Town of Windham
Planning Department
8 School Road
Windham, ME 04062
voice 207.894. 5960 ext. 2
fax 207.892.1916
TOWN OF WINDHAM
PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP
FINAL MINUTES
February 25, 2013
Contents:
13-02 Aimhi Subdivision
12-03 Atherton Subdivision
10-23 Firestorm Business Condominiums
13-03 Land Use Ordinance, Sidewalk Impact Fees
13-04 Land Use Ordinance, Campground, Personal
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Ryan McDonald. Other Board members present were:
Jim Hanscom, David Douglass, Keith Elder, and John Carlberg. Assistant Planner, Ben Smith
and Planning Director, Brooks More, were also present.
Approval of Minutes:
David Douglass made a motion to approve the minutes of January 14, 2013 as written.
Seconded by Jim Hanscom.
Vote: Four in favor. No one opposed. John Carlberg abstained.
New Business:
13-02 Aimhi Subdivision. Major residential subdivision plan review. Aimhi Lodge, Inc. to
request sketch plan review of a nine (9) lot residential subdivision. The property in
question is located at 14 Aimhi Woods Road and identified on Tax Map 60, Lot 25, Zones:
Farm Residential (FR) and Limited Residential District (LD).
Lee Allen, of Northeast Civil Solutions; Paul Hollis, the developer; and Wayne Wood, a surveyor
were present representing the applicant.
Mr. Allen explained:
 The town’s legal counsel had determined that this proposal was an amendment to a fivelot subdivision which had been previously approved in 1973, resulting in 14 lots.
 The site consisted of approximately 24 ½ acres on two peninsulas with frontage on Little
Sebago Lake.
 Portions of two existing private roads would be upgraded and paved, or improved and
remain gravel, based on abutter feedback. Aimhi Woods Road would be extended 450
feet to provide frontage for the lots by the lake. Mourning Dove Road would serve four
lots and be extended 700 feet.
 The subdivision was proposed to be built in two phases.
 A phosphorous stormwater permit would be required form DEP.
February 25, 2013
1




They were proposing two dry hydrants for fire suppression. One would be located at the
end of Aimhi Woods Road and the other would be at the end of Mourning Dove Road.
Those dry hydrants would require a Permit by Rule for DEP.
A private well and a new septic system was proposed for each of the eight building lots.
The existing septic systems would be abandoned and filled in.
Portland Water District’s seasonal waterline would continue down the road. Any
disturbance to it would be repaired.
All but five of the existing cabins would be removed. Two would remain on lot 7, two on
lot 3, and one on lot 8. Those cabins met the definition of a dwelling and met the density
requirement.
David Douglass disclosed that his wife owned property on the lake. It did not abut the project.
The Board did not express concern with the disclosure.
Public Comment:
Lawrence Pierce, Smith Road – He asked if the existing older septic systems would be used for
the cabins. What would the cabins be used for?
Mr. Hollis said they were getting rid of the old nonconforming septic systems. The protective
covenants would prohibit commercial rental of the cabins.
Jim McBride, Many Oaks Road Association – There were 17 or 18 homeowners who were
members of the association and who would be sharing the road with owners of the new
properties. Mourning Dove was a private road that the association must maintain. The addition
of the traffic associated with 13 new homes was of great concern to members of the association.
He was delighted that Mr. Hollis was willing to take every effort to understand and alleviate undue
stress to that section of the road and to pave that section of it which would receive traffic.
Allan Blackstone Many Oaks Lane. – Lots A and C faced his property. He wondered how the
houses would be situated on those lots and how far Many Oaks Lane would be paved. He
expressed concern about the pavement and run-off to his property.
Mr. Hollis responded that he had the say over how houses would be situated and he was open to
discussion. Paving would be from the beginning of Aimhi Woods to the end of Mourning Dove.
They could stake out and discuss the pavement.
Continuing Business:
12-03 Atherton Subdivision. Major residential subdivision plan review. James and
Deborah Greenlaw to request final plan review of a seven (7) lot residential subdivision.
The properties are located at 29 and 17 Walter Partridge Road and identified on Tax Map:
15, Lots: 56B and 56E, Zone: Farm (F).
John Carlberg recused himself.
Wayne Wood, a surveyor, was present representing the applicants.
Ben Smith said:
 All state permitting was complete and had been submitted.
 The final subdivision plan checklist was complete.
 The third party review engineer had no further comments.
February 25, 2013
2
Jim Hanscom made a motion that the final plan application for project 12-03 Atherton Subdivision
was found complete in regard to the submission requirements based on the application checklist,
but the Planning Board retained the right to request more information where review criteria were
not fully addressed.
Seconded by David Douglass.
Vote: All in favor.
Jim Hanscom made a motion that the final subdivision plan application for 12-03 Atherton
Subdivision on tax map: 15, Lot: 56B was to be approved with conditions with the following
findings of fact and conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A.


