Mr. Wyman welcomed the applicants and gave an overview of the order of the meeting.  Stating there would be opportunity for public testimony and four positive votes would be required to approve a request.

1.      Special Exception                           John Chase
                                                  40 Westbranch Road
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R07E, Lot 10
                                                  Rural Residential 2 district

Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:  Mr. Chase requests a special exception for an accessory apartment at 40 Westbranch Road, Tax Assessor Map R07E, Lot 10 in the Rural Residential 2 district.  The existing dwelling has 5,089 sq. ft. of living space.  The accessory apartment will consist of 572 sq. ft. on the first floor and 660 sq. ft. on the second floor a total of 1,232 sq. ft., which is 22% of the existing living space in the dwelling.  The accessory apartment will be used for Mr. Chase's in-laws.

A letter from Ms. Cynthia Allen, of 10 Stonewall Drive was included in the packets.  She is in favor of the accessory apartment with the condition that it be used for family members only, and not rented out.  Mr. Chase has agreed to that condition.  The Board will need to determine that the use will comply with Sections 407 (conversions), 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the Ordinance.

Mr. Chase stated the apartment would be used for his in-laws.  It would not be rented out.

Mr. Wyman asked if the space existed.

Mr. Chase stated the accessory apartment would be contained within his existing two-story dwelling.  The septic system has been expanded to accommodate the accessory apartment.  The Plumbing inspector has inspected and approved the expansion.  

Mr. Manahan asked for clarification on the location of Westbranch Road.  
Mr. Longley stated it is a new 18-lot subdivision adjoining Stonewall Drive.

Mr. Kendall reviewed the Special Exception standards of Sections 407.1, 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 with the following findings:

.1      The proposed use will not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, intensity of use by both pedestrians and vehicles and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles;
The proposed accessory apartment will not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous, aesthetically unpleasant, or unhealthy condition may result;
The proposed accessory apartment and existing dwelling has an approved expanded septic system that will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, and erosion or contaminate any water supply.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.3      The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;
The proposed accessory apartment will be used for residential housing, and will not create any unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
 
.4      The proposed use will be compatible with the uses that are adjacent to and neighboring the proposed location, as measured in terms of its physical size, intensity of use, visual impact, and proximity to other structures and the scale and bulk of any new structures for the proposed use shall be compatible with structures existing or permitted to be constructed on neighboring properties;
 The dwelling will be compatible with the uses that are adjacent to and neighboring the proposed location.
 The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties;
The proposed accessory apartment will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties.
 The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.6      The proposed location for the use has no peculiar physical characteristics due to its size, shape, topography, or soils which will create or aggravate adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties;
The accessory apartment will meet State Plumbing Code and will not create or aggravate adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.7      The proposed use has no unusual characteristics atypical of the generic use which proposed use will depreciate the economic value of surrounding properties;
The accessory apartment will have no unusual characteristics that would depreciate the economic value of surrounding properties.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.8      If located in a shoreland zone, the proposed use (1) will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat; (ii) will conserve shoreland vegetation; (iii) will conserve visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (iv) will conserve actual points of access to waters; (v) will conserve natural beauty and (vi) will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]

The Board found this requirement to be not applicable.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform with the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

.1      The volume of sound, measured by a sound level meter and frequency weighting network (manufactured according the standards prescribed by the American Standards Association), inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a maximum of 60 decibels at lot boundaries, excepting air raid sirens and similar warning devices;
The proposed accessory apartment use will not create noise that would exceed a maximum of 60 decibels at lot boundaries.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      Vibration inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at lot boundaries;
The proposed use will not create vibration that would exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at the lot boundaries.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.3      No materials or wastes shall be deposited on any lot in such form or manner that they may be transferred beyond the lot boundaries by regularly recurring natural causes or forces, and all materials which cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard, or are edible or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects if stored out-of-doors shall be in closed containers;
The proposed accessory apartment will not have any waste that would cause fumes, dust, and fire hazard or attract rodents or insects.  There will be no materials, other than normal household items stored outside.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.4      The emission of noxious, odorous matter across lot boundaries in such quantities as to be offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities is prohibited; and
The accessory apartment will not give emission of noxious, odorous matter.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      No discharge into any private sewage disposal system, or stream or into the
ground of any materials in such nature or at such temperature as to contaminate
any water supply or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or unhealthful
elements is permitted, and no accumulation of solid waste conducive to the
breeding of rodents or insects shall be allowed.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
The proposed accessory apartment will have an approved septic system that will not contaminate any water supply.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  There was none.  Mr. Wyman asked for public testimony in opposition, neutral or for informational purposes.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.       

