Chairman, Carol Billington called the meeting to order at timeMinute9Hour197:09 p.m. Present: Brian Libby, Gus Favreau, Alan Connell, Bill Foster, Jeff Smith and PersonNameEleanor Dudek. Staff present: Bud Benson, Planning Administrator and Donna Sawyer, Planning Board Secretary.
Chair, Carol Billington, said this was a special meeting to hold a public hearing for the CityplaceSt. Joseph’s College application for an expansion.
Alan Connell asked to be recused due to a conflict. Town Attorney, Sally Daggett, said that Alan is involved in litigation against the town for this particular application when it was before the Board of Appeals.
Carol introduced Jeff Smith, our newest board member. Mr. Smith recused himself because he was not familiar enough with this project to participate in the discussions.
Chair, Carol Billington, moved to the topic of member attendance at previous meetings. She referred to the September 10th meeting and said that the only discussion regarding CityplaceSt. Joseph’s College at that meeting was to schedule the October 22nd meeting. Bill Foster was out at the August 13th meeting and Bill indicated that he had reviewed the DVD of that meeting.
The Chair said she would take public comment tonight for this project. She said the project could obtain preliminary approval tonight. The Board is waiting for DEP approval. She asked the college to begin by discussing new changes that have been made to the plans. Tom Doyle, Pierce Atwood Attorneys, said that DOT approval has been received and the MDEP approval is pending. He suggested that the Board could give final approval subject to DEP approval. Mr. Doyle said they have reviewed all of the comments made by the peer reviewers, submitted written responses and made minor revisions to the site plan in response to the peer review comments provided. He asked Jim Seymour to cover those changes. Mr. Benson said that the town has instituted a new, 2-step process for approvals. The process is a preliminary approval with the application going to DEP for their approval. The new process allows the application to come back to the town after DEP approval. The Board reviews the
changes made by DEP or DOT, or even federal approval at that time.
Bill Foster made a motion to move to the review of the plan. Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor and motion passed.
Jim Seymour, Sebago Technics, said that revisions had been made to the plan. They met with Chris Baldwin of the Soil and Water Conservation District who reviewed the storm water. His biggest concern was the large, level lip spreader. He wanted the one point discharge revised to a distribution manhole that had 3 pipes come out to distribute the flow in 3 different chambers. The application of porous pavement was another issue. He provided the S&WCD and the town of CityplaceStandish with documentation on that product and how it works. Chris was concerned about oversight during construction and maintenance after it was built. Jim Seymour assured him that there is a 5 year recertification for all of the infrastructure installed and the DEP depends on routine logs that have to be
maintained by the applicant with the help of a professional. It is part of the DEP permit as well. He said the town could tag onto that approval, if the town felt it was necessary. He thought the town would get copies of the 5-year recertification process.
Regarding the road, he did receive comments from Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers. There was a request for vertical granite curbing along the sidewalk and the installation of an esplanade. Currently there are several stormwater drainage swales on the side where the sidewalk is located and given the width of the road and orientation of the existing utilities, it puts a squeeze on the space available to install an esplanade. Five feet has a tremendous impact on existing infrastructure and puts more of a load downstream. That occurs from in front of Feeney Hall all the way down to where the existing ponds are now. From there up to where the project is located, there are some narrow buffers in there and it would require taking out more and more buffer making the parking lots more and more
visual from addressStreetWesterlea Way. The neighbors don’t want the parking lots so visible. The reason for the bitumous curbing over the granite curbing is cost. The cost is timeMinute55Hour175 to 6 fold over bitumous curb.
He referred to the DOT permit for traffic movement permit and the permit from Human Services for the septic system. Jim Jacobson has approved the pre treatment and septic design located on the other side of the road on lot 2.
Regarding pedestrian activity as per Gorrill-Palmer report, he has located the crosswalks that match up with landing areas on both sides of the streets. He has continued to streamline pedestrian activity and pointed out a crosswalk at the soccer field. All of these areas will be lit, except for the soccer field because it is daytime use, not nighttime use.
