Town of Standish, ME - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 06/04/2007

Planning Board Meeting Minutes 06/04/2007

The meeting began at 7:04 p.m. Present: Chair, Carol Billington, Chris Parkin, PersonNameWayne Newbegin, Gus Favreau, PersonNameEleanor Dudek and Bill Foster. Absent: Brian Libby. Staff present: Bud Benson, Planning Administrator and Donna Sawyer, Planning Board Secretary and Town Attorney, Sally Daggett.

Ms. Billington opened the meeting and asked that all participants who wished to speak to please use the microphone at the podium and for the Board members to do the same.

Approval of May 7, 2007, meeting minutes

PersonNameEleanor Dudek made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2007, meeting as written and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.

Approval of Finding of Fact for:

Candiland Day Care/ Candice Conners, - Map 36, placeLot 31, 47 Ossipee Trail East

PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to waive the reading and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. There was no discussion and all were in favor. Motion passed.

PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to accept the Finding of Fact and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.

Redline Powersports, LLC/Jason Foster and Barry Mottershead – Map 5, Lot 45D, 48 Pequawket Trail Est.

PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to waive the reading of the project and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to accept the Finding of Fact and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.

COMMUNICATION:

Josie’s Brook Subdivision

Carol said that the applicant, James Tompson, has asked that his plan can be modified to be approved under the new ordinance for posting a Road Construction Performance Guarantee. His project was approved under the old ordinance and he wants to go forward under the new. It was noted that there is now one more additional condition. In lieu of the passbook performance guarantee, applicant is issued a conditional approval where no lots will be sold or any building permits issued until the road is built. They are making some minor changes to the plan to identify easements. The change is Condition of Approval No. 2 found above the plan.

PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to approve this subdivision plan of Josie’s Brook and Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion carried. The revised subdivision final plan is to be signed after the meeting.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

01-12-01-03 WILDLANDS CLUSTER SUBDIVISION PHASE 2/BUSQUE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. - MAP 12, placeLOT 1, addressStreetBOUNDARY ROAD

Subdivision Plan Review Received Preliminary Approval on December 2004. Waiting for DEP.

Chair, Carol Billington, said that this project has been on the agenda for a very long time. The wait was caused by FEMA and MDEP. Charles Brown, of Sebago Technics, was present representing Peter Busque for his Wildlands Subdivision.

He has received the DEP order dated May 9, 2007, and passed out copies for the members. He has received comments from SYSDesign, third party review agent for the town, and met with staff to go over the plan in detail and has addressed the latest memo received last Friday. He reviewed bonus lots relative to Portland Water District sending a letter addressing capacity to serve the lots above 59. It was his understanding that the district would provide the public water with a contribution for the upgrade of the radon facility in placePlaceNameSteep PlaceTypeFalls.

Charles Brown referred to the MDEP order. There are a few conditions in there that have been added to the plan.

The Homeowners’ Association, deeds, etc. have been forwarded to Town attorney and he has received comments back and is in agreement with the comments. Sally Daggett, town attorney, said she reviewed the documents and received word from the other attorney that her changes were fine.

Mr. Brown referred to grading plans for individual lots and they will do it for lots 6-14, 6-51, 6-85 and 6-86. There was a question about iron pins on the line with Mr. Niehaus. They will be placed along the common line. Mr. Benson said that granite monuments (per code) should be granite monuments. Mr. Niehaus, the abutter, came forward and said he had 2 documents for them. He referred to a shaded area on page 3 of the plan showing a dotted line on page 3 of 39 to the west where he and Mr. Busque had a dispute over boundary lines. The law suit is settled and in the terms of the settlement the Judge determined that granite monuments be set at the outside corners of the property. Nothing has been placed yet but the plan dated 5/29/07 refers to existing capped irons. He hired a surveyor and nothing exists there as of last Friday. His issue is that the granite monuments need be set and a surveyor check for accuracy.

Mr. Brown indicated these monuments will be placed. Mr. Brown made reference to 2A through 2F on the Growth Ordinance as referred to by Bud Benson. Mr. Brown said he has addressed that issue and added a note as Condition G on the cover sheet. Mr. Busque is working with Roger Mosley on the road impact fee assessment. He said a street light will be at the new entrance of Wildlands and Bud Benson said that Wildlands will probably need only one streetlight because there is no power at the intersection of Oak Hill and addressStreetBoundary Road.

Mr. Brown referred to the number of building permits and when Mr. Busque could obtain them.

Chair, Carol Billington, referred to the changes as put forth by Mr. Benson in his June 4, 2007 memo. Mr. Brown said that all of the changes A through I have been made to the plan. As well, he said that conditions 1 through 6 have been added to the cover sheet of the plan as conditions B through G. Ms. Billington asked about the impact fee and how was it going to be handled. Mr. Brown said the text is on the plan without a dollar figure yet as it is being worked out. Carol asked about the letter from Portland Water District dealing with capacity. Mr. Busque said he had spoken with Jay Hewitt, PWD. Mr. Busque said he extended the water line 4 years ago for 2 miles. He ended up with enough water but has to install pump stations and also pay for radon. Mr. Hewitt will write a letter when he gets back from vacation.

Mr. Brown continued by saying he has reviewed all of Mr. Benson’s comments and the only other issue was the culvert inverts to make sure they were below the road base. That has been addressed and changes made and he felt he had no other issues.

Mr. Benson felt that an approval couldn’t be given tonight. He recommended having the project come before the Board’s workshop on June 11 and the meeting could open with a short business meeting. The Board needs to have a street impact fee and a letter from Portland Water District (PWD) discussing capacity to serve more than 59 lots. It was agreed to open the meeting on June 11 at 7:00 p.m. with this project as the first order of business. Carol asked for comments from the public and there was none. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to table to next Monday, June 11^th. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.