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a special exception to John Chase for an accessory apartment at 40 Westbranch Road, Tax Assessor Map R07E, Lot 10; in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) district; with the condition that the accessory apartment be used for family members only and rented out.

The Board discussed the ability to condition the approval to limit family use only, and enforcement of such a condition.  The applicant agreed to the condition of approval.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Reduction of backlot standards        Mr. Robert Craig
                                                  89 Sanderson Road
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U02, Lot 10
                                                  Low Density Residential district

Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:  Mr. Craig is proposing to sell a 3.4-acre lot, which will be served by the existing private way, Sanderson Road.  The existing driveway has been in place for many years and is in good shape, but it is less than the 16-foot wide travelway required in Section 421 for a driveway serving three to five dwelling units.  Though paved, drainage has not been an issue for the users of the driveway.  The current drive is generally in the 10 to 12 foot range.
To rebuild the road to meet the Private Way Standards Mr. Craig would have to cut trees to rebuild the road.  The request has been discussed with Town Staff and Public Safety Officials.  From a public safety standpoint, the existing driveway as it exists could be considered a safe access if the new home constructed on the proposed lot is sprinkled.  This condition is acceptable to the new owner.  Mr. Craig is also requesting a reduction in the requirement to double the lot size to 4-acres.  The lot proposed lot will be 3.4-acres.
Mr. Walt Stinson, of Sebago Technics is the representative.
Mr. Stinson, of Sebago Technics provided an aerial photograph of the property.  He stated Mr. Craig owns and occupies the residence at 89 Sanderson Way on the easterly side of Route 88.  There are three dwellings on the land; all three dwellings are accessed through the private way Sanderson Road.  Mr. Sanderson has a 3.4-acre parcel under contract, which includes 2 acres and the right-of-way to Starboard Lane.    Mr. Sanderson and the potential purchaser have discussed not transferring the right-of-way for Starboard Lane, which would create a parcel of approximately 2-acres.
The Ordinance gives authority to reduce backlot and private way standards as long as the property meets safety issues.  The request has been discussed with Town Staff and Public Safety officials.  From a public safety standpoint, the existing driveway as it exists could be considered a safe access if the new home constructed on the proposed lot is sprinkled.

Mr. Wyman asked if Mr. Craig had enough land to add the required amount for a backlot.

Mr. Stinson stated Mr. Craig owns just under 15-acres, the lot as laid out is adequate for the needs of the buyer.
Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  

Mr. James Broder, of 14 Ole Musket Road stated he has lived at his residence for over twenty years.  The private way has existed and he has seen fire trucks, trash trucks and oil trucks use the road.  It seems adequate and he saw no reason for the driveway to be widened.  If it were widened trees would have to be removed.  He had no objection to the relaxation of Standards 421.

Mr. Jeff Moore, of 47 Foreside Road, stated he also has no objection to the relaxation of the standards of Section 421.  The road abuts his property and the trees add character and are a good buffer.  Removing the trees to widen the road would alter the conditions of the neighborhood.

Mr. Charlie Craig, of 77 Sanderson Road stated he had tripped his security system several times and fire trucks have had no problem getting to his property.  He felt maintaining the aesthetics of the neighborhood were important.  The road is adequate for safety vehicles.  

Mr. Robert Craig, applicant, stated the existing private way allows for two-way access.  He has considered deeding Starboard Lane with the lot.

Mr. Black asked if Starboard Lane reached the proposed lot.

Mr. Craig stated the road ends at the circle but the right-of-way extends.

Mr. Black asked if Starboard Lane was paved.

Mr. Craig stated yes, it is the same as Sanderson Road.

Mr. Black asked if the current proposal was for Sanderson Road to serve the existing dwellings and one more house.

Mr. Craig stated yes.

Ms. Lisa Gilbert of 2 Ole Musket Road stated the existing trees provide a buffer for her family room.  She is in favor of the private way reduction.

Mr. Wyman asked for public testimony in opposition, neutral or for informational purposes.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.      

Mr. Wyman asked what was the actual acreage of the lot with or without the road.

Mr. Stinson stated the application shows 3.4-acres with Starboard Lane, if the right-of-way was not transferred the lot would be 2.2-acres.

Mr. Wyman asked what would determine if the right-of-way Starboard Lane would be included in the transfer.

Mr. Craig stated the buyer.

Mr. Wyman stated a proposed 3.4-acre property was a reduction in .6-acre; a 2.2-acre lot would be a 1.6-acre reduction.

The Board discussed Section 403.2 of the Ordinance determining the Board did not have authority to reduce the lot size.  The Board agreed the existing private way (Sanderson Road) is adequate for safe access.

Mr. Wyman explained if the Board acted on the current application and it was denied, the applicant would not be able to come back to the Board for one year.  He explained the applicant had the option of withdrawing or tabling his application.

Mr. Longley voiced concern that the application had changed.  Mr. Longley had given council to the applicant to keep lot size reduction as small as possible.  The current request is different from what was advertised.

Mr. Stinson requested that his application be tabled to allow the applicant to determine the accurate acreage of the proposed lot.

Mr. Manahan moved to table the application of Mr. Robert Craig for a reduction of back lot standards and private road construction standards for a property at 89 Sanderson Road, Tax Assessor Map U02, Lot 10 in the Low Density Residential district.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

3.      Special Exception                           Lucinda Malbon
                                                  Cumberland Business Park
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R02D, portion
                                                  Of Lot 1
                                                  Highway Commercial District

Mr. Manahan stated in the past he had represented Ms. Malbon as a client, Lucinda"s is not currently a client.  He felt he could be objective to hear the application.  The Board agreed it would not be a conflict for Mr. Manahan to hear the current application.

Mr. Longley presented background information as follows: Lucinda Malbon requests a special exception for the construction of a day spa in the Cumberland Business Park, Tax Assessor Map R02D, Lot 1, Office Commercial district; Charlotte Maloney, Gawron Turgeon Architects, representative.  Lucindas Day Spa will fall into the category of "Personal Services as allowed in Section 204.8.2.6 - Uses listed as permitted uses in the LB District under 204.6.1.

Section 204.6.1.2 allows Personal Services as a permitted use in the Local Business District.  The Day Spa will need to meet the requirements of Section 603.2.2 and 603.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.  The Day Spa will receive Minor Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board.  

Ms. Maloney, representative, of Gawron Turgeon Architects stated Ms. Malbon is interested in expanding her business day spa to Cumberland.  Lucindas Day Spa is a facility offering a limited menu of spa services, e.g. make-up consultations, facials, pedicures, and massage.  Ms. Malbon has a purchase and sale agreement for Lot One at the corner of Route One and Powell Road, which is located in the Office Commercial Zone.  The day spa will fall into the category personal services which is a Special Exception in the OC zone.  

Ms. Maloney reviewed the conceptual plans of the building.

Mr. Wyman asked the operating hours of the Spa.

Ms. Maloney stated 8:00 a.m.  9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

Mr. Kendall stated the Board was given written responses to the Special Exception standards, which will become part of the permanent record.  The Board dispensed with reading the standards.

