Chairman, Carol Billington called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present: Brian Libby, Gus Favreau, Eleanor Dudek and Alan Connell. Absent: Bill Foster. Staff present: Bud Benson, Planning Administrator and Donna Sawyer, Planning Board Secretary.
Carol Billington said that tonight’s meeting is a special public hearing of the Planning Board to hear testimony on the application from placeCitySt. Joseph’s College for an expansion.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked that PersonNameEleanor Dudek speak regarding bias issues. Eleanor began by saying she is a placeCitySt. Joseph’s College graduate many years ago and does not feel that makes her bias toward this application. She missed the workshop that was held on July 23rd, but she has read and studied the notes of that workshop. Next, she addressed the newspaper article that appeared in the August 3, 2007, issue of the Gazette that wrote about quotes that she made. She said she was misquoted and told the reporter at the onset that she was not allowed to discuss any project before the Board. She referred the matter to her fellow Board members as to how to handle this matter. Gus Favreau said being a graduate of the college does not make her bias. He further stated that his experience with reporters is that they don’t correctly state what has been said. Brian Libby agreed with Gus’s sentiments. Carol said she felt the same way and said many people in the Town
of placeCityStandish have connections to the college and that does not create a bias.
Alan Connell said he recused himself from the last meeting. He said he had concerns regarding this perceived bias situation. He wanted more discussion. Eleanor said this newspaper, Gazette, is not a newspaper widely read and highly regarded to obtain news and she was upset because her good name was besmirched. In addition, others were angry to think that a planning board member said something that hadn’t been said. There was a lot of energy spent when the real issue is with the St. Joe’s application and a newspaper quote. Eleanor said someone from the Hearthside neighborhood could have been misquoted just as easily. She said this time, she was misquoted, and when she called the newspaper, she told them she would make sure that none of her fellow Board members
ever talked with the Gazette.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked Alan Connell if he was going to recuse himself tonight? He said yes. He questioned the appearance of the issue of bias against Eleanor. Chair, Carol Billington, told Alan that he was a member of the audience and the audience does not have a say in the Board’s decision. Carol Billington asked for a motion if there was no more discussion. Gus Favreau made a motion that Eleanor remain as a member of this Board to review this application. Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
Chair, Carol Billington, introduced Sally Daggett who is legal counsel to the Planning Board. Carol asked for a review of the site walk that the members conducted on July 23rd. Gus Favreau said they walked through the campus for approximately 2 hours. They walked addressStreetWesterlea Way and members of the engineering team and college administration pointed out where the dormitories would be built, the types of buffers that would be between the college and the residences. They also walked down the private part of addressStreetWesterlea Way to see where the houses were sited in relation to the cul-de-sac to be built. They did walk through the forest in several places. They walked west to the pond, where the athletic fields are behind the pond and to where the new
environmental lab is proposed. He said they also went across the area where the bridge is proposed to allow students to go back and forth between the main campus without walking down the road. It would be a shortcut for the students. He ended his walk back in the parking lot and they were going to go across the road to the sewerage area but time did not permit it. At the beginning of the walk, Carol Billington, made it very clear that it was a walk for the Planning Board members to gather information and she asked people to refrain from commenting. Some people did make comments but eventually did quiet down. Carol said some of the residents did go on to review the septic area. Carol added that Donna Sawyer, secretary to the Planning Board, did put out notes from the workshop on July 23. Carol said there was a good amount of audience participation. Comments from the public at that workshop were not something that was mandatory. About 2 hours of discussion took place.
Chair, Carol Billington, said that input from the public tonight would pertain to the Standards (A through L) in Section 181-73 of the Land Use Code. Carol continued and said goals tonight were:
- Determine if the application was complete enough to begin review by the Planning Board.
- Look at peer reviews that might be wanted or needed.
- Establish some impact fees.
- If peer reviews are warranted, gather comments from the public to help establish the need for an outside review.