05-08-07-06 WILDWOOD (formerly addressStreetCHADBOURNE ROAD SUBDIVISION)/PlaceNameGilbert PlaceNameHomes – Map 19, placeLot 56, addressStreet733 Chadbourne Road

Cluster Subdivision Plan Review

Chris DeMatteo, of Sebago Technics, was present to discuss the Wildwood Subdivision on addressStreetChadbourne Road. He was seeking final approval for the 7-lot cluster subdivision. Mr. DeMatteo said he met with Mr. Benson this morning to go over Bud’s recommendations in his June 1^st memo. Mr. DeMatteo also provided a letter from Portland Water District explaining that they reviewed and approved the project. The only other issue is providing the public water main to this subdivision. They agreed to have another notation on the plan that requires the contractor to provide an independent inspector that will deal strictly with the pavement work. That inspection will insure that the construction is done to MDOT specifications. In addition, the Homeowners’ documents were changed to comply with the Town Attorney’s comments. He feels all changes have been made as requested.

Chair, Carol Billington, asked if all of the small detailed items had been made. Chris said, “Yes”. Carol asked for more comments from the public, the Board and there was none. Carol asked for a motion. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to approve the project as per the suggested conditions of approval as recommended in Bud Ben’s memo to the members and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion passed. The conditions of approval are:

1. Prior to the release of the final plan to the applicant for recording or any site construction, the applicant shall pay to the Town a construction inspection fee.~ Said fee shall be computed per Town Code Section 252-22(I). Applicant shall establish the $9,332 inspection escrow account, pay a street light impact fee of $1,800 and pay all outstanding review escrow account fees. Applicant shall resolve any outstanding issues raised in peer review engineer’s memo to satisfaction of Town staff prior to start of construction.

2. In lieu of a performance guarantee for the construction of the project improvements, no lot or parcel of land may be conveyed, and no building permit for any building or any portion of the development shall be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer, until the completion of all streets, utilities, and other improvements for public benefit or use in accordance with this plan and all applicable laws, ordinances and standards. If the applicant wishes to convey a lot prior to all project improvements being completed in accordance with this plan and all applicable laws, ordinances and standards, a performance guaranty equal to the cost of the remaining improvements shall be approved by the Director of Public Works, in consultation with the Town Planner and submitted to the Standish Finance Director.

3. Final incorporation by the developer of a homeowners' association shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits; the developer shall provide the Code Enforcement Officer proof of filing of the homeowners' association's articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State's Office prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Town Attorney, at applicant’s expense, must review and approve all legal documents such as (homeowner’s association documentation and incorporation) for legal sufficiency. Applicant shall provide all road, grading and drainage easement deeds for Town legal review and record the same after Town Council acceptance of the road.

4. After Town acceptance of any roads with the subdivision, the ponds and stormwater structures that are outside of the rights of way are to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association.

5. As built drawings showing location of all underground utilities should be provided at applicant’s expense prior to acceptance of any street.

6. Abutting lot owned by Don Gilbert/Gilbert Homes, Inc. shall have its access from the proposed new public street and the lot shall be deed restricted from having a direct access onto Route 35. Applicant shall provide proposed deed for Town legal review prior to issuance of any building permits.

7. This approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant (either orally or in writing), and any variation from the plans, proposals, and supporting documents are subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Code Enforcement Officer may approve

02-12-04-06 Route 25 Business Park/Mark Floor – Map 10, placeLot 11, 225 Ossipee Trail West

Subdivision Review

The applicant was not present at the meeting and no new information was received this month from the applicant.. Bill Foster made a motion to table until next month and PersonNameWayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.

02-02-06-07 STROUT BROOK ESTATES (formerly addressStreetWheaton Way Subdivision)/PlaceNameA & H PlaceTypeLand Development, LLC, Map 8, placeLot 9, addressStreetWheaton Way

Subdivision Plan Review

No one was present for this item and no new information was received this month. Ms. Billington said this project was given preliminary approval last month and she expects to see this item tabled again and again because the applicant is seeking FEMA mapping and MDEP approvals. Bill Foster made a motion to table and PersonNameWayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.

02-03-05-07 Pit Stop Fuels/Dana Lampron – Map 10, Lot 95, 125 Ossipee Trail E.

Site Plan Amendment

Chair, Carol Billington, introduced the town’s attorney, Sally Daggett, who was present for the proceedings for the Pit Stop Fuels’ application for an expansion. Carol continued by saying the entire Board has received training recently and, as a result, the Board’s decision making process has changed. Ms. Billington stated that Gus Favreau and Bill Foster were not present at the March 2007 meeting and she asked Mr. Favreau and Mr. Foster if they were knowledgeable enough about this project and felt if they could participate in the approval process tonight. Both confirmed they were up to date.

Ms. Billington continued by saying that this project caused some debate and 2 members have been challenged as being biased against this project. PersonNameEleanor Dudek said that she had signed a petition against Pit Stop Fuels when it was before the Board in 2005 when she was not a member of the Board. She said this was a different application and it has nothing to do with the original application and she can be objective, fair and unbiased about this application. She continued by saying she took an oath when she was sworn in for this Board position and that she can uphold and follow the ordinances. The second item in question was an email that she responded to the entire Board when she intended it to be a response to the Planning Board Administrator, Bud Benson. She was unaware that it was illegal to email other Board members and that email response has been read into the record. Eleanor read aloud her response to the email sent by Bud Benson. Gus Favreau made a motion to allow PersonNameEleanor Dudek to participate in the deliberation and voting for the Pit Stop Fuel application and PersonNameWayne Newbegin seconded the motion. PersonNameWayne Newbegin, Gus Favreau, Carol Billington and Chris Parkin voted “yes” and Bill Foster was opposed. Motion passed.

Chris Parkin stated that he also signed the petition that circulated in June 2005 and he felt he could be fair and impartial for this vote. Dana Lampron came forward and explained that he brought the petition signature issue to the forefront when PersonNameEleanor Dudek responded to Bud Benson’s email.. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to allow Chris Parkin to vote in tonight’s proceedings. PersonNameEleanor Dudek seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion passed.

Ms. Billington showed the audience colored photocopies of several businesses that exist in the placePlaceTypeVillage PlaceTypeCenter zones that Dana Lampron had provided to each Board member.