He turned the discussion over to Heather Taylor, Architect with Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott Architecture, and she said that a couple of changes made in response to comments at the last meeting, was the addition of trees and a note that says that trees along the edge of parking lot B will be located during construction based on canopy. Concerning lighting from the peer review, she pointed out changes. First one was on the pedestrian pathway to the south, the lighting previously located on the building side of that path, and pushed it to the downhill side and screened the lights that face the neighbors. In addition, lights at the crosswalks are added. A light at the Alfond Hall was erroneously picked up and she said nothing was going on in that area. The other issue in the peer review was the
uniformity ratio from lightest to darkest area on the parking lots B and C as designed came in at 40 to 1. That is based on the computer taking the very high to the very low and looking at it. That is higher than the typical ratio of 20 to 1. She submitted an alternate plan that increased the height of the perimeter lights and added 2 additional lights in the center area of each parking lot. That brings the ratio back to 20 to 1. She said she was trying to minimize the height of the lights and it resulted in hot and dark spots. The college is willing to work with the Board either way the town wished. That was the changes in lighting.
Tom Doyle said changes for traffic had been made and Diane Moribito was present to answer questions in that area. In respect to noise, they have responded to noise comments of Monty Vogel and the noise peer review conducted by Mr. Ambroise. If you read Mr. Ambrose’s report, he agrees with the report of Mr. Bodwell that the college meets the state’s most stringent state standards. In terms of the experts in the peer review comments, the college has addressed all of them.
Carol Billington asked to have Diane Moribito speak regarding traffic. Ms. Moribito, Maine Traffic Resources, said that one traffic comment from the traffic study concerned White’s addressStreetBridge Road in providing a right turn lane. In response, the DOT traffic movement permit was changed. Originally it was to submit a $100,000 impact fee if a traffic signal was warranted. Now it says that they (the college) shall pay that fee. So if the traffic signal is not warranted, it will go toward the turn lane. In terms of addressStreetWesterlea Way, the issue was the cul-de-sac and it was for a center line down addressStreetWesterlea Way for safety. In terms of the cul-de-sac, they were proposing a two flow for a piece of it and a one-way on the rest of it. The residents
on addressStreetWesterlea Way don’t have to go around the cul-de-sac. She pointed out where the one-way section exists.
Carol Billington said that the peer review pointed out possible confusion on the two-way traffic piece. Traffic was considered to be minimal for this section of the road. Discussion continued back and forth about the cul-de-sac, signage, striping and if it would work as proposed. Randy Dutton, Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineer, as asked to speak about his peer review of the cul-de-sac. He said that initially he was concerned with the 2-way traffic on addressStreetWesterlea Way, near the cul-de-sac. His concern that someone coming up Westerlea Way will identify it as a cul-de-sac and veer over to the left hand side where people from the residences will be exiting. He says he is still a little uncomfortable with it but additional striping and signage should make it act as it should.
Adequate is how he described it.
Carol Billington moved the discussion to the Standards contained in Section 181-73 – Conditions of approval within the Land Use Code.
She read the first standard:
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.
She asked for public comment:
Ted Gifford, addressStreetHearthside Road, questioned if Security being at the cul-de-sac be a condition of approval?
Phillip Yauch, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at CityplaceSt. Joseph’s College, said that when a new semester begins and ends, there is a whole team of people who participate in the loading and unloading of vehicle. It may or may not be a security force at that site. Discussion continued regarding parking privileges for students, signage for addressStreetWesterlea Way residents, size of signage, usage of cul-de-sac, headlight glare toward addressStreetHearthside Road. addressStreetWesterlea Way resident, Lou Wood, wanted another road for them to enter and exit their property. He also questioned plowing arrangements for the town and the college for their access road and made a passionate plea to make this road better for them.
Gus Favreau, Planning Board Member, asked to have CityplaceSt. Joseph’s College to address the plowing arrangements for addressStreetWesterlea Way. Philip Yauch said that there is an agreement with the town with the residents at the end of addressStreetWesterlea Way. At the request of Bud Benson, town planner, the college has drafted a letter where the college will grant permission to the town to go across their property to continue plowing, if the town so wishes. The cul-de-sac is private property and the college will maintain it. The college is not asking the town to plow the college’s property. Mr. Benson said that the State of StateplaceMaine made a law that said taxpayer’s money on private property, the town took public easements for some of the private ways in order to
continue to plow the private ways. What is happening here is that the residents at the end of addressStreetWesterlea Way gave the town that public easement over their property. At that time, however, the town didn’t get a public easement for the land between their property and the White’s addressStreetBridge Road. The town is working on that easement now. In all of these situations the town can back out or the landowners can back out of these arrangements. Right now the town is trying to arrange permission to pass over the college land to get to the public easement at the end of addressStreetWesterlea Way. He stated the process is in the works and the town’s attorney is reviewing the documents. Dana Lampron, another addressStreetWesterlea Way resident, expressed his concerns about the road arrangement for this expansion.
Bill Foster presented his thought that addressStreetWesterlea Way be straight from White’s addressStreetBridge Road to the end where the 6 homes exist. Mr. Yauch said that an alternative road was considered but it just didn’t work with any other configuration. Discussion moved to emergency vehicles accessing the cul-de-sac, keeping addressStreetWesterlea Way the existing width and the cul-de-sac wider. Randy Dutton, Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, initially thought that Westerlea Way should be straight to the residences at the end of Westerlea Way and the cul-de-sac be constructed in a “D” shape for the drop off rather than a circle. All thought this was a viable option.
Bud Benson referred to his No. 3 condition of approval regarding limiting the _____________percentage of off campus residences
Chair, Carol Billington, closed public discussion on Standard A. The board members continued discussions. Options included:
1. Straighten addressStreetWesterlea Way by the cul-de-sac w/two-way traffic
2. The cul-de-sac be redesigned in a “D” shape rather than circular,
3. Add signage where addressStreetWesterlea Way meets the cul-de-sac
4. A streetlight be installed at the intersection of addressStreetWesterlea Way and White’s addressStreetBridge Road
5. Sight distance be improved at the exit of the college onto addressStreetWesterlea Way
In response to a question about traffic light, Carol Billington said MDOT will begin a traffic count to see if the addition of a left turn lane is warranted or a traffic light and the college is asked to make a $100,000 capital improvement fee so the money will be there depending on the outcome.
Discussion continued about section of road having two-way traffic and the viability of fire trucks getting to an emergency. Finally, Randy Dutton, Gorrill-Palmer Consultants, was asked to come forward to bring his idea of another design for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Dutton reviewed what he had initially proposed as a “D” shape for the cul-de-sac. A suggested list of conditions for standard A are:
1. Straighten addressStreetWesterlea Way and design the cul-de-sac into a “D” type of configuration subject to fire chief review and traffic engineering review and approval
2. Cul-de-sac be built and approved prior any occupancy permit is given to residence halls
3. Street lamp to be installed at the intersection of addressStreetWesterlea Way and White’s addressStreetBridge Road
4. Sight distance along addressStreetWesterlea Way intersection be improved by removing and keeping removed some vegetation that will obstruct sight distance
5. Prior to final approval, an agreement on the impact fee for improvements on addressStreetChadbourne Road and addressStreetWesterlea Way be reviewed and agreed to by town staff
Gus Favreau made a motion to approve Standard A with the 5 conditions listed above. Bill Foster seconded the motion. Discussion followed and Bud Benson wanted to add the following condition:
6. No campus related parking on addressStreetWesterlea Way that is owned by the college or any public roads around CityplaceSt. Joseph’s College.
Gus Favreau amended his motion to include #6 above and Bill Foster seconded the motion. All in favor.
Louis Wood, Westerlea Way asked about when his road would be plowed by the town? The members felt that snow removal was between the town and residents on addressStreetWesterlea Way and the college.
Carol Billington asked for the vote for Standard A. All in favor and motion passed. Standard A passes
Standard 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.
Brian Libby made a motion that the application meets Standard B and Gus Favreau seconded the motion.