Tom Doyle, attorney for the college, said the submissions were received on lighting. Heather Taylor was present to speak about lighting. Mr. Doyle has the insurance certificate for the wastewater system across the road and a letter from the Portland Water District to show capacity to meet the water demand of the college. Another topic raised at the last workshop was noise. Scott Bodwell who conducted noise studies for the college is also present and can make a presentation. Mr. Doyle stated that he has asked for a copy of the noise assessment done by a resident within Hearthside Subdivision and has received nothing.
Chair, Carol Billington, said that any additional submission materials for this project were due in the Planning Department on July 24th. Any submission after that date is decided by the members if it will be used in their deliberations. Gus and Eleanor said they have reviewed the documents that Mr. Doyle spoke about.
Bud Benson, Planning Board Administrator, said that the application was substantially complete and work could begin on it. Small items are missing. Architectural drawing of the pedestrian bridge came in today. Clearing limit lines on grading and utility plans are still missing. Brian Libby made a motion that the application was complete enough to begin review and Gus Favreau seconded the motion. Joe Sampson, addressStreet168 Hearthside Road, asked if anything on the financial capability of the college is available for review. Phil Yauck, Executive Vice President of placeCitySt. Joseph’s College, said the information is available in the application and the college will use financing to fund some of the construction. All were in favor and the motion passed.
Carol moved to Standard A which reads:
The provisions for vehicular loading, unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site . . .
Bud Benson, Planning Administrator, said that a study points out the need for a traffic light at the intersection of White’s addressStreetBridge Road and Route 35. MDOT will be reviewing that data. What will not be reviewed is the internal traffic on the site. It might be something that the Board would want to have done by a third party peer review. Carol Billington said she doesn’t fully understand how the cul-de-sac will be used, especially if parking, and how will traffic flow? Lou Wood, addressStreet127 Westerlea Way, shared her concerns. . . do we turn right, left, how do we cross traffic, etc. It is dangerous and needs to be reviewed. How will the traffic flow from addressStreetWesterlea Way to White’s addressStreetBridge Road flow? There are 3
exits now, some are blind, and need to be reviewed. Cheryl Autry, 110 Hearthside, is concerned about disaster recovery efforts. She would like to see the college’s plans for such an event. Dana Lampron, addressStreetWesterlea Way, said he spoke with the Standish Fire Chief about the cul-de-sac. He said that the Fire Chief stated that it wasn’t a good set up to have a cul-de-sac. Where will the fire trucks park if there is a fire. Fire equipment is usually at the end of a road and this cul-de-sac is in the middle of addressStreetWesterlea Way. Janet Murphy, addressStreet153 Highland Road, questioned where the delivery trucks would enter because office supplies and cafeteria supplies arrive daily. There are big trucks, where do they come in and out? Carol Billington asked why did the cul-de-sac design come into the plans. Neighbors on addressStreetWesterlea Way asked to have the traffic flow off
addressStreetWesterlea Way. James Seymour, Civil Engineer from Sebago Technics, said that during the granting of the special exception from the Appeals Board, the private residents at the end of addressStreetWesterlea Way were concerned about blocking that private way and to address that concern the cul-de-sac was added. There are 2 access fire lanes that come off the cul-de-sac which make a smooth transition off from it. The fire lanes have collapsible bollards for access for fire trucks. As a result the Fire trucks will not be blocking any entrance way because the trucks would be knocking the bollards. Dave Perkins, attorney for Louis Wood and others on addressStreetWesterlea Way, wanted to clarify what the peer review will entail. Attorney Perkins said residents wanted a review of traffic flow and would like to have a separate road for the addressStreetWesterlea Way residents. There will be blockage there and his clients want the traffic
for the college to have a separate entrance. He also asked about the peer review to look at the road standard. What is it? He will give the Board plans that he has supplied previously to the college that showed separation of the road through the neighborhood. He gave Carol Billington a plan for the road(s) that was what his clients wanted built.
Carol Billington asked Bud Benson to address the road issue. Bud Benson said that he has seen the letters concerning addressStreetWesterlea Way. Bud Benson said the way the code reads is that the type of road is determined by the number of dwelling units served. The number of dwelling units is a concern for a private way, as you can only have 2 dwelling units, the 3rd dwelling unit would require a full public street if you are building a new dwelling unit. A dwelling unit has to have a kitchen. These dorms do not have individual kitchens, so they are not considered a dwelling unit, and it does not trigger subdivision, and it does not require a full subdivision street. That is not to say that the Board couldn’t ask for one. That was an issue brought up in my memo.