Lee Feldman, Sebago Technics, came forward representing Pit Stop Fuels, Inc. He wanted to move forward now, especially after meeting in another workshop last month. A number of changes were made to the plan and he led the group through them:

- added a 3 foot berm and landscape area along the frontage on Route 25

- added a number of plantings to the rear of the property that has been redesigned to be a bioretention facility that required a number of new plantings

- additional landscaping along with arborvitaes to screen the area between the front of the property and the loading rack

- located the existing plantings that were planted as a result of the DEP and town conditions when the cutting of existing trees occurred

- showed the striping in front of the existing buildings for no parking and fire lane area, as requested

- plan no longer shows a half box culvert because the DEP considers this a minor amendment to the application because it is under 20,000 sq. ft. A storm drainage pipe is in place there to continue to relieve any water that may come through in a heavy rain

- added one more parking space to satisfy parking requirements of 31 spaces

Mr. Feldman said they have reviewed the suggested conditions of approval and has concerns. He turned the discussion back to the Board. Ms. Billington said the 21 conditions suggested in Bud Benson’s memo are only suggestions and the Board can require whatever they feel is necessary for conditions of approval. Carol distributed a sheet that she had composed with the “suggested” conditions of approval categorized to correspond with the appropriate Standard. She said the Board would be crafting an approval for this project’s expansion by voting separately on each Standard, “A” through” I” and they would be using her document to guide the voting. Please note that Carol’s list has her numbering sequence listed first under each standard and Mr. Benson’s numbering is shown inside the (parenthesis). Carol’s memo is attached to the end of these minutes for reference.

A. Carol read Standard A The provisions for vehicular loading, unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will not create hazards to safety nor will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.

1. (1)A safe painted walkway should be maintained from parking area through fueling station canopy area to the office/retail store.

The applicant agreed with this condition of approval.

2. (2)Large delivery trucks, WB50 or larger, are restricted to off-peak hours outside of the time periods of 6:30-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. Travel lanes exclude all parking stalls plus the area under and around the fueling canopy assuming a vehicle is stacked each side of the canopy.

The applicant agreed with this condition of approval.

3. (3)Parking shall be prohibited in the 20 ft wide combination fire lane and through traffic lane between the retail store and the gas station canopy. This shall be accomplished by maintaining the 20’ fire lane pavement striping and label it as “addressStreetFire Lane - No Parking Area” on the pavement with one foot tall lettering. Applicant shall install and maintain “No Parking” signs with min 3 inch lettering shall be posted at 4 ft. height at 10ft intervals on the Route 25 side of the store and at 20’ intervals along sidewalk between store and fueling canopy. Applicant shall modify the radius of the edge of pavement between the store and Route 25 entrance to hinder parking in these areas and add a curb from the front of the store to the street sidewalk.

Applicant wanted the last sentence of this condition removed—and that sentence reads “No Parking” signs with min 3 inch lettering shall be posted at 4 ft. height at 10 ft. intervals on the Route 25 side of the store and at 20’ intervals along sidewalk between store and fueling canopy.

2. (4)More customer parking must be available directly behind the retail store precluding the necessity of additional pedestrian traffic across a busy access road between the proposed parking lot and the store. To accomplish this, post limited duration parking behind the existing store to minimize the number of retail customers that must walk across the travel lanes. This will require the posting of the five parking stalls behind the fuel station canopy to max. 20 minute parking”.

Alternative: 4. Postt, visible signs in the area of the five parking stalls behind the fuel station canopy to read “maximum 20 minute parking”. Discourage employee parking in this location, reserving spaces for retail store customers.

The applicant agreed to the alternative 4 condition of approval as listed above.

5. (5)A curb shall be built to connect the store front to the existing street side walk. The location of this curb shall intentionally preclude parking between the store and Route 25. The radius shall be the minimum necessary to maintain a 20’ wide fire lane. No more than 3 home delivery fuel trucks shall be parked on site at any one time.

Mr. Feldman said the applicant would not agree to this condition for parking. Mr. Newbegin asked if the client did not get parking for 8 trucks, would the condition be acceptable to the client? Mr. Feldman said, “Absolutely not”. Ms. Billington referred to her 2 alternative conditions that she drafted. Mr. Lampron stepped forward and said there was no good way to control the parking. Ms. Dudek spoke about seeing a very large trailer truck often parked on the site at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursdays offloading fuel. Ms. Dudek felt No. 2 needed to be discussed more carefully. Mr. Foster spoke about other Rte 25 businesses and Mr. Lampron said he couldn’t always control delivery and added that he has not had an accident since he opened the business.

Carolyn Biegel, 141 Ossipee Trail, said signs would detract from the facility and she preferred the parking to remain as it is. Carolyn asked if her husband’s letter written to the Board would be read tonight. Ms. Billington said yes.

Alternative 5: A curb shall be built to connect the store front to the existing street side walk. The location of this curb shall intentionally preclude parking between the store and Route 25. The radius shall be the minimum necessary to maintain a 20’ wide fire lane.

Second Alternative: Post visible and permanent ‘no parking – vehicle will be towed at owner’s expense’ sign in front of convenience store building to preclude parking within visual buffer area as per town code 181-21.

6. (7)No more than three home delivery fuel trucks shall be stored on site at any one time.

Mr. Feldman said that the applicant would not agree with this condition of approval.

7. (8)No tractor trailer truck shall be parked or stored on site or within the accessory structure other than in the active process of delivering fuel with driver in the vehicle.

Mr. Feldman said that when they left the workshop with the Board, he thought that the tanker’s trailer could warm up inside. For example, in the winter if a line froze on the tanker, the truck could be put inside.

Bill Foster asked the members why 8 fuel trucks couldn’t be parked on the site. PersonNameWayne Newbegin was concerned with the amount of diesel fuel on the site and for the safety for the people in the general area. Bill Foster asked about having only 2 vehicles loaded with fuel on site overnight. placeCityWayne did not want more than 3 vehicles on the site at any time. Much conversation continued by the Board and the applicant concerning number of trucks on site at any one time. Mr. Lampron said he would be willing to cap the total number of trucks to 8 on site at any one time. Gus reminded the group that they were discussing safety on the site, not landscaping. Ms. Billington said she had pedestrian safety concerns with the lot because of the parking separation on the site while there is a road to the shopping center. Mr. Lampron said the lot will become less cluttered because there is a staging area to park the trucks.

PersonNameEleanor Dudek was concerned about the fuel truck traffic accessing and exiting the lot and all of the other traffic on the lot as well. Mr. Lampron cautioned that his lot already has all of this traffic. Nothing is being added. This project will make the lot safer. Bill Foster asked about having only one truck loaded with fuel on site at night. Mr. Lampron said he could live with having only one truck loaded at night on the lot.

Carolyn Biegel, 141 Ossipee Trail, came forward and said she can live with the condition of 3 trucks on site at any one time, but she cannot live with the condition of not having the tanker truck on site during peak times and one has been there almost every single day for the duration since Mr. Lampron has opened his business. However, she has a hard time with “I can live with these conditions”, as she feels that these same conversations about safety took place at the initial approval. She quoted from the original transcript of what was said by the Chairman of the Planning Board when the approval was crafted. The Chair said, . . .”3 home delivery trucks would be allowed.” “Can I have 5.” “No we are going to limit it to 3. Do you have another place you can park those trucks?” “Yes I do.” “Well park them there.” “Okay I will.” Now to have this project come back again is troubling. At the prior approval, it was discussed that the only way you can grow a business is to grow quantity. So, if he wants to have more trucks, limit it to the 3 on site at all times as it was originally approved. If he wants to shuttle a lot of trucks through, that is fine, but as long as there is 3 on site at all times as was originally approved. Ms. Billington asked why she was against having more than 3 trucks. She said because he asked for 3 at the previous approval and the Board should stick to that number of trucks as originally approved. She said if one doesn’t live close by, you don’t see what is there. There are a lot of delivery trucks there. Also there are cement trucks, beer trucks, tractor trailer trucks, boats, etc. on site and it is reasonable to keep it at 3. Mr. Lampron said he was here asking for more parking with this application and just because he only had 3 spaces at the original approval for truck parking, doesn’t mean he can’t have more. Trucks do come in to use the store but those trucks are not mine. He asked the Board to look at the fact that he is only asking for parking for his trucks overnight and it will be out back where they cannot be seen. What is the impact of that parking.

Carol asked if there were any more comments. Ed Taylor, addressStreet28 Pilgram Road, came forward and said

that his job keeps him on the road but he lives in Standish. He often uses Mr. Lampron’s store to gas up his company vehicle. He has been able to come and go extremely easily at all times a day. He has been in when there are big trucks there and has never had to negotiate his way out of the lot or felt is was congested.. His understanding is that the trucks are there anyway. To improve the site by putting parking in to improve the site by adding spaces to store the trucks only makes sense.

Chair, Ms. Billington, closed the public discussion in order to have the members discuss how to proceed on Standard “A”. placeCityWayne made a motion that this application does meet the Standard “A” due to hazardous conditions on site. PersonNameEleanor Dudek seconded the motion. Carol asked for discussion. Gus Favreau said that loaded trucks would create a hazard to safety and Dana has said it is not an issue for him and that his drivers would prefer not to load the trucks at the end of the day. In some ways, that does remove for him the safety issue of loaded trucks on site without anyone there. PersonNameWayne Newbegin said he agreed with Mr. Lampron regarding traffic in that he didn’t feel that there is a traffic flow issue. What he has a concern about is the fuel.

Carol asked for a vote for Standard “A”. If it fails, it will fail on Standard “A”. Bill Foster asked why there would be an issue with the trucks if only one truck was loaded at night when the lot was unattended. He was trying to work toward agreement for the members. Discussion continued. Eleanor asked how the Board would police whether trucks were empty or not. Would there be circumstances when the trucks would be left full? Mr. Benson asked Dana what was more dangerous, a loaded truck or an empty truck? Dana said the fuel was not dangerous. It is not a combustible liquid, it is flammable liquid. If he had a 5-gallon pail and had the top open and he dropped a match in it and it would go out. It is not like gasoline.

Carol asked if there was any more discussion. She asked for a vote. The motion is the application does not meet Standard “A”. PersonNameWayne Newbegin and PersonNameEleanor Dudek and Gus Favreau voted yes and Bill Foster, Chris Parkin and Carol Billington voted no. Carol said Standard “A” is still on the table.

Gus Favreau said that he disagrees with having a sign. It is tacky and a detriment and thinks that carrying the curb would be less visible but would create the impact of no parking. Carol referred to item (3) in parenthesis where the no parking signs in the fire lane. Discussion continued back and forth among the members trying to work out acceptable language for Standard “A”.

Finally, Bill Foster made a motion for Standard “A” with the suggested conditions as listed in Carol Billington’s new handout of suggested Conditions of Approval:

(1) as is

(2) as is

(3) First sentence only

(4) Use alternative 4

(5) Strike that condition out

(6) Not more than 8 home delivery fuel trucks shall be stored on site at any one time and only one truck loaded with fuel overnight and all trucks must be parked in designated parking places

(7) Is (8 as listed) No tractor trailer truck shall be parked or stored on site except when fueling with driver in the vehicle and when routine maintenance

No one seconded the motion. Discussion continued and Carol Billington made a motion to approve the application under Standard A with conditions as follows:

(1) as is

(2) as is

(3) as is using first sentence only

(4) Alternative 4

(5) Use (7) and reads as: No more than 8 home delivery fuel trucks parked, stored or on site at any one time with the provision one home delivery fuel truck will be loaded with fuel overnight.

(6) Use (8) and reads as: No tractor trailer truck shall be parked or stored on site or within the accessory structure other than in the act of active process of delivering fuel with the driver in the vehicle except for routine trailer maintenance activities.

Chris Parkin seconded the motion. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to amend the motion and change the number of delivery trucks on site to 5 trucks. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor: Chris Parkin, PersonNameWayne Newbegin and Gus Favreau. Opposed: Bill Foster, PersonNameEleanor Dudek and Carol Billington. Amendment failed. Discussion continued.