Heather Taylor responded to Bill Foster’s question regarding height. Heather said the height is measured from the average mean grade. That means take the perimeter around the building and the average height.
There was no more discussion. Motion passed with all in favor for Standard B.
Standard C. The provisions of on-site landscaping and screening do provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
Carol Billington said that the members here tonight heard about the changes made for the plantings on the plans. Carol asked Bud Benson to responded by saying that there are many tall pines. Tall pines shade some of the understory beneath it and isn’t as thick as it appears. He thought a row of low branching trees, Hemlocks, along the northwesterly sideline would probably work.
Heather Taylor, EYP, spoke again and reviewed the landscape plan that showed the new plantings. She felt it addressed the issues with evergreen plantings and more at the parking lot. Bud asked that the line be continued next to the tree line. Heather replied to Carol Billington’s question of why no line of trees. Heather said by having an opening, there would be vistas created. The lighting fixtures will be along the low side of the fire lane and those will be the lantern type and will be shielded on the downhill side toward the neighbors. They will throw the light toward the college. This was done so as to break up the landscape and not be a continuous line. The lighting for the college is for safety.
Brian Libby made a motion that Standard C was met with one condition. Gus Favreau seconded the motion. No more discussion or Board. All in favor and Standard C was approved with the following condition.
1. The landscape buffering on the water side of the new resident halls will consist of a variety overlapping low-branching evergreen trees.
Standard D. The site plan adequately provides for the soil and drainage problems that the development will create.
Bud Benson said that DEP would require ongoing storm water monitoring annually and wanted to use the same language as the DEP will use in their approval. Chair, Carol Billington, asked about monitoring the construction and reporting to DEP. Jim Seymour said he will be doing that monitoring.
Conditions of approval:
Cityplace1. St. Joseph’s College is subject to the recommendations of MDEP and that there be monitoring on an annual basis with copies forwarded to the town,
2. Monitoring be done by Sebago Technics during construction of the stormwater system.
Eleanor Dudek made a motion to approve Standard D and Brian Libby seconded the motion. Carol Billington asked for public discussion. Ted Gifford, addressStreetHearthside Road, pointed out stormwater buffers and asked if they were going to be disturbed. Jim Seymour, Sebago Technics, said they will stay in their natural state. Norman Brown asked who at the Town Office can interpret the reports. Mr. Benson said he can understate the reports. Jim Seymour said the construction reports would include such items as activity going on, weather condition, encountered something not anticipated, what was the resolution. Everything is documented so that if something comes up, there is a report to go back to examine. The reports go to DEP and others, depending on the issues.
Bill Foster asked about the new self-draining parking lot surface and said he did not feel it would work in the StateplaceMaine winter. Jim Seymour, Sebago Technics, said that there are catch basins and swales in case water doesn’t drain properly. Chris Baldwin, District Engineer for S&WCD, peer reviewer, came forward and said he is anxious to see this product in use but his research says it works in cold weather environments. Some discussion followed regarding previous approvals and monitoring of well water. Paul Druchniak asked about vernal pools near his house and Jim Seymour addressed the issue and how the stormwater would be handled.
Carol said that discussion was closed and asked for a vote. In favor: Eleanor Dudek, Carol Billington, Brian Libby and Gus Favreau. Against: Bill Foster. Standard D passed.
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.
Carol said that as a result of the peer review done by Bennett Engineering, the college has adapted the plans with different lighting. It is now baffled lights with zero at the property lines. Carol Billington said there had been lighting installed on campus that had not received approval from the Planning Board.
Will Bennett, of Bennett Engineering, and peer reviewer, was present if questions arose. Phil Yauch, Exec. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, came forward and said all lighting is in the process of being reviewed. However, all lighting for all projects have been reviewed at one time or another by the Board. Norman Brown said the college has not followed the plans that were approved for lighting in the 1995 approval. Bud Benson said that the area by the gatehouse has lighting that are not cutoff fixtures, in his opinion. Discussion continues back and forth regarding lighting installed on campus in the 1990’s. Joe Sampson, addressStreetHearthside Road, asked to have as built drawings available when construction for this expansion is done. Bud Benson read the
description of cutoff lighting from the land use code standard. No where in the description does it say full cutoff light. Mr. Bennett described the lighting used around the campus. He said he didn’t look at the lighting used around the campus because he was hired to look at the lighting for this project only.