The written responses to Section 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 are as follows:

.1      The proposed use will not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, intensity of use by both pedestrians and vehicles and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles;
Lucindas Day Spa is open from 8am to 9pm and schedules appointments ranging from one hour to up to six hours.  Traffic to and from the site will be spread over the duration of these hours.  The site plan reflects the recommended distance between the entry drive and Powell Road to ensure safe access to and from he site.  A full traffic study will be commissioned prior to Site Plan review.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous, aesthetically unpleasant, or unhealthy condition may result;
The proposed project is to be located in a subdivision that has been through a rigorous local and state permitting procedure.  All wetlands have been delineated; storm water infrastructure is in place and ample setbacks built into the project to buffer neighboring uses.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.3      The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;
The proposed project will not produce any of these contaminates.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
 
.4      The proposed use will be compatible with the uses that are adjacent to and neighboring the proposed location, as measured in terms of its physical size, intensity of use, visual impact, and proximity to other structures and the scale and bulk of any new structures for the proposed use shall be compatible with structures existing or permitted to be constructed on neighboring properties;
The building as indicated in the elevations is to resemble a mid-size colonial home with a gable roof and traditional style windows, doors.  The intensity of use does not exceed permitted uses in this zone.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties;
The spa uses only non-toxic materials in its treatments.  There are, for example, no acrid smells commonly associated with ordinary nail or hair salons.  The owner is committed to recycling and creating as little adverse impact on the property as possible.  The project will be adhering to the Towns lighting standards.  Complete light cutoff fixtures will be specified on the site plan.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.6      The proposed location for the use has no peculiar physical characteristics due to its size, shape, topography, or soils which will create or aggravate adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties;
The site is almost completely flat; soils in other sites in the subdivision have proved satisfactory.  All runoff will be directed to existing infrastructure.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.7      The proposed use has no unusual characteristics atypical of the generic use which proposed use will depreciate the economic value of surrounding properties;
There are no unusual characteristics associated with the proposed use.  Indeed other than the presence of a lighted parking area, the day spa will have the appearance of a residence.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.8      If located in a shoreland zone, the proposed use (1) will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat; (ii) will conserve shoreland vegetation; (iii) will conserve visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (iv) will conserve actual points of access to waters; (v) will conserve natural beauty and (vi) will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
The standards of the section do not apply.
The Board determined the property is not in a shoreland zone.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform with the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

.1      The volume of sound, measured by a sound level meter and frequency weighting network (manufactured according the standards prescribed by the American Standards Association), inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a maximum of 60 decibels at lot boundaries, excepting air raid sirens and similar warning devices;
The project will not create noise to exceed a maximum of 60 decibels at lot boundaries.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      Vibration inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at lot boundaries;
The project will not create vibration that would exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at lot boundaries.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.3      No materials or wastes shall be deposited on any lot in such form or manner that they may be transferred beyond the lot boundaries by regularly recurring natural causes or forces, and all materials which cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard, or are edible or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects if stored out-of-doors shall be in closed containers;
There will be no dust or fumes, all waste will be disposed of in dumpster which will be fenced.   
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.4      The emission of noxious, odorous matter across lot boundaries in such quantities as to be offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities is prohibited; and
There will be no emission of noxious, odorous matter across lot boundaries.
 The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      No discharge into any private sewage disposal system, or stream or into the ground of any materials in such nature or at such temperature as to contaminate any water supply or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or unhealthful elements is permitted, and no accumulation of solid waste conducive to the breeding of rodents or insects shall be allowed.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
Public water and sewer will service the project.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  There was none.  Mr. Wyman asked for public testimony in opposition, neutral or for informational purposes.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.       

Ms. Maloney stated the access to the day spa had not been determined.  The applicant has been to sketch plan review with the Planning Board.  The Planning Board was concerned with curb cuts on Route One.  

Mr. Wyman asked about potential impact on abutters with Saturday hours.  

Ms. Maloney stated due to the nature of the business there is a steady trickle of clients.  

Mr. Manahan asked if the Scarborough location was closing.

Ms. Maloney stated they are looking to expand and have spas in both locations.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a special exception to Lucinda Malbon for the construction of a day spa in the Cumberland Business Park, Tax Assessor Map R02D, Lot 1, in the Office Commercial District.  The approval is subject to the applicant obtaining Minor Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board.  

Mr. Kendall seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous




Administrative Matters

1.      Minutes of September 9, 2004

Mr. Manahan moved to approve the minutes the September 9, 2004 meeting.