If for safety sake, the Board felt it needed to be built wider, say 24 ft. in width with 5 ft. gravel shoulders, then they could ask for it. But, it is not something that is required,.because it is not a new dwelling unit that we are looking at here, thus it is not required by the code.
Mr. Favreau said on opening and closing days, he could see students parking on the cul-de-sac to load and unload their vehicles. The vehicles will not be setting there for hours. He would also expect campus security to make sure the cul-de-sac is used correctly. He couldn’t foresee the traffic issues that are being brought up and he expected that stop signs would be in place to direct the traffic. Phil Yauch, Executive Vice President, said that on opening day there are security people there and students from Student Life assigned to assist student as they move into dorm rooms. The cul-de-sac was added as a result of a meeting with residents at the end of addressStreetWesterlea Way where the residents feared a student driving down addressStreetWesterlea Way would not be able to get out. Mr. Yauch said the college did discuss a private road for the addressStreetWesterlea Way residents and there is a wetland issue and may impinge upon the neighbors who live in the Hearthside Road
Subdivision. They did not pursue the other alternative in great detail. The college plans to have signs beyond the cul-de-sac that say private property. Once students become familiar with the parking lots, there shouldn’t be a problem.
Lou Wood came forward again and said the plan was the college’s own plan. Carol Billington showed the map that Mr. Wood submitted and he reiterated that he would like a compromise with the attitude of “No. He pleaded that the college should at least listen to them, work with them and compromise.
Gus Favreau asked questions regarding frequency of vehicle use. Phil Yauch said that the majority of students leave their vehicles parked until weekends. Discussion continued regarding road width, etc. and Carol Billington spoke about what she would be looking for from a 3rd party review of the cul-de-sac road. James Seymour spoke about issues considered when planning the roadway/cul-de-sac.
Carol Billington thought all of these concerns could be addressed with a traffic study. Internal traffic, cul-de-sac, parking and addressStreetWesterlea Way and impact on White’s addressStreetBridge Road and the intersection of White’s addressStreetBridge Road and Rte 35. James Seymour said the design for the road has “No Parking” signs on one side and a sidewalk on the other side of addressStreetWesterlea Way so that pedestrians get off the road.
B. The bulk location and height of proposed buildings and structures and the proposed uses thereof will not be detrimental or will impose undue burden on the public facilities.
There was no discussion on this standard. Brian Libby said the Portland Water District has the facts and figures to review this issue fully as it relates to public facilities.
C. The provisions of on-site landscaping and screening do provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
Carol Billington asked Bud Benson for his input and he said there that a visual study has been done. Bud Benson said it appeared okay to him but someone from the public can look at it too. Gus Favreau said that he noticed during the site walk and that there are a lot of very tall trees but not much low growth. Gus suggested the college look at growing spruce and fir trees, etc. to provide a lower cover. Carol Billington said her impression was that there was a tremendous amount of buffer from the buildings to the homes and more than she has seen with any other recent project. Gus said he was thinking about parking lots, not the dormitories. Brian Libby agreed there should be smaller evergreen trees and/or shrubs but peer review didn’t need to be conducted.
Lou Wood, addressStreet127 Westerlea Way, said it was difficult to look at the plans and visualize what it will look like on the property. He asked for a visual done by a third party. It would help the neighbors and the public to visualize what the screening/buffering and lighting would look like. He submitted a letter that he had planned to submit in July, but had not had an opportunity until tonight. He said he has been developing for 20 years and he is having some issues with the plan.
Dana Lampron, addressStreetWesterlea Way, said that one of the biggest issues he sees are having to look at those big paved parking lots of the college and now there will be more. Why doesn’t the college build a new road separate from the existing road the neighborhood is being changed.
Carol Billington moved to the next Standard.
