purpose of the Rural Residential District. Thus the applicant has further met the “requirements of the district involved”. In addition, the board determined that the use was a natural resource based business; that the proposed use will maintain over 90% of the area in tree growth; that the impact and use of overall pattern is not dissimilar from uses that exist within the Rural Residential District, and the board will stipulate a specific number of trips allowed to the site during peak periods. Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to approve the language as drafted, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. There was a general concern over who would enforce the stipulations expressed, and Mr. Bergoffen said that such would be by the CEO and the latter portion of the document discusses this. Ms. Warren expressed concern over trips during sleeping periods, the board’s enforcement of these trips, and how this was a natural resource based business. The motion passed 3 to 2; and Ms. Doughty said that she was opposed to this section at this moment. The Chairman read the next section into the record. SECTION 16: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 16A: Applicability and Purpose: The document stated that the board has taken this provision into account in its decision process 16B: Access Control and Traffic Impacts : The board received a large amount of letters and input from the public regarding the impact this project would have on road safety. According to the document, the board finds that the subject use, as proposed, and with the conditions imposed by the board, meets the requirements of Access Control and Traffic Impacts in Section 16-B of the ordinance. In regards to Safe Access to and from streets, the board finds that the applicant has provided safe access in the aspects contemplated by this subsection and the ordinance as a whole. The board found that the level of traffic would not significantly exacerbate any risk factor that may not exist. In addition, the slope at intersection, carrying capacity, buffer areas, safe entering and exiting, and the construction materials complies with state standards. The board intends to require a post occupancy study and require that the applicant make a fair money contribution to potential road maintenance. The board noted the following actions to further mitigate any potential increased truck traffic generated by public use: The discussed section of route 302 is scheduled for maintenance by DOT The applicant will post signs alerting motorists that truck entering and exiting is present in the area. The board will require the applicant to expand its proposed shoulder widening to 10 feet. The maximum and minimum number of exits and entries will not exceed 8 per hour, which will likely be more in the range of 4-5 per hour, and these will be limited to 4 per hour at specified times. The applicant will be required to take part in a post occupancy study as suggested by the Wilbur Smith Peer Review. The board will decrease the allowable number of exits and entries during peak school bus traffic periods. A media campaign relating to truck traffic will be required. A driveway permit was granted to the project with conditions that exceeded those required by the Fryeburg LUO In discussion of the above conditions no determination was made on the question of how a media campaign would reach non-residents or whether the added road width would become a travel lane. Hannah Warren raised the issue in regards to trucks exiting. In regards to safe entering and exiting/sight distance, sight distance at the location of the proposed use exceeds Fryeburg and state standards. The use of standard in subsection 2 was not applicable here. In regards to slopes and intersection angles, the design complies with this subsection. For driveways through residential districts, this was not applicable here; and carrying capacity, the use would not affect the carrying capacity of Route 302, and provides adequate capacity for the use itself. In regards to the street improvements, the board will require the applicant to expand its proposal to a 10 foot shoulder, which will be more appropriate to the area, as noted in the Wilbur Smith Peer Review. For queuing, the proposed design meets this requirement and the circulation connections are not applicable here. As in sight distance, as noted above, sight distance from the entry and exit areas exceeds Fryeburg and State standards. For distance to intersection on roads posted 45 miles per hour or higher, the proposed design complies with this requirement. The proposed design complies with these requirements for construction materials and driveways and streets crossing setback and buffer areas the proposed design meets this requirement. Ms. Doughty made a motion to accept the language, which was seconded by Mr. Gene Bergoffen. The board raised questions regarding the DOT numbers, the reason for the exclusion of public comments/reports, enforceability, consistency with sections 1ai and 1aii, of the document, and potential publicity campaigns to address highway safety. Mr. Bergoffen moved to strike section 1aii, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed 4-1. The vote on the motion as amended, to approve the language starting with access control impacts, passed 4-1. The Chair read the next section into the record. (The following relate to the board’s decision relating to additional subsections of section 16 of the ordinance) 16-C: Access to Lots : this section does not apply to the application 16-D: Building and Site Review : This section does not apply to the subject application 16-E: Dust, Fumes, Vapor, and Gases : This section does not apply in a rural residential district 16-F: Explosives : The proposed use will not use explosive materials except for heating fuel. 16-G: Glare : The applicant has imposed procedures to comply with the ordinance as well as work nearby residents to mitigate glow. 16-I: Off-street Parking : The proposed plans shows adequate parking 16-J: Landscaping and Screening: The plan meets requirements 16-K: Refuse Disposal : Plans indicate full compliance 16-L: Historically Significant Properties : none have been identified 16-M: Sanitary Standards : The applicant’s representations indicate full compliance with the requirements of this subsection 16-N: Signs : The applicant has met the requirements of the subsection and will be required to arrange for installation of appropriate signs. 