B.




C.






D.

POLLUTION
The new residential units will not result in undue air or water pollution.
No part of the subdivision is within a mapped floodplain.
WATER
All dwelling units will be served by private wells for domestic water use.
The closest public water main terminates at a fire hydrant located at the Falmouth Road
and Nash Road intersection, approximately 3,300 feet from the intersection of the new
street and Walter Partridge Road.
The subdivision plan shows well exclusion areas, per comments from Will Haskell, P.E.
with Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, dated September 17, 2012.
The following has been added to the plan as Note 14: “The home built on Lot 7 will be more
than 1000’ from the Walter Partridge Road and therefore will be required to have a sprinkler
system.”
SOIL EROSION
A stormwater plan and report by Jeff Amos, P.E., of Terradyn Consultants, dated August
23, 2012, is included in the August 2012, Preliminary Plan submission. The Stormwater
Management Plan was included in Planning Board packets for the meeting on September
24, 2012.
Mr. Haskell submitted stormwater plan peer review comments dated September 17, 2012,
related to the stormwater plan. The September 2012 Preliminary Plan submitted by Mr.
Wood addressed the majority of the original comments.
Mr. Haskell has no further comments on the Final Plan submission, as noted in his letter
dated February 11, 2013.
The applicant has incorporated the DEP “Model Maintenance Plan” into the Stormwater
Inspection and Maintenance Plan, and incorporated the Stormwater Inspection and
Maintenance Plan into the homeowners’ association documents.
A soil erosion and sediment control plan is shown as best practice notes and details shown
on Sheet 3 of 4.
The applicant has obtained a stormwater permit by rule from DEP, and a Tier 1 Natural
Resources Protection Act (NRPA) permit dated December 10, 2012. The NRPA permit
number is L-25810-TB-A-N.
TRAFFIC
The new subdivision street will be built to the Minor Private Road standard in Appendix B of
the Land Use Ordinance.
February 25, 2013
3

The plan shows a reserved right-of-way connection to the land labeled “N/F John Cooper”
on the plan.
A 20-foot paved apron on the subdivision street is shown at the Walter Partridge Road
intersection.
A sidewalk on the new subdivision street is not required, as the subdivision is more than
1,000 feet from neighborhood businesses, schools, community facilities, or other
pedestrian traffic generators.


E.
SEWERAGE


All dwelling units will be served by private septic systems.
Passing test pit locations are shown on the Preliminary Plan, and test pit logs have been
submitted with the August 2012 Preliminary Plan submission.
F.
SOLID WASTE


Residents will participate in the Town’s trash bag program.
Development of these lots should not produce an undue burden on the Town’s ability to
collect and dispose of solid waste
G.
AESTHETICS

In lieu of showing street trees on the plan, the applicant is proposing to preserve specimen
trees within the right-of-way. The preserved trees will be no further than 50 feet apart. See
Note 4 on the Landscaping Plan dated August 2012.
Staff recommends adding a Condition of Approval to the plan, stating “At a minimum, one
specimen tree (minimum 2” DBH) will be preserved within the right-of-way every 50’along
the entire roadway length on both sides of the subdivision street. New plantings will be
required when specimen trees are more than fifty (50) feet apart.” This is shown as
Condition #2 below.

H.
CONFORMITY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND ORDINANCES





Comprehensive Plan:
The plan does meet the goals of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan.

Land Use Ordinances:
The proposal meets the net residential density requirements and the setback
requirements of the F district.
Subdivision Ordinance
Digital transfer of the subdivision plan data has been submitted with the Final Plan
submission for inclusion with the Town’s GIS.
 Lot owner association documents have been submitted as part of the Final Plan
submission, detailing how Common Open Space and the subdivision street are to be
maintained.

Others:
Maine DEP Stormwater Permit by Rule has been obtained.
Maine DEP Tier 1 Natural Resource Protection Act permit is required prior to Final Plan
approval.
 The street name “Sulky Way” shown on the Final Plan has been approved by the
Addressing Officer.