D. The site plan adequately provides for the soil and drainage problems that the development will create.
Carol said that stormwater typically gets a third party review. Bud Benson said he has not spent a lot of time reviewing. There are some new techniques such as impervious pavement that is new and he said he could get the Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District to review the stormwater drainage, however, it will be looked at by the MDEP
Brian Libby said he thought Cumberland County S&WCD could do a review. Lou Wood, addressStreetWesterlea Way, wanted the parking lot material reviewed and asked the Planning Board seek out someone who has used this material to find out how it is working for them.
Janet Murphy, addressStreet153 Highland Road, said she has the conditions of approval for the 1995 and under the conditions it says the college shall fulfill its obligation to monitor the phosphorus pond according to its terms with its letter of agreement with the DEP. Where is the phosphorus pond? She thought it was at the front of the college and it has been filled in. She asked that the previous approval be addressed. Jim Seymour, Sebago Technics, said that approval referred to the first phosphorus pond that was built as a result of the Alfond project in 1995. It is located in the center of the property. He pointed out the pond. Since then there has been the dormitory projects of Feeney and Currier which have come along as well as the academic building. The provisions have
been met and it has been completed and DEP has reviewed this entire property twice since that project. Mr. Seymour said Plans would be reviewed by DEP. Mr. Seymour spoke next about the sewerage system. There were 4 pods approved on the other side of the White’s addressStreetBridge Road and 3 have been built. They have capacity up to 60,000 gallons per day. The college has undertaken the a septic pre-treatment process. The water coming out of this treatment unit is clear enough so that it has no impact on the septic system. Over time, because it is clean water going into the septic system, it actually restores the whole systems. The college is still under a mandate to continue monitoring that is done by Sevee & Maher Engineers, Inc. and the reports are available at the town office. All of the reports have shown that there is an improvement of what they expected.
Janet Murphy, addressStreet153 Highland Road, said her question is that the planning board had given them carte blanche permission to expand the pods across the road. She also said under the conditions, she has checked with the Code Enforcement Officer at the town office and asked him if he could read the results of the monitoring report sent over by Sevee & Mahar and he did not know how to read them. She wanted someone to read them and tell her where the nitrate plume is at this point in time because she is 300’ from the leach field system.
Chair, Carol Billington, moved to the next standard:
E. The provisions for exterior lighting will not create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets nor are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site nor will such lighting damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Chair, Carol Billington said this item has caused a great deal of discussion. She asked to hear from the college and Heather Taylor, Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architects, spoke next. She brought in a new photometric plan that extended the lighting to the edge of the property. She pointed out addressStreetWesterlea Way, the proposed locations of the 5 new buildings and 3 new parking lots. She said what was showing in gray is zero foot candles. So one can see at the property lines, things fall off quickly. She further showed where the full cutoff fixtures would be placed. They are 250 watt bulbs and other fixtures were 400 watts. She said there were 25 ft. poles around the perimeter and 28 ft. tall in the center where they are up on a 3 ft. pedestal.
Proposed lights are 15 ft. poles around the perimeter and 18 ft. in the center. The wattage is lower. The lights around the pedestrian walkways are lantern like standards and match what the campus has in other places. She said they could put visors around the light and screening can go around them to potentially further reduce light. The reason she put the lights on the upside of the college side of the walkway was because these lights could serve as pathway and as well as used for egress of the buildings on this side. If lighting was pushed away, additional lights may be needed. She did point out where landscaping was in place on the lower side of the path and the idea is to help with screening.
Eleanor spoke about the lighting and effect of it with planting shrubbery. Ted Gifford, addressStreetHearthside Road, came to the podium and distributed an IES photometric test on a light fixture. He said if one goes down to the 90 degree level, it is not a full cutoff fixture. It is identified as a cutoff type fixture but not a full cutoff fixture. There is a difference. Carol asked for comment from Bud Benson who said he is not a lighting expert but said there were a lot of buffers there and the Board may be asking for berms 3 ft. high around the perimeter of the parking lots. It may be more beneficial discussing the buffering than a more thorough review of the lighting.
F. The applicant has provided reasonable evidence of his financial capabilities to complete the development as planned and approved.
Joe Sampson, addressStreetHearthside Road, asked that a D&B report be run on the college and that there be bonds in place for the construction projects.