Carol asked for a vote to approve 8 delivery trucks on the site. In favor: Bill Foster, Chris Parkin and Carol Billington; opposed: Gus Favreau, PersonNameWayne Newbegin and PersonNameEleanor Dudek. Motion failed.

Dana Lampron spoke again about his expansion. He said that everything he is asking for is already being done there now. This new project reduces the safety of the fuel in the trucks at night, number of trucks at night and reduces backing the fuel trucks into the roadways and reduces traffic flow issues.

Ms. Billington announced that the Board would take a 5 minutes break. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Ms. Billington said that Standard A has not passed. She said the Board would come back to this issue and continue with the rest of the Standards.

B. The bulk location and height of proposed buildings and structures and the proposed uses thereof will not be detrimental or will impose undue burdens on the public facilities.

Carol Billington read Standard “B” as shown above. She said the condition of approval that applies to this standard is Bud’s No. (6) which reads:

Alternative (6): The 40’ X 48’ accessory structure is approved as an accessory use only, to store goods and materials in support of the convenience store, gas station, and home heating fuel delivery operation. The building is not an expansion of the retail sales and service use, and cannot be used for warehousing, retail vehicle maintenance, or manufacturing of heating oil products. Any vehicle maintenance taking place on the site will be limited to typical, daily, ‘roadside’ type preventative maintenance of home heating oil delivery vehicles.

Mr. Feldman said the applicant was in agreement with this condition.

Bill Foster made a motion for Condition B with the alternative provided by Carol. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All members were in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

C. The provisions of on-site landscaping and screening do provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.

Carol read the 3 conditions that pertain to this Standard:

1. (10)Due to the wetland nature of much of the buffer area combined with the specific location of this site and its part of the required buffering of Colonial Market Place, applicant shall show on the site and landscape plans a required minimum visual buffer area for the entire distance between the proposed accessory structure and the right of way of Route 25. Within this buffer area the minimum visual buffer area there shall be no parking and the provisions of Town Code Section 181-21 c shall apply.

2. (11)The buffer area to the street including the landscape berm, plus the 50 ft. wide buffer areas around the (40’ X 48’) accessory use storage building and surrounding truck parking area are considered required minimum visual buffer areas. Any trees or other landscaping materials planted or already existing in these minimum visual buffer areas that are damaged or die at any time shall be immediately replaced to ensure that the buffering effect of these materials is achieved. All landscaping within these minimum visual buffer areas shall be well maintained throughout the year.

3. (12)The landscape plan shall show min. 8 ft tall trees spaced at a min. 30 ft. apart around the perimeter of the property, including the berm area near Colonial Market Place. All trees must be maintained and replaced if they die.

Mr. Feldman said the applicant is happy with these 3 conditions of approval that pertain to Standard C. He said DEP has asked them to replant 2 trees that have died and the applicant will do that. Mr. Feldman also added that any trees shown on the plan will be planted and replaced if any die.

Chris Parkin made a motion to accept Standard “C” with the 3 conditions of approval with the additional wording added in the second sentence of (11) to read: Any trees or other landscaping materials planted or already existing in these minimum visual buffer area or otherwise shown on the landscape plan that are damaged or die at any time shall be immediately replaced to ensure that the buffering effect of these materials is achieved. Bill Foster seconded the motion. All members in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

D. The site plan adequately provides for the soil and drainage problems that the development will create.

Gus Favreau made a motion to approve Standard “D” and PersonNameWayne Newbegin seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All members in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

E. The provisions for exterior lighting will not create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets nor are inadequate for the safety or occupants or users of the site nor will such lighting damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.

Mr. Feldman showed where one light will be placed on the side of the new building. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to approve Standard “E” and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

F. The applicant has provided reasonable evidence of his financial capabilities to complete the development as planned and approved.

Chris Parkin made a motion that this project meets Standard “F” and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

G. The proposed development will not create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site or the buildings on the site for emergency vehicles or by failure to meet other fire safety ordinances or laws. The Fire Department shall file a written report with the Planning Board prior to the hearing.

Mr. Feldman said that this condition is redundant with Condition 3 above. See Standard A-3. Mr. Lampron said that the Fire Chief has told him that the fire lane is adequate as it is now. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion that the applicant meets the requirements of Standard G. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

H. The proposed development has made adequate provision for sewage disposal.

Chris Parkin made a motion that this project meets Standard “H” and Bill Foster seconded the motion. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

I. The proposed site plan will not alter the existing character of the surrounding zoning district or division to the extent that it will become a detriment or potential nuisance to said zoning division or district.

Peter Biegel sent an email to many of the Board members and Carol Billington read the email in its entirety. See attachment. Sally Daggett, Town Attorney, said that the Comprehensive Plan is newly adopted by the town and state law requires that a town works towards having its land use ordinances consistent with Comprehensive Plan as a guide. At present the planning board must use the current provisions in the site plan review ordinance and not what the town might be working toward but not approved.

Gus Favreau had questions about how do projects that alter the existing character and if this project is approved, it could potentially open the door to other similar projects in the village center that could seriously alter the existing character of the village center. Carol asked Sally Daggett to comment on Standard I. Bill Foster reminded the members that the Board had approved 2 trucking businesses in the last 2 years and that the Board has set a precedence. He then asked about having an email sent to him. Can he read it? Sally Daggett explained how an email was different than an ex parte communication with other members.

Gus Favreau said it was very difficult to make a determination on Standard I because Standard A has not been approved yet.

Sally Daggett said that Standard “I” probably needs to be revised to be a little more objective so that it gives the applicant and the Planning Board what it needs for information to made better decision.