16-O: Erosion Control : The plans fully comply with requirements 17-P: Storm Water Run Off : the plans comply with the requirements of the subsection 16-Q: Water Quality Protection : This fully complies with this section of the ordinance. 16-R: Aquifer: This plan is not within a standing aquifer. 16-S: Wellhead Protection Area : This plan is not within a well head protected designated area. Other Regulations: The applicant has expressed a desire to comply with all relevant regulations Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to accept the board’s findings for sections 16C—16S, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair continued to read the remainder of the document into the record. CONDITIONS The following are conditions for approval of the permit which were detailed by the document. NOISE ABATEMENTS: The permittee will construct a barrier which will be approved by the CEO. Ms. Carmen Doughty made a motion to approve as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. After discussion, the motion passed unanimously. GLARE: The permittee will work with landowners to reduce and eliminate sources of glare. Mr. Ted Raymond moved to accept as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The Motion passed 4-0, with one abstention ENGINE BRAKES : The permittee will put up signs prohibiting usage of engine brakes from (Elkins Brook to Stanley Hill Road). Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to adopt the amended language, which was seconded by Mr. Ted Raymond. The motion passed unanimously. (amended language) HIGHWAY SIGNAGE: Working with the DOT, the permittee will put in place signs indicating truck entrance and exit. Ms. Doughty made a motion to approve the language, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously. SHOULDER WIDTH: The permittee will expand shoulder width to 10ft. Ms. Doughty made a motion to adopt this language as drafted, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously. POST OCCUPANCY STUDY: The permittee will finance a post occupancy study and will be required to make monetary contributions to identified improvements. After discussion, whether to put in a percentage of funding, a motion was made by Ms. Doughty to accept the condition as written, that was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously. TRAFFIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN: The permittee will work with MSAD 72 to introduce a “share the road” campaign. Ms. Doughty made a motion to accept the condition as written, which was seconded by Mr. Bergoffen. The motion passed unanimously. MAINTENANCE OF AREA IN TREE GROWTH: The applicant will maintain all areas not involved in the areas cleared for loading, and pipeline construction; and no trees shall be cut without prior approval. Mr. Raymond moved to accept the language, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed unanimously LIMIT ON TRUCK LOADING EVENTS: This condition stated that truck loadings would be limited during peak school bus and traffic periods. After considerable discussion, Mr. Raymond proposed adding that if the school schedule changes, the limit on truck loading events could be amended. Mr. Bergoffen moved to accept the amendment, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made to accept the condition as amended, which was seconded and passed unanimously. REPORTING OF WATER LOADING: This requirement would require monthly reports on daily volume to be sent to the CEO by the applicant. There was some discussion, and a motion was made to accept the condition, which was seconded, and passed unanimously. INSPECTIONS OF FACILITY: Inspections by the CEO of the facility must be allowed and will be given “reasonable notice” to the applicant and at will during construction of the facility. A motion was made to accept the condition as drafted, which was seconded. After discussion over the enforcement power of the CEO, the motion passed unanimously. PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION: The applicant will be expected to use best management practices during pipeline construction. Mr. Bergoffen made a motion to accept as drafted, which was seconded, and passed unanimously. The Chair asked if there was any motion to reconsider any votes or further discussion of the document. No motion was made to reconsider any other condition or section. DECISION OF THE BOARD: Mr. Bergoffen made a motion that the Fryeburg Planning Board approves the permit for the Cold Water Springs facility with the findings of fact and law along with the conditions, as amended, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty. Ms. Warren was recognized and read into the record a statement asking board members to explain their positions. Mr. Raymond stressed that there were procedures to change the ordinances if people felt that such is needed. Ms. Doughty also stressed that the board has to follow the ordinance and do what is legally right. Mr. Bergoffen said that as a citizen, he agrees with their concerns; however according to his responsibilities as a member of the board, he has to follow the ordinance. He would like to change the ordinance so this problem is not revisited. The motion to approve the permit passed, 4 to 1. Mr. Hill made a motion to adjourn for the evening, which was seconded by Ms. Doughty, the motion passed unanimously. A copy of the subject document, as amended, is in the record in the CEO’s office. Reviewed and approved as amended, 11/29/05 H T Raymond, Chariman Back
	Home \| Visit \| Town Hall \| Services \| Links \| Recreation \| Contact © 2001-04 Town of Fryeburg Me.