Bud Benson said that when a developer is putting up sidewalk, etc., or something within the Town’s right of way, a guarantee is put in place. However, bonding is not an issue on this project. Lou Wood disagreed with Mr. Benson as it concerned the work on addressStreetWesterlea Way. Janet Murphy, addressStreetHighland Road, said she did not understand the college’s financing. Phil Yauch said that an annual audited financial statement is required annually. He has filed a 990 tax return and can be obtained through the internal revenue service. In cases of new construction, combinations of fund raising and financing are done.
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.
Dave Perkins, Attorney for addressStreetWesterlea Way, said that a part of the traffic review should also look at fire safety and public safety because it is a huge issue.
H. The proposed development has made adequate provision for sewage disposal.
Janet Murphy, addressStreetHighland Road, read from a previous condition that the college took out a liability policy and she would like to see the policy continued and she would like it noted that they have a $1,000,000 dollar policy that will cover remediation of the leach field.
Bud Benson said that the college will be asked to continue to monitor the septic systems as done in the past. A 3th party could review the design that is already there and in place and functioning. Sevee & Mahar who are doing the current monitoring could also do a 3rd party review for the proposed plans. Bud Benson said it would entail the reviewing the monitoring wells that are placed around it looking for any plumes of pollutants that might be moving and with a routine review of those wells, one can find things before it got to be bad. It is in place and is a safety mechanicism.
Chair, Carol Billington, asked about what was in place to monitor the septic system? Walter Stinson, Sebago Technics, said that there is existing capacity on placeLot 2 on the easterly side of White’s addressStreetBridge Road. Reading from Sevee & Mahar’s report, “as discussed in detail in the 2006 Annual Report, leach fields on both lots continue to operate as expected with regard to impact on water quality and hydraulic mounding in the subsurface soils. There is no evidence of offsite migration of nitrate nitrogen in the groundwater and no nitrate nitrogen or any other wastewater constitute applicable to water quality standards. Furthermore. . .” He said that these fields have been in for 10 years and they are monitored quarterly. As part of this
application, it must go to the DEP and submit evidence of the function of those systems. They will send it over to health engineering to review the hydrologics of the systems and it seems to him that these 2 agencies are adequate for peer review of the proposed system.
Monty Vogel, 214 Hearthside, said he runs along White’s addressStreetBridge Road and, on occasion, he has nearly passed out from the fumes. He called the college and was told him that something was being transferred over. At the least, the fumes are offensive.
Norman Brown, 43 Hearthside, said in 1995 when pods were being placed on placeLot 2, he was concerned about the leakage and breakdown of the pods in future years. There is a letter from the college that says that any neighbor whose well is damaged by any of the septic system pertaining to the college, they will be given free drinking water.
Janet Murphy, Highland Road, came forward and read data pertaining to the 1995 approval for the college’s expansion as it concerned the septic fields and the pods and the agreements made in that approval. Gus Favreau asked if this 1995 approval pertained to this application’s approval for an expansion. The chair said that approval did not pertain to this project.
Carol Billington moved to the next Standard.
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.
Dave Perkins, attorney for addressStreetWesterlea Way neighbors, said the noise issue at the Board of Appeals meeting was an issue. There was a second meeting of the Board of Appeals when some information was presented by the placePlaceTypecollege of PlaceNameMr. Bodwell, a noise expert. The testimony of Mr. Bodwell revealed that the noise level didn’t violate the state’s standards. This standard talks about a nuisance and the questions are what is annoying, how much noise is too much, etc. Mr. Perkins asked for a noise review.
Monty Vogel, addressStreet214 Hearthside Road, came forward. Carol told him that the Board had not had an opportunity to review his information and the question tonight is does the Board need a noise study conducted. Mr. Vogel provided is background and training in noise control and said his entire professional career has been spent in this field of noise control. Mr. Vogel said he has conducted a noise measurement and felt his study should be discussed. He asked to have 5 minutes to explain noise control so everyone will understand why the things discussed before will not work. Carol Billington asked if Mr. Vogel felt a noise impact study should be done? He said a study is needed and he would be happy to recommend someone to conduct the study. The Board said they would hear his
testimony another night, but not tonight. Gus asked Mr. Vogel to submit the results of his noise study along with a written explanation.