Chris Parkin asked if parking under the fuel racks is counted as parking spaces. Lee Feldman said that one space had been added to the plan. Mr. Feldman also said he had an issue with Condition 18 that said that fuel trucks must be parked inside the storage building; he wanted it to be changed to “accessory building”. He referred to Peter Biegel’s email concerning bulk fuel storage and said this is not bulk fuel storage but accessory use building and is allowed in the Village Center (VC) zone. He said the building being proposed fits into the criteria for building style in VC. Ms. Dudek said the project was more than the new building and she considered it included trucks, parking of trucks, and movement of trucks. She also stated that the site plan is attractive but it is not mature trees that will be planted, it will take a few years for the depiction to become reality. Mr. Feldman pointed out a tree that is on site now and meets the scale. He said the Arborvitaes and Rosa Rugosa are in the island that separates the entrance way from the accessory structure and the trees are Syinga Veticulata Ivory Silk that are the same as on the site now. Those are deciduous trees and will lose their leaves in the fall. Mr. Lampron pointed out a pine tree on the site now and said it was planted last year and used it as a example of how tall the new plantings will be on the berm. Dana referred to his trucks and said these are home delivery trucks that come and go on his site and are seen in residential areas all day long.

Ms. Billington opened the discussion for public comment. Ed Taylor, addressStreet28 Pilgrim Road, commented that the number of trucks for Dana’s business should be determined by Mr. Lampron and he is insulated that the Board has tried to vote 5 trucks on the site as opposed to the 8 as proposed by Mr. Lampron.

Some discussion followed by the Board members about why conditions from the first approval were being used for this approval. Town attorney, Sally Daggett, said these conditions need to be on the plan for this approval too.

Carolyn Biegel came forward and said she would have preferred that the whole plan come before the Board the first time and no piecemeal like it is today.

Ms. Billington spoke very briefly to the people in the audience who were attending the meeting because of the placeCitySt. Joseph’s College agenda item. She said there would not be any discussion for new applications after 11:00 p.m. tonight.

Carol said this discussion on Standard “I” had ended. She asked for a motion. Ms. Billington made a motion to approve the application, knowing that any motion made and seconded can still be deliberated and defeated by the person that made the motion. Making the motion does not mean that one agrees with it, it is moving the process along. She made a motion that the application meets Standard I with the condition that the site plan includes:

1. (13)This site plan approval is limited to retail sales only. No mixing of fuels to produce another product as per Town Code that would be classified as manufacturing. No wholesale distribution of fuels, gas or heating oil as per Town Code that would be classified as wholesale distribution.

2. (14)The diesel fuel shall be dispensed only through one, low volume pump with 2 hoses that would not be appropriate for large trucks as the site is not designed for substantial large truck traffic.

3. (18)No overnight parking under the fuel rack other than a vehicle in active process of using the fuel rack with the truck driver present at the vehicle. Fuel trucks must be parked inside the storage building or behind the buffered area for the accessory use building.

4. (New)Standard A, Conditions #2, 6, 7, Standard B, Condition #1, and Standard C, Conditions #1,2,3 must be in place and maintained at all times to meet Standard I for this site plan approval.

Bill Foster seconded the motion. Attorney Daggett cautioned the members that conditions 2, 6, and 7 under Standard A have not been approved by the Board. Ms. Billington amended the motion by saying she is removing No. 4 above. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. All in favor and amended motion passed.

Ms. Billington asked for a vote on the original motion that includes 1, 2 & 3. In favor: Bill Foster, Chris Parkin, Carol Billington and PersonNameWayne Newbegin. Opposed: Gus Favreau and PersonNameEleanor Dudek. Motion passed.

J. The proposed development has made adequate provision for water supply, including an adequate supply of water for fire-protection purposes.

Bill Foster made a motion that the project met the Standard “J”. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. No comments from the public. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

K. No plan shall be approved by the Planning Board as long as the applicant is in default on a previously approved plan.

Bill Foster made a motion that the application meets Standard “K”. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. No discussion. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

Ms. Billington said there were some other conditions that fell under ‘Other’ as written in Mr. Benson’s memo. Ms. Billington read them into the minutes and they follow:

1. (17)There shall be no water closets sinks or drains in the accessory structure.

1. Any future expansion or change in use will first need approval from the Board of Appeals as an expansion or change in the special exception use (Retail sales and service over 2000 SF) prior to any review and approval of a site plan amendment by the Planning Board.

2. (New)Any future expansion, even below the 10% threshold, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, as this approval represents the Planning Board’s belief that this approval constitutes the maximum impact that can be safely sustained at this site location.

3. (New)All uncompleted conditions from original site plan approval continue to remain in full force and effect.

4. (New)Final approval is subject to plan modifications that show above conditions of approval. Inclusions of such changes will be approved by the Planning Board Administrator.

5. (21)This approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant (either orally or in writing), and any variation from the plans, proposals, and supporting documents are subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Code Enforcement Officer may approve.

The members discussed in depth the 5 items listed above (as appeared in Bud Benson’s memo) and decided in Item 1 (Bud’s #17) would have to go to the Board of Appeals for an expansion, even if less than 10%

The members decided that #3 above would be scratched and #4 above states that all conditions of approval would be on the final plan Standard Approval, #5 above, would be kept.

Ms. Billington moved to #19 on Bud’s memo, applicant must obtain a new occupancy, etc., etc. Discussion followed and it was decided that this item could be added under “other” and #16 regarding water closets, sinks or drains will go under Other. Ms. Billington made a motion to accept the conditions listed under other as follows: #1 (Bud’s 17), #2 (new), #4, #5 (Bud’s 21), and Bud’s #19 and #16. Gus Favreau seconded the motion. No discussion. All in favor: Foster, Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Motion passed.

Ms. Billington said that left #9 that would be discussed under Standard A. Ms. Billington made a motion to approve Standard “A” with the following conditions:

A The provisions for vehicular loading, unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will not create hazards to safety nor will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.

1. (1)A safe painted walkway should be maintained from parking area through fueling station canopy area to the office/retail store.

4. Postt, visible signs in the area of the five parking stalls behind the fuel station canopy to read “maximum 20 minute parking”. Discourage employee parking in this location, reserving spaces for retail store customers.

5. (7)No more than 8 home delivery fuel trucks shall be parked and stored on site at any one time and only 1 delivery fuel truck will be loaded and parked in designated truck parking area and left overnight.

6. (8)No tractor trailer truck shall be parked or stored on site or within the accessory structure other than in the active process of delivering fuel with driver in the vehicle except for routine trailer maintenance.

