12/08/2004
7:00 PM
Present: Kerry Leichtman, Chairman James Chalfant Thomas Cox Thomas Farley Douglas Linder Robert Nichols John Priestley
Also Present: Tom Ford, Code Enforcement Officer Nancy Ninnis, Recording Secretary
AGENDA
OLD BUSINESS
1. Jeffrey and Suzanne Gallagher, P.O. Box 637, Rockport, ME 04856 Request: Subdivision revision (lot line change) on a parcel in the Revolutionary Lookout Subdivision (continued from 11/10/04 meeting). Represented by Gartley & Dorsky Engineering & Surveying. Property: Abutting 999 Commercial Street Tax Map 2, Lot 179 District #908 Rural Conservation District District #907 Mixed Business/Residential District
2. Rockport Associates, 6806 Via Regina, Boca Raton, FL 33433 Request: Major subdivision preliminary plan public hearing (continued from 5/12/04, 9/15/04 and 10/13/04 meetings). Represented by Gartley & Dorsky. Property: West Street Extension Tax Map 16, Lot 23 District #908 Rural Residential District
NEW BUSINESS
3. W/S Properties, LLC, 1330 Boylston Street, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Request: Site plan preapplication meeting for retail development. Represented by Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers. Property: Route 1 Tax Map 1, Lot 100 District #907 Mixed Business/Residential District
4. Gregory and Karen Blackwell, P.O. Box 185, Rockland, ME 04841 Request: Major subdivision preapplication meeting. Represented by Landmark Corporation. Property: Off Beech Hill Road Tax Map 20, Lots 9, 13 and 25 Tax Map 27, Lots 164 and 165 District #903 Rural Residential District
OTHER BUSINESS
5. Other Business
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Leichtman: Rockport Associates has requested continuation of further subdivision review to a future meeting.
MOTION Thomas Cox/SECOND Douglas Linder: To continue to a meeting of the applicants choosing further review of the Rockport Associates application for subdivision review for property located off West Street Extension at Tax Map 16, Lot 23 in District #908.
VOTE: James Chalfant Yes Thomas Cox Yes Thomas Farley Yes Kerry Leichtman Yes Douglas Linder Yes Robert Nichols Yes John Priestley Yes
The motion was passed 7-0-0.
I. JEFFREY AND SUZANNE GALLAGHER
Representation: Jeffrey and Suzanne Gallagher P.O. Box 637, Rockport, ME 04856 Tel: 207-596-6721 William B. Gartley, Gartley & Dorsky 59B Union Street, P.O. Box 1031, Camden, ME 04843 Tel: 207-236-4365; Fax: 207-236-3055 Re: Abutting 999 Commercial Street Tax Map 2, Lot 179 District #908 Rural Conservation District District #907 Mixed Business/Residential District
Request: Subdivision revision (lot line change) on a parcel in the Revolutionary Lookout Subdivision (continued from the 11/10/04 meeting).
Chairman Leichtman: This matter was continued from a prior agenda, but not dealt with at that time.
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Gartley: Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher own two parcels on Route 1, one with their existing residence. The second parcel is Parcel 6 on the plan and is the same as the Parcel 6 on the prior plan. Because the property is part of an amended recognized subdivision, approval is required to amend the lot line. The applicants propose to sell the lot with the residence and the buyer would like to add a garage, and the best site for the garage is over the existing lot line. At some point in the future the applicants will construct a new residence on Parcel 6. The lot line revision constitutes a swap that keeps the land areas the same and ensures that setbacks are met. The lot with the residence is in District #907 and Parcel 6 is in District #908, and the properties are serviced by Town water and sewer.
BOARD QUESTIONS:
Mr. Nichols: The subdivision covenants state that there shall be no structures within 20 feet of a lot line, and the proposed garage is only 15 feet from the line.
Mr. Gartley: Since the lot with the residence is not now and never has been a part of the Revolutionary Lookout Subdivision, the covenants do not apply. We propose to take a new chunk out of the subdivision that will become part of the previous lot and will not be part of the subdivision.
Mr. Linder: Is Short Street essentially your present driveway?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Mr. Linder: Since the grade is not bad, it should be easy to put in a driveway?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Mr. Chalfant: Your property is not for sale?
Mr. Gartley: The lot with the house is for sale and a potential buyer is hoping to add a garage. Subdivision Ordinance Article 9.1-Revisions to Approved Plans spells out the review procedure for a subdivision amendment.
Chairman Leichtman: We should make a Finding of Fact relative to Article 11-Performance standards as laid out by Will Gartley. I find that all performance standards of Article 11 are met.
MOTION Kerry Leichtman/SECOND James Chalfant: To approve the application of Jeffrey and Suzanne Gallagher for subdivision revision (lot line change) on a parcel in the Revolutionary Lookout Subdivision as shown on Amended Subdivision Plan dated November 24, 2004 prepared by Gartley & Dorsky Engineering & Surveying, located adjacent to 999 Commercial Street and identified as Map 2, Lot 179 in District #908. By approving this change, all members of the Planning Board agree with the Finding of Fact.
VOTE: James Chalfant Yes Thomas Cox Yes Thomas Farley Yes Kerry Leichtman Yes Douglas Linder Yes Robert Nichols Yes John Priestley Yes
The motion was passed 7-0-0. A Mylar and two copies were signed.
II. W/S PROPERTIES, LLC
Representation: John F. Corbett, W/S Development Associates LLC 1330 Boylston Street, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Tel: 617-232-8900 / Fax: 617-738-1628 Lawrence R. Bastian, P.E. Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers Inc. P.O. Box 1237, 15 Shaker Road, Gray, ME 04039 Tel: 207-657-6910 / Fax: 207-657-6912 Re: Commercial Street Tax Map 1, Lot 100 District #907 Mixed Business/Residential District
Request: Site plan preapplication meeting for retail development.
Mr. Corbett: W/S Properties is the development arm of S.R. Weiner and Associates Inc., which is a major retail developer in New England. I invite the Board to visit our website. Our closest development is in Ellsworth or the Augusta Marketplace, and we recently sold the Maine Mall. We have 5-million sq. ft. of retail development in Maine. We propose here the construction of up to approximately 22,642 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail space.
We own the parcel in front of Walmart in Rockland that is the current Bonanza site and the Chapman property in Rockport, with the proposed development encompassing both sites. We plan to legally combine both properties into one lot. In the past several weeks we have had a couple of meetings with Rockland and Rockport on how best to proceed with permitting. We will be going to both Boards for separate approval based on the bylaws of each community. Our first proposal did not fly because of a number of issues and we went back to the drawing boards. Lawrence Bastian of Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers is here to provide a short presentation of the project highlights to solicit feedback. I think the meetings we have had so far went well. There was a lot of interest and we got a lot of good information.
Mr. Bastian: The most current plan is somewhat different from what you have in your packets. Drawing A was developed on the basis of a plan that met the codes in both communities, including parking requirements. Drawing B was based on discussions with Rockland with modified setbacks for Applebys in Rockland and additional parking, and additional square footage that will utilize shared parking with Walmart, for which we have an agreement in place. Since then we have done some work with S.R. Weiner and gotten feedback from the leasing people. Additionally, an actual boundary survey indicates that we have less land in Rockport than we thought, which affected the parking situation. The new hand-drawn sketch shows the configuration of the buildings around a central parking field with landscaping along the street in front. The two boxes on the left side in Rockport are 4,000 sq. ft. each. All setback and lot coverage requirements in District #907 are being met by this concept. This is a work in progress and we may orient the elements differently, and we need to work on parking and access.
Mr. Corbett: There are a number of trees in front of the Chapman property. We will try to save most of them and keep the area natural. We have closed up the exits onto Route 1, and all traffic will use the Walmart entrance. We have not yet gone to the Department of Transportation. Because of the configuration, there will be no impact on wetlands.
Chairman Leichtman: What happened at the Rockland meeting?
Mr. Bastian: There was a meeting last Thursday and we are on the agenda for next Mondays City Council meeting.
Mr. Corbett: These changes may affect the Rockland plan. The Applebys building will go in as shown, but how the rest will be affected is problematic at this time. The buildings in back are additional retail space. The major change is that the previous long line of retail buildings is now a horseshoe configuration because of the change in the lot line revealed by the survey. The whole length of Route 1 will be a landscaped buffer. If there is enough parking, will we be able to put in the two Rockport buildings?
Chairman Leichtman: Is the Rockport lot still less than 40,000 sq. ft.?
CEO Ford: Yes. It is classified as a legally grandfathered non-conforming lot, so it is a non-issue. However, the District #907 dimensional standards must be met. No Zoning Board of Appeals approval is required.