February 25, 2013
4
I.
FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL CAPACITY


J.

Evidence of financial capacity been provided in the form of a letter from Susan Moulton,
AVP, TD BankNorth, dated February 15, 2013. The approved subdivision will be
transferred to Jarod Robie, an experience developer in Windham. The letter indicates that
Mr. Robie has the financial capability to complete the project as presented in the Final Plan
submission.
Evidence of technical capacity has been provided as part of the Final Plan submission.
The applicant has worked with an experienced team of professionals during project design.
Mr. Robie has the technical capability to complete the project as presented in the Final Plan
submission.
RIVER, STREAM OR BROOK IMPACTS
A “Small Brook” is shown on the northern side of the subdivision, flowing through the
Common Open Space. This brook is not in a shoreland zone.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The proposed subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution.
The proposed subdivision has sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable
needs of the site plan.
The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on an existing water
supply.
The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the
land’s capacity to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results.
The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion
or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the highways or public roads existing or
proposed.
The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate sewage waste disposal.
The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on the municipality’s
ability to dispose of solid waste.
The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural
beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, significant wildlife habitat identified by the
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the municipality, or rare and irreplaceable
natural areas or any public rights for physical or visual access to the shoreline.
The proposed subdivision conforms with a duly adopted site plan regulation or ordinance,
comprehensive plan, development plan, or land use plan.
The developer has adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the standards of
this section.
The proposed subdivision is not situated entirely or partially within the watershed of any
pond or lake or within 250 feet of any wetland, great pond or river as defined in Title 38,
Chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B M.R.S.A.
The proposed subdivision will not alone or in conjunction with existing activities,
adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water.
The proposed subdivision is not situated entirely or partially within a floodplain.
All freshwater wetlands within the proposed subdivision have been identified on the plan.
Any river, stream, or brook within or abutting the subdivision has been identified on any
maps submitted as part of the application.
The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate storm water management.
If any lots in the proposed subdivision have shore frontage on a river, stream, brook, or
great pond as these features are defined in Title 38, section 480-B, none of the lots
February 25, 2013
5
18.
19.
20.
created within the subdivision have/do not have a lot depth to shore frontage ratio greater
than 5 to 1. (N/A)
The long-term cumulative effects of the proposed subdivision will not unreasonably
increase a great pond’s phosphorus concentration during the construction phase and life
of the proposed subdivision.
For any proposed subdivision that crosses municipal boundaries, the proposed
subdivision will/will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions with
respect to the use of existing public ways in an adjoining municipality in which part of the
subdivision is located. (N/A)
Timber on the parcel being subdivided has not been harvested in violation of rules
adopted pursuant to Title 12, section 8869, subsection 14.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.
Approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in the
application dated March 19, 2012, as amended January 28, 2013, and supporting
documents and oral representations submitted and affirmed by the applicant, and
conditions, if any, imposed by the Planning Board, and any variation from such plans,
proposals and supporting documents and representations are subject to review and
approval by the Planning Board or the Town Planner in accordance with Section 913 of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
2.
At a minimum, one specimen tree (minimum 2” DBH) will be preserved within the right-ofway every 50’along the entire roadway length on both sides of the subdivision street.
New plantings will be required when specimen trees are more than fifty (50) feet apart.
Seconded by David Douglass.
Vote: All in favor.
10-23 Firestorm Business Condominiums Subdivision and Site Plan. Amendment. MGM
Builders, Inc. to request a one (1) year extension of the Planning Board approval. The
property in question is located on Storm Drive. Tax Map: 21, Lot 19A-6, Zone:
Commercial I (C-1).
John Carlberg rejoined the Board.
Jim Hanscom recused himself because the applicant was building a house for a family member.
Mike Manning, President of MGM Builders, Inc. was present. He explained:
 That the next extension he received for the application would be the last he could get.
 Currently the market wasn’t favorable for a commercial site.
 He had a meeting scheduled with DEP, but was contemplating letting the approval expire
and maybe dividing the lot.
 He requested some guidance from the Board.