7. (9)No more than a total 8 fuel oil trucks, or any kind, may be on the property at one time during business hours. No more than 1 additional bulk fuel tractor trailer truck

Bill Foster seconded the motion. Bill Foster made an amendment to the motion. No more than a total of 8 fuel oil delivery trucks and no more than 1 additional bulk fuel tractor trailer or other fuel truck of any kind will be on the property at one time during business hours. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. No discussion. Those in favor of the amendment: In favor: Bill Foster, Chris Parkin, Carol Billington. Opposed: PersonNameEleanor Dudek, PersonNameWayne Newbegin and Gus Favreau. Amendment failed.

Meeting came to order at 10:29 p.m. after a 5 minute break. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to extend the New Business hours to 12 midnight. Chris Parkin seconded the motion. In favor: Parkin, Dudek, Billington, Favreau and Newbegin. Against: Bill Foster.

Bill Foster made a motion to have the meeting go until midnight so that placeCitySt. Joseph’s College application could be heard. PersonNameWayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Lou Wood, addressStreetWesterlea Way came forward and said that placeCitySt. Joseph’s College is a huge project for this town and the neighbors surrounding it. It is not to be taken lightly. We are asking for a fair and reasonable review of their application.

Ms. Billington said that 3 members of the Board will not be serving after tonight’s meeting. Ms. Billington felt that there was no reason to take audience input regarding placeCitySt. Joseph’s College. Procedure dictates that applicants identify themselves as part of the agenda and a site walk would be scheduled during the next 30 days. It will be a public site walk and the process could begin. There would be no lengthy discussion tonight. The Planning Board will have 2 or 3 new members by next month.

Lee-Ann Vanatta, addressStreetHearthside Road, came forward and said that placeCitySt. Joseph’s College has been waiting for 4 hours. The residents of Standish have also been waiting for 4 hours to speak on this application. It is only fair that the Board recognizes us. Alan Connell, addressStreetHearthside Road, said he got a letter saying he could speak at a public hearing. It sounds like that is not the case even if this motion passes and the new business can begin. He said that this issue is under litigation at the Maine Superior Court with 2 plaintiffs. Now the Planning Board is going to take up an issue that is under litigation. How can this happen. Ms. Billington apologized for not having placeCitySt. Joseph’s College heard earlier in the evening. The Board will accommodate everyone on this issue and you will be heard.

Norman Brown, addressStreet43 Hearthside Road, asked Sally Daggett, town attorney, about the decision of the Appeals Board that is being litigated in Superior Court. The Plaintiffs feel that the Board did not make a valid decision for the expansion itself. His question was, “Can the Board or the College proceed with the discussion of expansion when a decision of the Zoning Board is in doubt and in the courts?” Sally Daggett said the Planning Board could go forward in reviewing the application because there has been no request for a stay. CityplaceSaint Joseph’s College is free to go forward with the application. Building permits may not be able to be issued until the court decision is made. She said that if the College wants to do any site work, it can, but if the Board of Appeals decision is overturned, the College will have to undo any work done, assuming that Town approval is required for the work. Any work the College does is at its own risk.

Chair, Ms. Billington, recognized Phil Yauch, Executive Vice President of placeCitySt. Joseph’s College, who asked to have their project item submitted on a different night. The project submission was moved to Monday, June 11, 2007, at the placePlaceNameMunicipal PlaceTypeBuilding as the second item on the agenda. Bill Foster asked to make a new motion and made a new motion to table the project to next Monday, June 11. PersonNameWayne Newbegin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.

The meeting moved back to Pit Stop Fuel, Inc.’s project. Ms. Billington, Chair, made an amendment to her motion that was on the table. The motion on the table included:

1 as written on her Suggested Conditions of Approval

2. As written on her Suggested Conditions of Approval

3 except last sentence from her list

Alternative language #4 from her list

5 is stricken

6 (Bud’s 7)

7. (Bud’s 8) and slightly amended and including Bud’s #9 which says that: No more than a total of eight fuel oil trucks, of any kind, may be on the property at one time during business hours. No more than 8 Pit Stop home heating oil delivery trucks and no more than 1 additional bulk fuel tractor trailer truck or other fuel oil delivery truck of any kind shall be on site at any time.

Chris Parkin seconded the motion. Dana Lampron said this vote would be a reduction of trucks by having only one truck loaded overnight and he is agreeing to the stipulation. Ed Taylor, addressStreet28 Pilgrim Road, spoke again about number of trucks, etc. etc. Bud Benson said that he felt that the number of fuel trucks on the site could be enforced by someone taking pictures of the site. PersonNameEleanor Dudek asked who is would be. Bud said it could be anyone.

Ms. Billington continued and said that there are 8 trucks on site moving around the lot all day long and whether or not this is turned down on not, he could have 9, 10, etc. trucks moving around. Discussion continued amongst the Board members and Mr. Benson asked to limit the parking on site and if there was an amendment to the vote. No one wanted to amend the motion on the table. Sally Daggett, Town Attorney said that Mr. Benson’s memo to the Board members discusses the parking requirements. Per the ordinance, parking for 5 more delivery trucks parking is required and current parking stalls are not adequate. The issue remains that 2 parking stalls under the fueling rack is needed for delivery truck parking. The members counted the stalls required and the number shown on the plan. Lee Feldman said he thought the parking issue was settled at the last workshop and he had added one more parking stall that brought the parking to 21 stalls for retail customers and 8 for truck parking and the 2 stalls under the fuel rack. Dana Lampron came forward and said 2 of his trucks will be parked in stalls next the accessory building and agreed also to park 2 more trucks in tandem next to them and will show those parking stalls on the site plan. Ms. Billington, Chair, asked for another vote:

Voting affirmative: Bill Foster, Chris Parkin, Carol Billington and Gus Favreau. Opposed: PersonNameEleanor Dudek and PersonNameWayne Newbegin. Motion passed.

In summary, the conditions of approval are:

(1) A safe painted walkway shall be maintained from parking area through fueling station canopy area to the office/retail store.

(2) Large delivery trucks, WB50 or larger, are restricted to off-peak hours outside of the time periods of 6:30-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. Travel lanes exclude all parking stalls plus the area under and around the fueling canopy, assuming a vehicle is stacked each side of the canopy.

