A.      Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

B.      Roll Call
Present: Phil Hunt, Chair, Martha Porch, Joe Taylor, Tom Powers, Stephen Sloan, Terry Turner, Beth Howe

C.      Minutes of Prior Meetings  There were no minutes.

D.      Consent Calendar  There were no consent calendar items.

E.      Hearings and Presentations

1.      Public Hearing  Major Site Plan Review  Review to determine application completeness and if found to be complete to set a date for final Site Plan review for the construction of a new middle school and associated site improvements at the Greely Campus, Tax Assessor Map U11, Lots 9 and 1; MSAD# 51 owner, Stephen Blatt Associates, applicant.

Mr. Hunt stated the purpose of the Planning Boards meeting was to determine if the Major Site Plan application for the construction of the new middle school and associated improvements was complete.  The Board will not review the application for the merits of the plan. It will determine if all of the information necessary is submitted to evaluate the plan.  If the Board finds the application complete, the Board will conduct a public hearing for final review at the June 18, 2002 meeting.

Mr. Fillmore presented background information as follows: The Planning Board was asked to review the Town staffs comments, the peer reviewers comments, and various other correspondence included in the packet, to continue to hear public testimony, and then make a ruling on the completeness of the site plan application. If a positive determination is made, the Board may then place the application on the agenda for substantive (i.e. final) review. Because no approval was sought, there are no findings of fact upon which to make rulings. The Board could consider the following in their review for completeness:
1.      Meadow Lane Drainage: The Town, the SADs engineers and the residents of Meadow Way have been working together to come up with a mutually beneficial resolution to this question.  As a result DeLuca Hoffman has come up with a plan that encloses the now-open ditch between Meadow Way and Meadow Lane.  The residents and SAD appear to be in agreement on the drainage issue.  There will be a partnership joint venture between the Town and the MSAD.  The details will be worked out.
2.      Overall Stormwater Management Plan: Discussions between the Town staff and area residents indicate some lingering uncertainty about how the proposed drainage system will work, how it will be different from what exists today, and what the impacts, positive or negative, will be. The Towns peer review engineer, Tom Saucier of SYTDesign, has supplied the applicant with comments, and most have been resolved.  One question is stormwater runoff from the parking lot for the middle school.  A significant amount of that runoff will be shed off untreated onto the condo lawns.  A solution would be to install a water oil separator as it is currently designed DEP standards are met.
3.      Alignment of enclosed drainage system through Cumberland Senior Housing: At the Planning Boards last hearing (April 30) there was some discussion about the proposed path of the enclosed stormwater pipe from the large retention pond at the northwestern corner of the site, through the senior housing community, to the Meadow Way roadway. A number of large-caliper pines that form the buffer between senior housing and the condominiums would have to be relocated or replaced as the proposed alignment travels along this line of trees. However the SAD has committed to replacing the buffer to its current level of opacity, and seems amenable to the idea of introducing some variation of species into the buffer that would improve the screening at lower levels, below the mature pine boughs. Also the SAD has agreed to take on responsibility for all maintenance issues associated with this alignment. As such the Town staff has dropped its opposition to this alignment. These agreements with the SAD should be formalized.
4.      Travel Demand Management: The application before the Planning Board describes various engineering means to address the projected increase in traffic volumes that will result from the construction of the middle school and ultimately the high schools renovation. In addition to those physical improvements (re-striping, possible widening, possible by-pass lanes, etc.) the Board could consider looking at alternative ways of reducing the traffic volumes, such as modifications to current campus operations.
5.      Traffic Signal Improvements: Part of the applicants approach to mitigating project traffic impact is to make some alterations to the existing traffic light at the corner of Main Street and Tuttle Road. The Board may wish to seek some clarification on this from the applicant.
6.      Tuttle Road Traffic Monitoring: The Town and the applicant have agreed that before a by-pass lane or a left turn lane be required at the new Tuttle Road Middle School entrance, a period of traffic monitoring should occur after the school has opened. The results of this monitoring will indicate whether an extra lane is required. As part of the monitoring agreement, the applicant would have to put money in the amount of the probable cost of any future improvement into an escrow account. The Board could get more details on the monitoring agreement from the applicant.
7.      Flashing School Signs: The applicant and the Police Chief have agreed that the flashing school signs on Main Street will remain, and that new flashing school signs will replace the existing bright green "when children are present signs on Tuttle Road. The Police Chief has requested that these flashers be located in such a way as to capture the Drowne Road School area between them.
8.      Thru-Site Bus Connector: The applicant and the Police Chief have agreed that no complete connector will be possible as part of the Middle School project by itself, and that the high school project will be necessary to complete any such connection. However a segment of the connector could be built as part of the Middle School project. Two of the four possible connectors have been ruled out. The Board could review the remaining two options.
9.      Property Line Buffering: The depth, opacity and height of the proposed buffers still needs to be reviewed. It should also be determined who will be responsible for the future health and maintenance of this buffer, and how this maintenance will occur. Also there has been some discussion about a budget reduction for the buffers. Amended landscape plans (C-8 and C-10) have been provided by the applicant.
10.     Lighting Plan: The Town has commissioned Bartlett Designs to conduct a peer review of the applicants lighting plan. The peer reviewer has made some recommendations to reduce light.
11.     Tuttle Town Playground: The Town continues to receive inquiries about the future of this playground. The Board may wish to request that the applicant address this question.
12.     Arsenic:  The Town continues to receive inquiries about the occurrence of arsenic on the site. Of particular concern is the possibility of air-borne toxins during the construction/site work phase. The Board could ask the applicant to discuss this at greater length.
13.     Permits by Other Agencies: Concurrent with the Town of Cumberlands review of this project, the applicant has submitted applications to both the Maine DEP and the Maine DOT. Final approval by those Two State agencies will be required prior to the granting of final Site Plan approval by the Town of Cumberland.