Ben Smith explained that, according to the Town’s attorney, there were two options:
The Board could act on the application, which would result in a denial because the DEP permit
had not been obtained.
The Board could table the application until such time as stormwater permit was received, but no
longer than October 25, 2013.
David Douglas made a motion to table the application until the stormwater permit was received.
Seconded by John Carlberg.
Vote: All in favor.
Jim Hanscom rejoined the Board.
February 25, 2013
6
13-03 Town of Windham Land Use Ordinance, Sidewalk Impact Fees. Amendments to
ordinance sections 400 Zoning Districts, 500 Performance Standards, 800 Site Plan
Review, and 1201 Impact Fees. Planning Board consideration of a Town Council request
to establish an impact fee for sidewalks in a Commercial 1 (C-1) district.
Ben Smith explained:
 The Land Use Ordinance Committee (LUOC) had drafted recommendations for a
sidewalk impact fee that would be applied when there was an addition to commercial
development over 500 square feet, or a new commercial building in a Commercial 1 (C-1)
zone.
 The fee would go a dedicated account and be pooled until a sidewalk project was
constructed for a contiguous network of sidewalks, based on the 21st Century Downtown
Plan
 Town Council had proposed a $100 fee per linear foot because a fee of $ 50 per linear
foot would not leave the Town enough money to build out the sidewalk network as
st
proposed in the 21 Century Downtown Plan.
 The impact fee would only apply in a C-1 zone. In any other zone construction of a
sidewalk may be required.
The Board commented:
 How would the impact fee account for an increase in the cost of materials needed to build
a sidewalk?
 Where would the sidewalk begin?
 Would the sidewalk be constructed according to a phased plan?
 The sidewalk would not necessarily be built in front of the business that had paid an
impact fee.
 The sidewalk may not be built for years after the impact fee was paid.
 The plan was to build a sidewalk on one side of a road first in order to increase the
availability of sidewalks.
Jim Hanscom made a motion to schedule a public hearing.
Seconded by David Douglass.
Vote: All in favor.
13-04 Town of Windham Land Use Ordinance, Campground, Personal. Amendments to
ordinance sections 300 Definitions, and 500 Performance Standards. Planning Board
consideration of a Town Council request to regulate the use of recreational vehicles as
dwelling units.
Ben Smith explained:
 The issue had been raised because of a complaint about an RV being used as a yearround dwelling and the impact of that.
 If an RV or tent was located on a property that was otherwise vacant, and was used as a
dwelling for up to 120 days, the proposed amendments would create standards regarding
required minimum lot size; setbacks; and permitting.
 There would be no impact on lots where an RV was stored, but not lived in.
 There would be no impact on lots that had a primary residence where the RV or tent use
was accessory to that.
 The minimum lot size would be 30,000 square feet.
 District setbacks must be met.
 A permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Office prior to the first day of use.
 The property must meet all state requirements for the disposal of waste.
 Use of an RV or tent in excess of 120 days would require a septic permit etc., just as for
any dwelling unit.
February 25, 2013
7

The ordinance was meant to address a situation where RVs and tents may be in close
proximity to existing homes, but lack facilities for waste and trash.
The Board commented:
 What constituted a use?
 Would an existing non-conforming lot that had been used for an RV or tent be
grandfathered?
 A lot in a shoreland zone a lot that exceeded the required square footage may be
unusable because of the required setbacks.
 120 days was too short a period.
 If a lot had septic and water could it be used year-round?
 If the State currently regulated the disposal of waste that could be enforced.
 Why created a new set of rules when existing rules were not being used?
 Currently there were a lot of little lots around the lakes that were currently legally used for
RVs and tenting.
 A grace period of one or two weeks, which could not be exceeded, at the beginning of the
use was needed.
 What was so bad about living in a tent or RV if all the rules were obeyed? Why regulate
what had always been done?
 Traditionally, the opinion had been if you could put a tent on it then it had value. The
ordinance change would take that away. Would the town compensate the land owner?
 Did yurts, wigwam, and teepees count as tents?
 How often was this an issue in Town?
 If someone moved into a tent or an RV and they didn’t have an interest in taking care of
waste, they wouldn’t have an interest in getting a permit and it may still be an issue for a
neighbor.
Ben Smith explained:
 The use on an existing lot would not be grandfathered.
 Any portion of the land use ordinance was enforceable by the Code Enforcement Office.
Jim Hanscom made a motion to schedule a public hearing.
Seconded by John Carlberg.
Vote: All in favor.
Other Business:
Jim Hanscom made a motion to elect officers at next meeting.
There was no second.
Jim Hanscom made a motion to hold the annual administrative meeting at the next meeting.
Seconded by Keith Elder.
Vote: All in favor.
Adjournment
John Carlberg made a motion to adjourn.
Seconded by David Douglass.
Vote: All in favor.
February 25, 2013
8