Chairman Leichtman: Minimum lot size in District #907 is 40,000 sq. ft., but this parcel is grandfathered. The project qualifies as permitted uses No. 22-Restaurants, provided no drive through, and No. 23-Retail Uses. The maximum footprint is 4,000 sq. ft. per building as permitted.
Page 65 of the Comprehensive Plan describes the intent of this district as This plan encourages business growth in a manner compatible with continued residential use along Routs 1 and 90; i.e., encourage mixed use development. The plan assumes that such growth enhances the gateways to Rockport; that new construction is on a scale consistent with existing buildings in these areas and designed in a manner compatible with existing structures; that commercial structures are attractively landscaped; and that development is pedestrian friendly wherever possible. Bullet No. 2 states: Support the appearance of the gateways to Rockport by retaining, and where appropriate, strengthening the provisions of the Rockport land Use Ordinance in Section 1000 adopted by the voters in June of 2001. Bullet No. 4(a) states: Limiting access rights along Routes 1, 90 and 17. New construction should be encouraged to use one access to reach multiple businesses. Where feasible, multiple businesses and/or residences should use shared access (combined entrances).
I commend you for that and your statements on landscaping, so the project is well in line with what the Town is hoping for. You are also taking a distressed property and improving it.
Mr. Corbett: Mitchell Associates is our landscaper.
Chairman Leichtman: The DOT does not like curb cuts, so I think you are okay with using the Walmart entrance. The only problem is increased traffic and congestion, and we will be very interested in seeing your traffic study.
Mr. Corbett: When Gorrill-Palmer did a traffic study for Home Depot, we had them include the traffic for this development. Accordingly, they have accounted for those trips, although we will have to redo it because of the additional retail development. We will be scheduling scoping meetings to which the affected communities will be invited, with the first to be held sometime in the first weeks in January.
Mr. Chalfant: I have a question on the parking. Are you counting on using some in Rockland to meet the needs of the Rockport square footage?
Mr. Corbett: Yes. We will be doing a lot consolidation to share the square footage.
Mr. Chalfant: Is that legal?
CEO Ford: Yes, and I refer you to the EBS project with parking in both Rockport and Camden. Accordingly, we have to look at this project in totality so that there will be enough parking on site to meet the requirements of the Rockport buildings, although that parking can be in Rockland to ensure adequate parking.
Chairman Leichtman: Section 803.1.3-General Standards of Performance/Traffic Circulation, Access and Street Design Standards/Off-Street Parking/Location of Off-Street Parking states: Required off-street parking in all districts shall be located on the same lot as the principal building or use, except that where off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot, the Board of Appeals may permit such off-street parking to be located a reasonable distance from the principal building or use, measured along the line of public access. Such parking shall be under the same ownership or lease. The Board of Appeals may approve the joint use of a parking facility by 2 or more principal buildings or uses where it is clearly demonstrated that the parking facility will substantially meet the intent of the requirements by reasons of variation in the time of use by patrons or employees among such establishments.
Mr. Cox: My concern is still parking. I am kind of confused because I am looking at parking requirements for our Town. Is Walmart consistent with our parking needs to determine if this development will have sufficient parking?
Chairman Leichtman: I think Rocklands parking calculations would take into effect Walmarts average. We would count the spaces closest to Rockport to see if they are adequate to provide the number of spaces we require within reasonable proximity.
Mr. Cox: I want to convey that parking is a very significant concern. I have been to Walmart during a busy season where its parking lot is full.
Mr. Chalfant: I agree. We have to look at Walmarts parking and I believe it is sometimes over parked. Christmas is a difficult season for most retailers, but we have to consider the rest of the year and the peak of tourist season.
Mr. Linder: We would need 40 parking spaces for the two Rockport buildings. What you are showing does not look like enough because it is difficult to see the dimensions.
Mr. Bastian: The plan shows a total of 98 parking spaces.
Mr. Linder: After a snowstorm many of Walmarts spaces are not usable.
Mr. Corbett: We agreed to remove the snow from the site rather than pile it up, so that wont be an issue.
Mr. Nichols: If our parking calculations are stricter, could the applicant conform to Rocklands?
Chairman Leichtman: Our concern is that the Rockport establishments have adequate parking within reasonable proximity.
Mr. Corbett: The restaurant will have its own requirements, which exceed code requirements. We know the site cannot support what is required by either community, which is why we have the agreement with Walmart.