Mr. Hunt asked if from the Town Staffs prospective was the application complete?

Mr. Fillmore stated the Staff and Town Peer reviewer consider the application complete.

Mr. Tom Hyndman, co-chair steering committee stated there has been an agreement reached in regard to the drainage.

Mr. Hoffman reviewed the drainage proposal; there were a number of residents concerns.  A proposal to pipe water between the two streets has been reached. The school would construct a pond and pipe the water to an open swale at Meadow Way, through Meadow Lane. The maintenance in the downstream areas will be the Towns responsibility.  The Town has re-established the drainage channels. At all locations the peak runoff from the Greely Campus will not increase rates downstream.  

Mr. Hunt asked if the property rights for the easements were in hand.

Mr. Hoffman stated the recommendations are in place, the paperwork needs to be completed.

Ms. Porch asked if the pipe would be perforated?

Mr. Hoffman stated the pipe is non-perforated, the under drains will have perforated pipe.

Ms. Porch asked about the peak flow rates required by the State.

Mr. Hoffman said that the question by peer reviewer asked if calculations should be prior to the Mabel Wilson addition.  Both conditions have been analyzed.  In all cases the peak flow has not been increased.  

Ms. Porch asked if there would be an increased rate of flow during a heavy downpour, and would the depth of water in the channel increase during a 2-year storm?

Mr. Hoffman stated today the level would be just under 19 deep.  At project completion it would decrease to 16.5.  

Mr. Turner asked if DEP required the use of the pre 1975 model.  You also used the existing condition model.  Is there a response from the peer review?

Mr. Hoffman stated yes, the 1975 date is a State mandated date.

Mr. Hoffman stated they have responded to the peer review.  The only area of contention is the question of water quality for the parking lot.  The 1975 baseline and current conditions have been done, and the water is below both pre-existing states.

Mr. Sloan asked what would happen in the future if the calculations were wrong, and residents on Meadow Lane were being flooded.

Mr. Hunt stated the producer of the water, the School Board and the easement owner; the Town would have to come up with a solution.  If the engineers were wrong the Town would have an action against the engineer.

Mr. Turner asked if the Town were putting themselves at more of a risk than currently.

Mr. Hunt stated perhaps a little bit.

Mr. Hoffman stated it would be his fault if the calculations were wrong. There are three separate and independent reviews, the Towns by SYTDesign, the DEPs through South Portland, and the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation.  

Ms. Howe asked about the quality issue of the parking lot water, and the flow amount.

Mr. Hoffman stated the 1.4-acre parking lot would have direct runoff.  Under State guidelines this is permissible to achieve an overall campus standard.  Mr. Hoffman reviewed the flow direction.  Water quality measures would be above and beyond, what is required, to add those measures would be an additional cost of $16,000.

Ms. Howe asked how dirty was the water?

Mr. Hoffman stated the same area receives the runoff from the gravel parking lot and the high school, currently there is more untreated water than proposed.  The high school water will be directed to the pond.  The water will do some self-cleaning.  