Lou Wood, addressStreetWesterlea Way, came forward and said that the college had a reunion a few weeks ago. He can hear people talking, the music, etc. We are talking about 5 dorms of expansion. He wants something to minimize the sounds coming from the college and they are constant. He wants another opinion to learn what can be done to minimize the noise.
He also suggested a wildlife study. He said there is wild turkeys, deer, etc. on addressStreetWesterlea Way.
Michelle Lauren, addressStreet20 Pine Drive, wanted the best sound study done that is possible.
Monty Vogel came forward and asked why he wasn’t an expert. The Chair said that the Board wanted an unbiased 3rd party to conduct the study.
J. The proposed development has made adequate provision for water supply, including an adequate supply of water for fire-protection purposes.
Bud Benson said he has not received a letter of capacity to serve from the Portland Water District and would like a little more information about a portion of the existing system that is meant to be used. He said it will be resolved. Two small issues and they are: 1) the ability of the water district to supply the water, 2) and can the St. Joe’s system move that water where it is needed.
Ted Gifford, Hearthside, asked about the water system and its ability to do the job for the various facilities, there are 2 things he asked about. Not only the water usage by the facility on a daily basis but also fire protection. Fire protection is dependent upon the water pressure that is available. His question is the dormitory fire protection system going to be an FPA 13 qualified sprinkler system. Bud Benson said that the fire protection system is reviewed by the state fire marshal’s office and they will be looking at those items. Mr. Gifford asked if peer review would be needed for the water pressure availability, and especially the college’s ability to get water to where it is needed within their system. Bud said he will look at that aspect of the system.
Lou Wood, addressStreetWesterlea Way, and asked to show him the hydrants are located. Is there a pressure pump for a sprinkler system. Is there one for the dorms too?
Carol Billington said the last 2 standards (K and L) are not applicable to this project. She said the Board is ready to look at what 3rd party peer reviews that the members wanted to pursue. Brian Libby made a motion to have a peer review for:
• Traffic flow both internally and externally, including fire safety & disaster recovery
• Stormwater Study
• Noise Issues
• Lighting Issues
There was discussion amongst the members regarding visual impact layout in 3-D, landscaping plans. PersonNameEleanor Dudek seconded the motion. Bud Benson said he would like to see the other noise study results that was conducted by Mr. Vogel and asked him to submit all of the report by August 28th which is the cutoff date for submissions for the September 10th meeting.
Bud Benson said that the cost of the third-party peer reviews will be borne by the college. Janet Murphy, addressStreetHighland Road, asked for a peer review of the leech field system. She said there are 75 families near the system and she wants an engineering peer review of that system. Tom Doyle
Doyle, attorney for the St. Joe’s College, said that a peer review wasn’t needed because the Dept of Health Engineering and MDEP reviews and the quarterly monitoring were enough reviews. Attorney Doyle asked that the town provides the college with estimates for cost for the third-party reviews.
William Orr, 32 Kerri Farms, asked if peer review would be done after the project is completed to be sure the construction matches what the college says they are going to do? Basically, he is looking for an as built and Bud Benson said that as-built drawings are done for projects being taken over by the Town of Standish but they are not done for private construction. Bud Benson explained as-built drawings to the Board members.
Ted Gifford, addressStreetHearthside Road, spoke to the members saying that light fixtures installed by the college after the 1995 approval were not what were called for in the approval. His questions focused around how does one find out if the college is following the approval given by the Planning Board.
Carol Billington, Chair, finally asked for a vote on the motion to have 4 peer reviews done for this project. All members were in favor. They are: Gus Favreau, Brian Libby, Carol Billington and PersonNameEleanor Dudek. Motion passed.
Bud Benson said that impact fees didn’t need to be discussed at this meeting. Discussion moved to when these peer reviews would be completed. This item will be on next month’s agenda and a final vote will not be done until all of the peer reviews have been received and reviewed.
Brian Libby made a motion to adjourn and PersonNameEleanor Dudek seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
These minutes were prepared and submitted by Donna Sawyer, Secretary to the Planning Board.
| 