Mr. Priestley: If I understand Section 803.1.3 correctly, you will have to apply for Zoning Board of Appeals approval for this parking augmentation.
CEO Ford: It will be all legally combined into one lot that will be taxed by both communities.
Mr. Linder: With regard to access, the general access through the Walmart entrance is great, but is there any other way to access your proposed buildings from Walmart? The entrance looks somewhat narrow.
Mr. Corbett: It should be adequate, but we could make it wider. We need to fine tune the plan and include crosswalks and sidewalks to deal with as public safety issues.
Mr. Chalfant: Is it a two-lane entrance?
Mr. Corbett: Yes, maybe including an island with landscaping. We have to discuss the design with the snowplowers. There will also be signage and we have to review the sight lines.
Mr. Nichols: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that development should be pedestrian friendly. Have you given any thought to how to walk between the stores?
Mr. Corbett: We only like sidewalks that go somewhere. We can dedicate land for a sidewalk and include an easement, but we dont like to build them unless they actually lead somewhere on the exterior of the development site. There will be sidewalks from store to store on the interior. We also still need to show dumpster locations, transformers, etc.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Chairman Leichtman: Do you need anything more from us?
Mr. Corbett: No, and we appreciate your time. At lease we know your areas of concern and will be back before you at a future meeting.
III. GREGORY AND KAREN BLACKWELL/HARKNESS BROOK SUBDIVISION
Representation: Gregory and Karen Blackwell P.O. Box 185, Rockland, ME 04841 Tel: 207-236-4041 / Fax: 207-594-0336 Michael J. Sabatini, Landmark Corporation 219 Meadow Street, Rockport, ME 04856 Tel: 207-236-6757; Fax: 207-236-3175 Re: Off Beech Hill Road Tax Map 20, Lots 9, 13 and 25 Tax Map 27, Lots 164 and 165 District #903 Rural Residential District
Request: Major subdivision preapplication meeting.
Mr. Sabatini: This is a preapplication meeting for a major subdivision, and the USGS map shows the overall parcel. The 25-30 acre site is located on the northerly side of Beech Hill Road in part of the core of the residential zone. Page 61 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the intent of the Residential zone is: These zones are intended to preserve the physical, historic, and aesthetic qualities of areas in Rockport outside the villages, other than areas designated as commercial, mixed business/residential, or rural areas. They must allow for modest residential growth in these areas, while minimizing sprawl The sketch plan depicts the proposed road accessing 17 lots on a portion of the 70 acres owned by the applicants. The lots will include on-site wells, septic systems and underground utilities. We have considered the Arendt approach to development as suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. We have identified the primary as well as secondary conservation areas. The primary area includes a 4-acre conservation area around Harkness Brook. Secondarily, we will conserve the remaining land and make it accessible to the lot owners.
We would appreciate consideration of the following items:
Will hydrogeologic assessments be necessary? Although a small area of shallow to bedrock soil has been identified, preliminary testing indicates that the remaining land outside of the conservation areas is adequate for septic systems. Accordingly, we do not feel that a hydrogeologic assessment is necessary per Subdivision Ordinance Article 7.2-D.23/Preliminary Plans for Major Subdivisions/submissions/Application Requirements: The Board may require a hydrogeologic assessment in cases where site considerations or development design indicate greater potential of adverse impacts on ground water quality. These cases include extensive areas of shallow to bedrock soils.
No. 25 states: For subdivisions involving 40 or more parking spaces or projected to generate more than 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour, a traffic impact analysis, prepared by a professional engineer in the State of Maine with experience in traffic engineering, shall be submitted. At 34 trips for a peak hour, we are well under the 100-trip threshold in the Ordinance.
Mr. Chalfant: While still under the limit, you are at the high end at 50.66. What is the source of your figure of 34?
Mr. Sabatini: That publication gives you a range, so I used two at the upper end of the range as a high average. With regard to the necessity for two accesses, the threshold in Article 12.2.B.2.d-Design Guidelines/Traffic Conditions/Street Design and Construction Standards/Street Design Standards is 200 trips per day. I calculate 107 trips per day, so only one access point is required.
While sidewalks are mentioned, further at Article 12.2.B.2.h, the Ordinance refers to the installation of sidewalks within village districts. Since this project is not in the Village district, are sidewalks required?