Mr. Hunt asked if assuming during the course of winter sand and salt spreading, what would happen with the snow removal and melt down of salt and sands.  Will there be a silt trap?

Mr. Hoffman stated there will be a catch basin to help with the sand, salt gets dissolved and there is no known treatment for salt.

Mr. Hunt asked if there would be any difficulties for neighboring properties.

Mr. Hoffman stated he was not aware of any problems other than from salt piles.

Mr. Hunt asked about the piles of dirty snow with petroleum, would there be any impact with hydrocarbons?

Mr. Hoffman stated there will be some (PAH) pass through the system.  Water quality treatment would give the contaminated water the appearance of being clean.

Mr. Hunt asked what would a water quality unit consist of?

Mr. Hoffman stated it would be similar to a large manhole in which the water would swish in a vortex as a separator, then it would discharge above ground.

Mr. Taylor asked about the maintenance of the system after completion.

Mr. Fillmore stated the MSAD would be responsible until Meadow Way where the water would enter the Town right-of-way and at that point the Town would take over the responsibility of maintenance.  

Mr. Hoffman stated the MSAD would need to perform normal maintenance.

Mr. Saucier of SYTDesign stated there would be 120 cars parked adjacent to the property line.  The options are no treatment or some treatment.  Chemicals do volatize from the high school parking lot before reaching the property line.  He stated no requirement for treatment was a quirk in the State regulations.  He would like to see some form of treatment.  The other issues in his peer review memo are being addressed and working towards resolution.

Mr. Hunt asked what options for treatment would be available?

Mr. Saucier stated there are two options and one isnt feasible. Iinitially the ideal solution would have been for the water to go to the treatment pond.  But at this point the next best solution is a vortex unit, which would trap some fuels and greases, it would enhance the quality of runoff.

Mr. Hunt asked if there was any alternative to get the water to the Wilson Pond.

Mr. Saucier stated no.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.

Ms. Connie Hay, of Winterberry Court asked about the drainage at the condos.

Mr. Booth thanked the school department and the Town for their help in solving the drainage concerns.

Mr. Hyndman reviewed the Travel Demand Management issue.  He stated that last week the State formally approved the funding for the middle school project.  On the same day the Department of Education came out with its list of ranking for its next phase of funding.  The high school renovations ranked # 38 on the list for a two-year cycle, typically ten or eleven get funding.  The high school is not likely to get funding in this cycle.  He stated it would be prudent to postpone until around 2008-2009 or 2010, which would postpone some of the Main Street traffic issues.

Ms. Kim True, Chair of the School Board stated next year parking will be limited to seniors.  Juniors would be allowed to apply for any additional spaces.  This fall there will be a community task force to address traffic, and a public relations campaign to encourage students to ride the buses.

Mr. Hoffman presented a hand  out regarding the traffic signaling on Main Street which was addressed by Peter Hedrich of Gorrill-Palmer Associates.

Mr. Hedrich, stated the analysis showed that a left turning lane was necessary at the intersection of Tuttle and Main.  The operation of the signal will remain the same.  The lanes will shift with the widening.

Ms. Howe asked if there would a left turn arrow.

Mr. Hedrich stated the analysis did not show that was necessary. The improvement at the traffic signal is for the middle school.  One issue on Main Street is the back up of traffic. Part of that problem is vehicles turning left into the school driveway.  The road has been widened some, they are proposing a shift in pavement markings 2 towards the high school to allow an additional 2 for traffic to go around turning vehicles.

Ms. Porch stated she lives on Main Street and the problem is traffic returning to Main Street.

Mr. Hedrich stated the flashing school zone signs would be added to Tuttle Road.  The maximum distance allowed is 300 feet from the driveway of the school.  They cant be stretched to include the Drowne Road School.  There was an overall pedestrian assessment done at the campus.  There were two deficiencies, one a missing piece of sidewalk on Tuttle Road which will be added.  The other item, which has been discussed, is the current arrangement for students crossing Main Street.  They are recommending the crosswalk be relocated to south of Osgood Drive.  The sidewalk would be extended.

Ms. Porch asked where students from Blanchard Road would cross-Main Street.

Mr. Hedrich stated a crosswalk could be installed, however their crosswalk study resulted in one student crossing the road.  The Town could include a crosswalk in their regular stripping program.  They are recommending leaving the traffic conditions the same on Tuttle Road, understanding the concerns of increased traffic flow.  Traffic will be monitored at the new middle school driveway to evaluate the need for a turning lane, and a traffic control person at that location.    This is being reviewed by the peer review.