Janet Murphy, addressStreetHighland Road, asked if a checklist could be used after this project is constructed to ensure that the project is built as per plan. Bud Benson said the code officer looks at construction to see if it is built according to plans.
Chair, Carol Billington, called for a 5 minute break and the meeting resumed at timeMinute0Hour1010:00 a.m. Will Bennett, of Bennett Engineering, came forward and said he would review all of the lighting after it is installed and will do it free of charge to make sure it is installed as proposed. This would give the town a level of comfort that it is done right.
Condition of approval:
1. Bennett Engineering will conduct a peer review all lighting as installed.
Brian Libby made a motion that the project meets Standard E as presented with the one condition of approval that Bennett Engineering will inspect installation as presented above. Gus Favreau seconded the motion. No more discussion. All in favor.
Standard F. The applicant has provided reasonable evidence of his financial capabilities to complete the development as planned and approved.
Brian Libby made a motion that the college met this standard and Bill Foster seconded the motion.
Joe Sampson, addressStreetHearthside Road, said he saw nothing in the application that said the college met any standards. Chair, Carol Billington, said comment had been taken from the college on this topic before. No more discussion. All members in favor and Standard F is approved.
Standard 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.
Gus Favreau made a motion that the proposal meets Standard G and Brian Libby seconded the motion. Chair, Carol Billington, opened the floor for discussion. There was none. Bud Benson asked for the Fire Chief to review the new design before approval. Carol told Mr. Benson that the members had already placed that stipulation on a previous vote. All members in favor and the motion passed.
Standard H. The proposed development has made adequate provision for sewage disposal.
Brian Libby made a motion that this proposal meets Standard H and Bill Foster seconded the motion.
Janet Murphy, addressStreetHighland Road, came forward. She said there is a $1,000,000 insurance policy in force and the fine print in this policy states that “they will remediate the property that the sewerage treatment is on, but there is no language for remediation for the surrounding landowners if their wells become polluted. She asked for clarification. She called Portland Water District and they said if the wells become polluted, it is either the town’s responsibility or the Association’s or whoever is found responsible for polluting their wells. She said water lines cost $50/per ft. and at 2.5 miles that is $660,000 to run the lines. There are 73 houses in her neighborhood and that would cost another $3,000/per household to run the line to the houses and that amounts
to $222,000 which makes a total of $882,000. She didn’t know how much it would cost to remediate the septic system itself. It will cost close to $1,000,000 just to have lines run down the road and have water access into their homes. She didn’t want the town responsible for that expense, so she would like to have clarification with that insurance policy as to what it covers and whether they are covered and not just the septic system itself.
Her other question was regarding the monitoring wells and has asked the Code Enforcement Officer to read them for her. He has said he does not know how to read the monitoring wells results and she asked if she could take the report to an engineer to have it read. He said the report could not leave the office. No one can read the results of where the nitrate plume is going. It has been 12 years and she wanted to know how close that nitrate plume is to her well and the others. Also, she wanted to have a test run on the water running off that lot. Whose responsibility is it?
Carol Billington asked Bud Benson to respond. Mr. Benson said that Portland Water District tests the water. Mr. Benson wanted the design engineers to respond. Walter Stinson, Sebago Technics, said that there is no new construction on placeLot 2. Those systems have adequate capacity as they are with some additional pretreatment to accept the flow from this project. As far as the monitoring program required by the MDEP and the town when those fields were built required quarterly monitoring and that is being done by Seevee and Mahar, a consulting firm in Cumberland, Maine. Their reports are given to the town and the Portland Water District. They test for various elements and all of those reports have come back with no problem whatsoever. The surface water is monitored by the PWD
and the system are working and working well. Bud Benson said the Ms. Murphy wants to know how close the nitrate is to her well and she might be able to meet with the design engineer and they can answer the question. The tests being run meet standards. Mr. Stinson returned to the microphone and said that the design of that system was a result of a very extensive hydrogeology study as part of the design. The purpose of the study is to determine the direction the groundwater flows. The wells were established so that it intercepted the groundwater flow leaving those systems. The standard is that the nitrate nitrogen cannot exceed 10 milligrams per leter at the property line. The last report he saw was that the wells were about 1 mpl, or 10% what was allowed under the State’s ordinance. The systems are effective and the pretreatment that is going in there it will get even better. There is no impact on the neighbors right now.
Janet Murphy, addressStreetHighland Road, came back to the podium. Her question is she can’t read the report because it is nothing but numbers. There is no analysis of what the numbers mean. If you go to the town to look at the reports, there is nothing that tells what they are or what is being tested. She wanted to know what is being tested and she wants someone to tell her or have Sevee and Mahar say what is the number and where is it and in which monitoring well is it in. She is asking that when the report is done, to put a brief statement on the bottom that the nitrate is such and such a percentage. Monty Vogel, addressStreetHearthside Road, said that the reports are being conducted on a system then is running half of its design strength. At some point, these systems will
be used to capacity. Back in 1994, these systems were being built in response to failed systems that were sending a huge plume down to placePlaceNameSebago PlaceTypeLake. He said that he had spoken with PWD and they said they couldn’t do a thing until it reads in the lake. Morton, Rose and Tompson was the engineering crew hired by CityplaceSt. Joseph’s, the company made the statement that every septic system will fail, it is only a matter of time.
Monty Vogel also said that the systems that were approved by the State of StateMaine in placePlaceNameSunday PlaceTypeRiver failed after 2 years. Brown effluent was flowing down the slopes. placePlaceNameSunday PlaceTypeRiver had to install an entire new system.
Bud Benson responded to Mr. Vogel by saying that engineered systems eventually fail and that is why they are inspected and ongoing monitoring is done. Bud said there were a number of items put into the last approval for the College. Bud referred to the 5th bullet down on the previous approval and probably the 7th bullet on the list. Bud also said
Chair, Carol Billington, said that when she was on the sightwalk down by the lab, there was a septic smell? Why did she smell that? Was there a failure somewhere? Dan Gearon, placeCitySt. Joseph’s College, said that the group passed by one of the college’s treatment systems behind Mercy Hall. There is a system of grease tanks that takes effluent from the cafeteria to the treatment plant. He thought it was the septic tanks for Mercy and not the actual waste water treatment in that location. He said that smell is normal.
Carol Billington said discussion is closed. Brian Libby amended his motion and PersonNameEleanor Dudek seconded the motion. The amendment includes the following:
1. Evidence that the College has obtained, and shall keep in effect, a pollution liability insurance policy that will provide coverage to property owners and the Town in the event that the property of the College or other off-site properties are adversely affected by the operation of the septic system approved for this project. Said policy shall be in an amount no less than $1 million, and the amount of the policy shall be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Board every fifth year, provided that the deductible on said policy shall not exceed $25,000 without the Board's prior written approval. The form of said policy shall be approved by the Planning Board and shall be
substantially in the form of the policy attached hereto.
2. The College shall comply with all applicable state, federal, and local laws, regulations, ordinances, rules, permits and licenses, including but not limited to the Site Location of Development Findings of Fact and Order issued by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Ted Gifford came forward and asked if $1,000,000 was enough for a policy? Philip Yauch said that the amount was sufficient when the project was approved and he felt it was still enough. Joe Sampson. Mr. Benson said that he would like to have an estimate from a consultant before the project received final approval. Carol Billington asked for another amendment to this vote. Discussion and Phil Yauck asked if the amount came if for less, could they reduce the amount of the insurance policy? Answer was yes.
Carol Billington made an amendment to the motion to:
3. That the approval of the septic is conditioned upon if the insurance policy is the right amount as currently for $1,000,000.
Brian Libby seconded the motion. All in favor and Standard H passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m.
These minutes were prepared and submitted by Donna Sawyer, Secretary to the Planning Board.
| 