Chairman Leichtman: I read the Ordinance the same way you do. There is a disparity between the old and new zoning maps.
CEO Ford: You have to use the current map, so the property is located in District #903. We cannot use the new map until new Ordinances have been approved.
Chairman Leichtman: This is not in the Village District, so sidewalks are not required.
Mr. Sabatini: The proposed road crosses Harkness Brook and comes to a T-turn intersection. The alternative is a sweeping curve, which may impact more wetlands. The configuration shown adds the safety feature of a turnaround for large vehicles. We have also included an extension to envision the future, not necessarily for roads, but for pathways. We need the Boards opinion on whether the sweeping curve is required. The Wheaton property is for sale, and while it is not Mr. Blackwells intent to purchase it, we are looking at the big picture when some kind of connection would be nice.
Mr. Cox: I agree, but think the sweeping curve could serve the same purpose.
Mr. Sabatini: But the curve does not provide for a large vehicle turnaround.
Mr. Farley: Is your intent to meet the specifications for a Town road?
Mr. Sabatini: Yes.
Mr. Priestley: Does the topography of the Wheaton property allow for such a future connection?
Mr. Sabatini: Yes. There is nothing drastic about the topography, although there may be wetlands issues.
Mr. Nichols: How far from the school is this little intersection? Is it within walking distance?
CEO Ford: Definitely.
Mr. Linder: How far from Tax Lot 1 is the proposed subdivision road? Is there any concern about it being close to the house?
Mr. Sabatini: That driveway setback is eight feet per the standards of District #903. The building side setback is 15 feet. The proposed right-of-way is 50 feet wide. The house on the Lawton parcel is 100 feet from the proposed road. The proposed road is 15 feet from the Lot 1 property line and maybe 30 feet from the house.
CEO Ford: The owner of Lot 1 came in to see me and has some concerns. Her house is a legally grandfathered nonconforming structure that is close to the property line. I will ask that the Board be sensitive to her needs and require screening and buffered areas because of the tight tolerances.
Mr. Farley: Can you slide the road closer to the existing house on the Lawton parcel?
Mr. Sabatini: We have to maintain the minimum frontage requirements, but will if we can.
Mr. Farley: I think we were requesting that the Maple Ridge subdivision road be 30 feet from the abutters property line.
CEO Ford: Yes, and this is a similar situation with an abutter.
Mr. Sabatini: I will look into the major subdivision road standards.
Chairman Leichtman left the meeting at 8:15 p.m. and James Chalfant presided as Vice Chair.
Mr. Sabatini: We would like to schedule a site walk.
CEO Ford: We can try to hold a site walk on the day of the next meeting, which is scheduled for January 12, 2005, depending on the snow situation. The best time would be 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. and we will advise the abutters of the schedule.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Stephen M. Moro (66 Beech Hill Road): I am a neighbor across the street who is concerned about traffic and child safety. This development would forever change the rural residential nature of this area that we have enjoyed even though it is close to Route 1. Beech Hill Road is so narrow around that turn that two cars cannot pass, and there will be a problem with such an incredible increase in traffic outflow.
Wilfred A. Berube (61 Beech Hill Road): The sight lines in this area are blind and this property is right across Beech Hill Road from Ben Paul Lane, which is already giving us a lot of traffic. Camden National Bank also generates a lot of traffic and you almost cannot make a left turn onto Route 1 during the summer. The location of the proposed road is the worst place for a street coming out onto Beech Hill Road.
Jean A. Moro: I agree. When you drive up Beech Hill Road the sunlight is directly in your eyes and you cannot see anyone on the road. I jog daily and there are three points where ice accumulates. The Winchenbachs put in a new garage on the same side as the accumulating ice and most driveways have excess water drainage.
David Landry (83 Beech Hill Road): I have some concerns about this parcel connecting with a Route 90 parcel, which would become a convenient way to circumvent the traffic light at the Routes 1 and 90 intersection at the Market Basket. If Beech Hill Road and Route 90 are interconnected there will be a lot of traffic through this residential site to avoid that light and take a short cut to the high school.
Marilyn F. Winchenbach (17 Beech Hill Road): Have you done a traffic count?
Mr. Sabatini: Per the publication of the Institute of Traffic Engineers the figures are based on use.
Marilyn Winchenbach: We have a lot of traffic on Beech Hill Road that is constant with cars not obeying the speed limit. The speed limit was raised from 25 mph to 35 mph and we would like to see it come down.
Kenneth F. Winchenbach: There is also the question of traffic going up the hill. Beech Hill Road has become a major cross road and we believe it is a substandard road now.
Marilyn Winchenbach: There is no line in the middle of the road. The speed limit and traffic count should be addressed since this will affect our daily life.
Stephen Moro: Does the Camden National Road abut this property and could you use it for access?
Kenneth Winchenbach: What worries me about the T-turn is that we are not just talking about the 70 acres owned by the applicants in terms of future development, but the 110-acre Wheaton property as well. The proposed road could become the next major street between Beech Hill Road and Route 90. In the aggregate this would be a large subdivision for Rockport, and Beech Hill Road is only an average of 17 feet wide.
Jean Moro: As it is now we have to wait to get out onto Route 1 during the summer.
Mr. Chalfant: These issues and similar concerns always come up with subdivisions and the public will have an opportunity to speak as the review process continues.
Marilyn Winchenbach: Do you have plans to buy the Wheaton property.
Mr. Blackwell: No, I dont.
Mr. Sabatini: The proposed road will be built to the standards for a minor road, and it is possible that there will be only a walking connection. Any further development would require major traffic studies.
Lyle T. Bailey (70 Beech Hill Road): What about the legally grandfathered situation of your minor subdivision road in the future? You will only be held to what your legal requirements are and that does not address future concerns.
CEO Ford: I think it is important to understand that the applicant is just starting the review process with this preapplication discussion. Major subdivision review goes through three distinct phases and the applicant will have to come back to the Board for the preliminary plan stage, which includes a site walk. The approval process can take six months to a year to complete with multiple meetings including extensive Planning Board review, and the applicant may adjust the proposal based on Planning Board and public comment. There will be ample opportunity to review the project and comment on it at length, and the complete file is always available at the Planning Office.
Austin K. Matheson (162 Beech Hill Road): This property is very wet land. What regulations require DEP approval and what regulates subdivision size?
Mr. Sabatini: There are different thresholds, and while we do anticipate some wetlands impact, we will try to minimize it. The Site Location Law is triggered by over an acre of impervious surface, which we will avoid. Mitigation is required for 20,000 sq. ft. of wetlands impact, but we will try to be under that.
Mr. Chalfant: What is the buildable area for Lots 10 and 11?
Mr. Sabatini: We are trying for an acre on each.
Police Chief Mark Kelley: Will there be any language addressing the joining of a major and minor road, especially if the minor road has already been accepted by the Town?
Mr. Farley: We speak of and like to promote through ways, and this is similar to the subdivision I live in where there is only one way in and out. I would like to see a through way set up, but with the restrictions suggested by Chief Kelley.
CEO Ford: There has been a community discussion on the issue of subdivision roads and whether they should ever become Town ways. The Subdivision Ordinance includes a section on street design standards, and the issue of whether roads become public ways is voted on at the annual Town Meeting. The new Comprehensive Plan discusses discouraging private ways from being accepted as public ways in the rural part of Town.
Jean Moro: Is Beech Hill Road up to Town specifications?
CEO Ford: The Public Works Director would have to address that issue. The angle of elevation and sharp radii at certain sections do not meet current subdivision standards. A 20-foot wide paved surface is desirable and Beech Hill Road is narrower than that standard.
Mr. Linder: The three sketches presented are all a little different. Is the other road shown on the USGS map?
Mr. Sabatini: That is a woods road.
Mr. Blackwell: We pursued the idea of using their road with Camden National Bank, but since they are not sure of their future plans, they rejected the idea.
Timothy Dutille (156 Beech Hill Road): Will there be any type of traffic engineering study?
Mr. Chalfant: That is not required by the Ordinance.
Timothy Dutille: But a lot of concerns have been expressed.
Mr. Cox: The Board can request that such a study be done.
CEO Ford: You really need to see the preliminary plan first, but the Board does have the option of soliciting independent study of some aspect of the plan that raises concerns.
Julie Dutille: It seems like they are trying to push this forward without spending any money, and we need to make sure it is done right.
Mr. Chalfant: It will be. A site walk will be scheduled before the next meeting.
CEO Ford: A site walk will be scheduled for 3:30 or 3:45 p.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 2005. We will notify everyone and the applicant will have the property staked out.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at the Rockport Opera House Downstairs Meeting Room.
By Date Nancy Ninnis, Recording Secretary