(3) Parking shall be prohibited in the 20 ft wide combination fire lane and through traffic lane between the retail store and the gas station canopy. This shall be accomplished by maintaining the 20’ fire lane pavement striping and labeling it as “addressStreetFire Lane - No Parking Area” on the pavement with one foot tall lettering.

(4) Post visible signs in the area of the five parking stalls behind the fuel station canopy to read “maximum 20 minute parking”. Discourage employee parking in this location, reserving spaces for retail store customers.

(5) No more than 8 home delivery fuel trucks shall be parked and stored on site at any one time and only one truck loaded with fuel overnight, and any home delivery fuel trucks must be parked in a designated truck parking space or within the accessory structure.

(6) No tractor trailer truck shall be parked or stored on site or within the accessory structure other than in the active process of delivering fuel with driver in the vehicle or warming a tractor trailer with a frozen line in the case of an emergency.

(7) No more than a total of 8 fuel oil trucks, of any kind, may be on the property at one time during business hours. No more than 1 additional bulk fuel tractor trailer truck shall be on site at any one time.

(8) The 40’ X 48’ accessory structure is approved for an accessory use only, not warehousing or for maintenance work. This building may not be used for any other use. This building is not an expansion of the retail sales and service use and shall not be used for mechanical repair services other than typical daily preventative maintenance, and may not be used for any type of retail sales and service other than storage of equipment and material directly used in the retail sales convenience store and home heating oil delivery business. Such as to store retail home heating oil delivery trucks, a tractor used for plowing and/or snow blowing on the site, as storage of salt used on the site in the winter.

(9) Due to the wetland nature of much of the buffer area combined with the specific location of this site and its part of the required buffering of Colonial Market Place, applicant shall show on the site and landscape plans a required minimum visual buffer area for the entire distance between the proposed accessory structure and the right of way of Route 25. Within this minimum visual buffer area, there shall be no parking and the provisions of Town Code Section 181-21(C) shall apply.

(10) The buffer area to the street including the landscape berm, plus the 50 ft. wide buffer areas around the (40’ x 48’) accessory use storage building and surrounding truck parking area are considered required minimum visual buffer areas. Any trees or other landscaping materials planted or already existing in these minimum visual buffer areas or otherwise shown on the landscape plan that are damaged or die at any time shall be immediately replaced to ensure that the buffering effect of these materials is achieved. All landscaping within these minimum visual buffer areas shall be well maintained throughout the year.

(11) The landscape plan shall show minimum 8 ft. tall trees spaced at a minimum 30 ft. apart around the perimeter of the property, including the berm area near Colonial Market Place. All trees must be maintained and replaced if they die.

(12) This site plan approval is limited to retail sales only. No mixing of fuels to produce another product as per Town Code that would be classified as manufacturing. No wholesale distribution of fuels, gas or heating oil as per Town Code that would be classified as wholesale distribution.

(13) The diesel fuel shall be dispensed only through one, low volume pump with 2 hoses that would not be appropriate for large trucks as the site is not designed for substantial large truck traffic.

(14) No overnight parking under the fuel rack other than a vehicle in active process of using the fuel rack with the truck driver present at the vehicle. Fuel trucks must be parked inside the accessory building or behind the buffered area for the accessory use building.

(15) Any future expansion will first need approval from the Board of Appeals as an expansion of the special exception use (retail sales and service over 2,000 SF) prior to any review and approval of a site plan amendment by the Planning Board.

(16) Any future expansion, even below the 10% threshold, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, as this approval represents the Planning Board’s belief that this approval constitutes the maximum impact that can be safely sustained at this site location.

(17) Applicant must obtain a new occupancy permit for existing building’s second floor and the new accessory structure. No occupancy permit shall be issued for the proposed new accessory structure or the second floor of existing Pit Stop gas station until all site improvements are complete.

(18) There shall be no water closets, sinks or drains in the accessory structure.

(19) Final approval is subject to plan modifications that show the above conditions of approval. Inclusion of such changes will be approved by the Planning Board Administrator.

(20) This approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant (either orally or in writing), and any variation from the plans, proposals, and supporting documents are subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for minor changes which the Code Enforcement Officer may approve

PUBLIC HEARING – Order No. 62-07 Moratorium to Standish Town Code, Chapter 181, Land Use & 181-22, Pedestrian Ways

Chair, Carol Billington, read the order as issued by the Town Council regarding addressStreetPedestrian Ways because the town will not be enforcing them in the next 6 months while the town works on a sidewalk ordinance in place. There was no discussion.

Carol asked for a motion to adjourn. PersonNameWayne Newbegin made a motion to adjourn and Chris Parkin seconded. All in favor and motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.

These minutes were prepared and submitted by Donna Sawyer, Secretary to the Planning Board.

PIT STOP FUELS

Carol Billington’s Suggested Conditions of Approval

Site Plan Approval Standards

B. The provisions for vehicular loading, unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will not create hazards to safety nor will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.

2. (1)A safe painted walkway should be maintained from parking area through fueling station canopy area to the office/retail store.

Carryover from previous conditions of approval.

3. (2)Large delivery trucks, WB50 or larger, are restricted to off-peak hours outside of the time periods of 6:30-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. Travel lanes exclude all parking stalls plus the area under and around the fueling canopy assuming a vehicle is stacked each side of the canopy.

Carryover from previous conditions of approval.

4. (3)Parking shall be prohibited in the 20 ft wide combination fire lane and through traffic lane between the retail store and the gas station canopy. This shall be accomplished by maintaining the 20’ fire lane pavement striping and label it as “addressStreetFire Lane - No Parking Area” on the pavement with one foot tall lettering. Applicant shall install and maintain “No Parking” signs with min 3 inch lettering shall be posted at 4 ft. height at 10ft intervals on the Route 25 side of the store and at 20’ intervals along sidewalk between store and fueling canopy. Applicant shall modify the radius of the edge of pavement between the store and Route 25 entrance to hinder parking in these areas and add a curb from the front of the store to the street sidewalk.

5. (4)