Mr. Hyndman stated he thought there was a crosswalk from Blanchard Road.

Mr. Hunt stated there is a crosswalk on the East Side, Ms. Porch was referring students from Blanchard crossing Main Street.

Mr. Fillmore said the Chief of Police has stated the school will need to provide their own crossing guards.

Mr. Powers asked, assuming that the study comes up with a conclusion that additional measures are necessary, where would the funding come from?

Mr. Hedrich stated funds for the left turn treatment would be placed in escrow.  A traffic control person has not been determined.

Mr. Powers asked if all traffic had been analyzed.

Mr. Hedrich stated all traffic was analyzed however there was not a separate study of non-school traffic.

Ms. Howe stated the real problem of Main Street traffic is the lack of through streets.  All traffic exits to Main Street or Tuttle Road.  The Town has a responsibility to create connector streets.  It makes sense to have a through road for buses at the campus.  She asked for clarification of the tables.

Mr. Hedrich stated buses traveling through the campus in the afternoon would affect the use of the existing sports field in the afternoon.  The issue would be addressed in the high school expansion.

Ms. Howe asked if all of the buses were exiting on Tuttle Road, would there be increased traffic on Main Street.

Mr. Sloan asked where the 120 vehicles that park in the gravel parking lot would go.

Mr. Hedrich stated the middle school would increase parking by 60 spaces.

Mr. Turner stated the application appears to be complete.

The Board discussed the different traffic options.

Mr. Hunt asked if the existing internal gated emergency connector would remain.

Mr. Hyndman stated the school does not have the capacity to entertain a through road.  The existing emergency connector will remain.

Mr. Sean McBreairty, of 1 Willow Lane asked about construction noise and dust, and voiced concern for increased traffic on Tuttle Road.

Mr. Hyndman introduced Pat Carroll of Carroll Landscape to review the buffering proposal.

Mr. Carroll stated the plan has an extensive landscaping proposal.  Any cuts that were necessary due to budget constraints were made in the parking areas.  The buffer will have 152 trees and 90% of the buffering plan still exists.

Ms. Porch asked about the possibility of losing trees when installing the drainage.

Mr. Carroll stated that there is a possibility that 7 trees will be lost, which will be replaced with 8 trees and shrubs.

Mr. Mark Weisman, of 17 Balsam Drive stated he appreciated the work to move the detention pond and to retain the 30 or 40-year-old trees as buffer.

Ms. Connie Hay of Winterberry Court asked what size trees were proposed.

Mr. Carroll stated 2 ½ to 3 diameter and 6 to 8 in height.

Mr. Hunt stated there would be a lighting plan submitted and Tuttle Town would be re-located and re-constructed.

Mr. Hyndman stated the Tuttle Town would be re-located behind the Wilson School.

Ms. Porch stated Tuttle Town was built with private donations and community volunteers.

Mr. Hoffman reviewed the arsenic issue.  He stated the arsenic levels were not extraordinarily high.  The arsenic remains on the site below the turf layer.  S.W. Cole  has reviewed the levels and stated the risk was very low.  There will be monitoring of the dust during construction.

Mr. Hunt asked if the arsenic was residual from the Apple Orchard use years ago.

Mr. Hoffman stated yes, they were still spraying in the 1960s, there are two or more elevated areas.

Mr. Hunt asked what were the risks involved in disturbing the soils.

Mr. Hoffman stated risks come from air-borne dust during construction and the probability and/or likelihood of how much soil someone would eat each day.

Mr. Hunt asked about the status of the other required permits.

Mr. Blatt stated the state DEP and DOT permits have been applied for.  They expect to have DEP approval in June before the next planning board meeting.

Ms. Porch moved to find the application for Major Site Plan Review complete for the construction of a new middle school and associated site improvements at the Greely Campus, Tax Assessor Map U11, Lots 9,11 and 1, MSAD #51 owner, Stephen Blatt Associates, applicant;  and to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday June 18, 2002 for Final Major Site Plan Review.


F.      Administrative

The Board will conduct a site walk at the proposed middle school on Thursday May 23, 2002 at 5:00 p.m.

The Board was reminded of the Planning Board meeting for Wednesday May 22, 2002.




The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:




_____________________________                 _____________________________
Philip Hunt, Board Chair                             Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk