Absent:     Ron Copp, George Turner, Mike Martin,

Staff:       Barbara McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer, Pam Bosarge, Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.

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.


Hearings and Presentations:

1.      Variance                                   Kimberly and Scott Twitchell
                                                  20 Willow Lane
                                                  Cumberland, ME 04021
                                                  Assessor Map U11, Lot 57
                                                  Medium Density Residential

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Kimberly and Scott Twitchell request variances of six (6) feet from the fifteen (15) foot side setback and nine (9) feet from the thirty-five (35) foot combined side setback requirements for a garage expansion and living space addition to a single family dwelling at 20 Willow Lane on Map U11 Lot 57 in the Medium Density Residential / Setback Overlay 2 (MDR/SO2) Districts.

The applicants are requesting approval to expand the garage and add a bedroom on the second floor.  The property is served by the public sewer system.  This request was approved on September 12, 2002 and the variance expired on March 12, 2003.

The variance request must comply with the practical difficulty definition in Section 104.97 of the Ordinance.

Mr. Twitchell, applicant stated the builder they had contracted with last fall became ill and was not able to complete the work before winter.  They have hired a new contractor.  The project has two objectives to correct the drainage issue, and to add a second bay on the garage with a master bedroom and bath addition.  They are a family of four living in a two-bedroom house.

Mr. Manahan asked if there had been any changes to the plans since the November 12, 2002 request.

Mr. Twitchell stated no.

Mr. Kendall asked if there had been any changes to the neighborhood?

Mr. Twitchell answered no, all the neighbors are the same and are in favor of the proposal.

Mr. Black asked if the drainage could be corrected separately.

Mr. Twitchell stated the drainage is next to the current garage and would need to be excavated.

Mr. Black asked what economic injury would be suffered.

Mr. Twitchell stated it would cost $20,000 more to add a bedroom off the back of the house.  And the water issue would not be solved.  

Mr. Black asked if an addition off the back of the property would meet the setbacks.

Mr. Twitchell stated yes, but it would be more money and look odd in the middle of the house.

Mr. Wyman asked the size of the garage.

Mr. Twitchell stated the one car garage is 12 x 22.

Mr. Manahan asked if it were still true that it would cost $80,000 for an addition to the back of the house, and $50,000 to add a bay to the garage.  

Mr. Twitchell stated yes.

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









Mr. Manahan moved based on the findings and conclusions of the September 12, 2002 meeting to grant Kimberly and Scott Twitchell variances of six (6) feet from the fifteen (15) foot side setback and nine (9) feet from the thirty-five (35) foot combined side setback requirements for a garage expansion and living space and garage expansion and living space addition to a single family dwelling at 20 Willow Lane, Tax Assessor Map U11, Lot 57 in the Medium Density Residential district / Setback Overlay 2 district.   

Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. §4353(4-C), the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may grant a variance only when strict application of the ordinance to the Applicant and the applicant's property would cause "a practical difficulty and when the following conditions exist.  Practical difficulty shall mean that the strict application of the ordinance to the property precludes the ability of the petitioner to pursue a use permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located and results in significant economic injury to the petitioner.  The applicant must document how significant economic injury would occur.
The applicant stated they are a family of four living in a two-bedroom cape. The property is extremely wet and has drainage from three foundation drains on Meadowview Road.  The cost of adding onto the back of the house would be $30,000 greater and the drainage problem would not be solved.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

A.      The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood;
The property is a corner lot with drainage from other properties.  The granting of the variance would allow the garage addition and correction of the drainage problem.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

B.      The granting of a variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably detrimentally affect the use or market value of abutting properties;
Properties in the neighborhood have two car garages.  It will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or market value of abutting properties.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

C.      The practical difficulty is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner.
The house was built with only one garage and the drainage problem in the back of the property has existed.  
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

D.      No other feasible alternative to a variance is available to the petitioner;
The property owner cannot afford to build an addition off from the back of the house.  The drainage issue needs to be fixed.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

E.      The granting of a variance will not unreasonably or adversely affect the natural environment; and
The granting of the variance will allow the drainage to be re-directed with no impact on the environment.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

F.      The property is not located in whole or in part within the shoreland areas as described in Title 38, Section 435.
The property is not located in the shoreland zone.
The Board found this provision inapplicable.

2.      Variance                                   Leonard & Edith Taylor III
                                                  11 Pinewood Drive
                                                  Cumberland, Maine 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U13, Lot 55
                                                  Medium Density Residential /
                                                  Setback Overlay 2 district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Leonard A. and Edith R. A. Taylor III request a variance of five (5) feet from the forty (40) foot rear setback requirement for a garage addition to a single family dwelling at 11 Pinewood Drive on Map U13 Lot 55 in the Medium Density Residential / Setback Overlay 2 (MDR/SO2) Districts.

The applicants are proposing to expand their existing garage to accommodate two cars.

The variance request must comply with the practical difficulty definition in Section 104.97 of the Ordinance.

Mr. Taylor, applicant stated they own a cape with a breezeway and one-car attached garage.  The neighborhood has similar homes mixed with two-car garages.  They have a young family and need a second bay to place bicycles etc. in the garage.  A second bay to the garage would keep the property value consistent with the neighborhood.  They have a corner lot on Pinewood and Crestwood Roads with two front setbacks.  They are requesting a variance of five (5) feet from the forty- (40) foot rear setback requirement.

Mr. Wyman asked if the garage would be re-constructed.

Mr. Taylor stated they will tear down all but one wall of the garage, the intent is to have the cement floor consistent.  The garage will be one story and the width will increase by thirteen feet.

Mr. Wyman asked what economic injury would be suffered if the variance were not granted.

Mr. Taylor stated the house in the current condition is diminished in value, compared to properties in the neighborhood.  

Mr. Manahan asked about the definition of side and rear setbacks.
Ms. McPheters stated the amendments to Section 104.74.b Lot Line, rear states On a lot that abuts more than one street, the rear lot line shall be that line opposite the shortest front lot line, from the tax maps Pinewood Drive is 92 feet.  The rear setback requirement is 40" for a principal structure.

Mr. Wyman asked about the setback for the Crestwood Road.

Mr. Taylor stated the existing garage is 35 from Crestwood Road

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  

Mr. Bill Lyford, of 8 Pinewood Drive stated he was in favor of the request and he has a two-car garage.

There was written testimony submitted from abutters that would support the variance request.

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

Mr. Manahan asked if the breezeway could be reduced in size.


Mr. Taylor stated he would have to expand the foundation of the garage and the breezeway was considered living space.

Mr. Manahan asked if would be feasible to have a deeper garage.

Mr. Taylor stated the cost and setback impact would be greater.  They are trying to keep the scale consistent with the neighborhood.

Mr. Black stated he was struggling with the significant economic injury requirement, and asked the applicant what significant economic injury would be suffered.

Mr. Taylor stated they have a lovely home with an undersized garage. They have an accumulation of toys that stay outside, and have an impact on the neighbors.

Mr. Manahan asked if other homes in the area have two-car garages, would your house be of less value then the neighbors.

Mr. Taylor stated yes, the value of their house would be reduced.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant Leonard and Edith Taylor a variance of five (5) feet from the forty (40) foot rear setback requirement for a garage addition to a single-family dwelling at 11 Pinewood Drive, Tax Assessor Map U13, Lot 55 in the Medium

Residential / Setback Overlay 2 district.  


The Board reviewed the practical difficulty criteria with the following findings and conclusions:
Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. §4353(4-C), the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may grant a variance only when strict application of the ordinance to the Applicant and the applicants property would cause a practical difficulty and when the following conditions exist.  Practical difficulty shall mean that the strict application of the ordinance to the property precludes the ability of the petitioner to pursue a use permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located and results in significant economic injury to the petitioner.  The applicant must document how significant economic injury would occur.
The applicant stated the house was built in the early 1960s with a one-car garage.  Given the unique circumstances of this property, in which a variance would not be needed if the Crestwood Road side of the property were shorter than the Pinewood Drive side, given the minimal scope of the variance needed, and given the predominance of two-car garages in the neighborhood, the applicants would suffer significant economic injury because of the comparable loss in the value of the property compared with properties in the neighborhood with two-car garages.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

A.      The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood;
The property is one of the few small corner lots in the neighborhood.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

B.      The granting of a variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably detrimentally affect the use or market value of abutting properties;
The addition of a garage bay will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood; other homes in the neighborhood have two-car garages.  Testimony from abutters supports the garage addition.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

C.      The practical difficulty is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner.
The house was built with a one-garage in the early 1960s.  The location of the house and change in setback requirements since construction prevents an addition to the garage without a variance.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

D.      No other feasible alternative to a variance is available to the petitioner;
The applicant has no other feasible alternative, removing the breezeway is not feasible. The corner lot setback requirements prohibit any alternate location for the garage addition.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

E.      The granting of a variance will not unreasonably or adversely affect the natural environment; and
The garage addition will not increase stormwater drainage and will not have an adverse affect on the environment.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

F.      The property is not located in whole or in part within the shoreland areas as described in Title 38, Section 435.
The property is not located in the shoreland zone.
The Board found this provision inapplicable.

3.      Variance                                   Erik and Meg Perry
                                                  12 Jusam Way
                                                  Cumberland, Maine 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U09, Lot 7
                                                  Rural Residential 1 district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Erik and Meg Perry request variances of sixty (60) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot rear setback and eleven (11) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot combined side setback requirements for a garage relocation to a single family dwelling at 12 Jusam Way on Map U09 Lot 7 in the Rural Residential 1 District.

The applicants are proposing relocating their existing two-car garage to the rear of their lot to accommodate a proposed addition to the house.

The variance request must comply with the practical difficulty criteria in Section 104.97 of the Ordinance.

Mr. Perry, applicant stated they would like to re-locate their existing garage to expand their one bedroom house.  They cannot add onto the house on any other side of the building due to the septic location.  The existing garage is 6 to 8 inches away from the breezeway.

Mr. Wyman asked if the architect had the septic outlined.

Mr. Perry stated the land was not surveyed, the drawing was done from the tax map.  The dotted box is the leachfield.

Mr. Wyman asked the frontage along Jusam Way.

Mr. Perry stated he owns 329 feet.

Mr. Wyman asked if he intended to expand the garage.

Mr. Perry stated he would like to expand the house to the garage footprint.

Mr. Kendall asked about Mr. Perrys work.

Mr. Perry stated he is a mechanic for Skillins greenhouse, his tools are kept at home, he has worked for Skillins for thirteen years, and his house is conveniently located between the Falmouth and newly acquired Cumberland location.

Mr. Black asked if the existing footprint would be increased.

Mr. Perry stated he would square off the breezeway, it would not encroach any further out.  He stated he has no attic or basement the house is 24 x 24 and the one bedroom is in the basement.

Mr. Wyman asked if the property had another driveway.

Mr. Perry stated he has permission of the neighbors to park in the right-of-way.

Mr. Black asked the value of the existing garage if it were sold.

Mr. Perry stated he didnt know the cost of moving the garage.  To build a new garage would be approximately $7,000 to $10,000 dollars.  The option of moving the garage is less expensive than building a new one.

Mr. Manahan asked how the setbacks were determined.

Ms. McPheters stated based on the front line definition, and no matter what the applicant proposed to do on this lot a variance would be required.

Mr. Perry stated the building was built in 1931 and was probably part of a larger parcel of land, he is trying to maintain the character of the house.

Mr. Black asked about a shed and setbacks.

Ms. McPheters stated a shed is 15 feet from the side and rear setbacks, however any building that is 12 x 24 and can accommodate a vehicle would be considered a garage.

Mr. Perry stated a shed would not meet his needs.  He has his tools and a 1972 Chevy Pick-up truck that he is restoring in the garage.

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

Mr. Wyman asked if there were any way the garage could be further from the rear setback.

Mr. Kendall stated there are overlapping setbacks, and no area within the lot.

Mr. Manahan asked about adding a second story for more space.

Mr. Perry stated the garage and house are unattached.  There is no foundation under the entryway.  He was concerned adding up would destroy the character, the house has an open single room with barn beams.

Mr. Manahan asked if there was a possibility of purchasing property from an abutter.

Mr. Perry stated down Jusam Way would be the only area that might be available for purchase.  He presented a letter from Bernhardt and Anita Marcus in support of the request.

The Board reviewed the blue prints.

Mr. Wyman asked if they could add onto the back of the house.

Ms. Perry stated there is a small stream behind the house.

Mr. Manahan stated the property has a zero building envelope.  It appears the applicant could have a bigger house and no garage or a garage with a small house.

Ms. Perry stated they would have to move from the community if they couldnt have a garage.

Mr. Wyman asked about tabling the application.

Mr. Manahan stated an alternative might be to build up over the garage.

Mr. Wyman stated adding a second story out front would have less impact, perhaps a ten or fifteen foot request.

Mr. Kendall asked if the garage was torn down.

Mr. Perry stated no, they would move the garage and utilize the garage space for living area.

Mr. Manahan stated the property had previously had a 5 variance, in scope a 60 request is a much larger request.

Mr. Perry stated his ½ acre lot is nonconforming and has seasonal drainage in the spring, which follows the property line.

Mr. Kendall explained to the applicant if the Board denied the request they would not be able return to the Board for one year.  The applicant could request the application be withdrawn or tabled to allow the homeowner to meet with an architect to come up with a design to accomplish needs that encroaches less than what is currently requested.

Mr. Kendall moved to table the request of Erik and Meg Perry for variances of sixty (60) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot rear setback and eleven (11) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot combined side setback requirements for a garage relocation to a single family dwelling at 12 Jusam Way, Tax Assessor Map U09, Lot 7 in the Rural Residential 1 district.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

4.      Special Exception                           Mary Washo
                                                  20 Crestwood Road
                                                  Cumberland, ME 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U13, Lot 46
                                                  Medium Density Residential /
                                                  Setback Overlay 2 districts

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Molly M. Washo requests a special exception to operate a day care home occupation at 20 Crestwood Road on Map U13 Lot 46 in the Medium Density Residential / Setback Overlay 2 (MDR/SO2) Districts.

The applicant is proposing a day care home providing before and after school care for six (6) children.  The home occupation would be open Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. during the school year.  The house is connected to the public sewer system.  The Board may want to address available parking.

The Board will need to determine that the use will comply with the following definitions from Section 104.35, 104.60; 414.1; 414.2; 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the Cumberland Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. McPheters stated she had received a letter from Deanna Perry, of 17 Crestwood Road with concern of increased traffic.  The letter dated August 11, 2003 was entered into the record.

Ms. Washo, applicant stated she would like to open a day care home for before and after school care.  She would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the school year.  She would be open during school vacations and snow days, but not during the summer months.  She has a big back yard for a play area.  There will be no employees.  She has applied to the State for licensure and she is not requesting a sign.

Mr. Black asked about the vacant lot next door to her property.

Ms. Washo stated Todd Grove owns the lot and used for as a neighborhood playground.

Mr. Black asked how children would arrive at the daycare.

Ms. Washo stated a combination of bus and car.

Mr. Black asked if there could be children who walk to school.

Ms. Washo stated perhaps, she doesnt have any children at this point.

Mr. Kendall asked about the survey and the setback to the garage of 1 from the property line.  

Ms. Washo stated the prior owner; Mr. Hulsey received a variance for the lot to remain vacant.

Ms. McPheters stated she had issued a no action letter, when the property was transferred the line was not where it had been anticipated to be, the Board of Appeals was given the wrong information.

Mr. Kendall asked if the second driveway would be used for pick up and drop off.

Ms. Washo stated there was no direct access from the garage to the house. It would be possible to use the second driveway if necessary.

Mr. Wyman asked how many vehicles could park in the driveway.

Ms. Washo stated she could park four vehicles in the driveway.

Mr. Kendall asked about a fence.

Ms. Washo stated she was not planning on a fence, the neighborhood is quiet, and there is a natural fence of trees in the backyard.

Mr. Wyman asked where the Clarks live.

Ms. Washo stated across the street two houses up the street.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public that was in favor of the application.

Mr. John Ames, of 23 Pinewood stated he was pleased to have Molly living in the neighborhood.  There is adequate room in the backyard for playground equipment.  He has known her parents and grandparents and stated she would do a great job with a daycare.

Mr. Wyman asked Mr. Ames if he had any safety concerns if children strayed onto his property.

Mr. Ames stated he has a compost heap that he will move.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony that was in opposition.  There was none.
He asked for testimony that was neutral or informational.

Mr. Bill Lyford, of 8 Pinewood Drive stated that when he moved to Pinewood it was a dead-end street, he questioned if a daycare center would increase traffic.  He didnt want to encourage business in residential areas.

Mr. Kendall asked if six children would impact traffic or home values in the neighborhood.

Mr. Lyford stated he didnt know.

The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Wyman stated a special exception is tantamount to a permitted use, the applicant must prove that there will not be an impact on noise, traffic, pollutants etc.

Mr. Manahan stated the Town Council has agreed daycare homes are allowed as a special exception.

Mr. Kendall moved to grant Molly Washo a special exception to operate a daycare home at 20 Crestwood Road, Tax Assessor Map U13, Lot 46 in the Medium Density Residential / Setback Overlay 2 districts.

The conditions of your approval are:
1.      The day care home will provide before and after school care for six (6) children.
3.      The day care will operate during the school calendar.  It will be open for school
4.      There will be no sign.
5.      There will be no employees.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous


The Board determined based on the following findings and conclusions that your application meets the requirements of Sections 104.35; 104.60; 414.1; 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.  

414.1   Any home occupation such as arts and crafts work, dressmaking, tutoring, music teaching, and the use of a portion of a residential building as a bed & breakfast inn, day care home, or as the office of a physician, dentist, lawyer, engineer, architect, hairdresser, barber, real estate broker, insurance agent, accountant or similar uses may be approved as a special exception by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals if:  [Amended, effective 12/13/89]

.1      The occupation of an office will be managed by a member of the family residing within the dwelling unit.  Up to two employees who are not members of the family may be employed in a home occupation, and;
The applicant resides in the dwelling and will have no additional employees.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      The occupation or office will be located wholly within the principal or accessory structures, and;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.3      Exterior displays, exterior storage of materials, and exterior indication of the home occupation will not be permitted except for signs as may be specifically provided for by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and as may otherwise conform to the conditions of this Ordinance; and
The daycare home will have no sign.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.4      Noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odors, heat, or glare will not be detectable beyond property limits, and;
There will be no noise, vibration or disturbance detectable beyond the property limits.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      Off-street parking spaces will be provided in an amount to be determined by the Board as necessary to avoid street congestion.
The driveway will accommodate the parking of four vehicles.  There is additional parking in the second driveway.  There will be no vehicles parking on the road.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

414.2   The granting of a special exception approval for a home occupation shall apply to the applicant only while the applicant resides at the property.
The applicant will be licensed by the State for a daycare home located at 20 Crestwood Road.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

The Board reviewed Section 104.35 and 104.60 with the following findings:

.35     Day Care Home:  A house or other place conducted or maintained by anyone who provided, on a regular basis and for consideration, care and protection which is required to be licensed by the State, for three to twelve unrelated persons for any part of a day.  Any facility, the chief purpose of which is to provide education, shall not be considered to be a day care home.
The applicant will provide before and after school care for six children, and has applied for a license from the State.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.60     Home Occupations:  Accessory use conducted within a dwelling or accessory structure by the residents thereof, which is clearly secondary to the dwelling used for living purposes and does not change the character thereof.
The daycare home will be secondary to the dwelling used for living purposes and will not change the character of the dwelling.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

The Board then reviewed the Special Exception standards, Section 603.2.3 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 driveway will accommodate the parking of four vehicles.  There is additional parking in the second driveway.  There will be no vehicles parking on the road.
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;
Public sewer services the residence and will not cause water pollution or any unhealthy condition.
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 daycare home will not create unhealthful conditions or 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 daycare home is adjacent to the vacant lot in the neighborhood, which is utilized as a neighborhood playground.  The use will be compatible with the uses that are adjacent 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;
There will be no additional noise from the daycare home; children play on the adjacent neighborhood playground lot.
 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 daycare home will not have an adverse impact on the environment or 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 daycare home 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 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 daycare home will not generate any noise that is not typical to the neighborhood; children currently play on the adjacent neighborhood playground lot.
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;
There will be no vibration or noise above the 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 materials or wastes that would constitute a fire hazard, or attract rodents or insects.  There will be no materials stored out-of-doors.
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 to be offensive to persons.
 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 sewer services the property.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Administrative Matters

1.      Minutes of June 12, 2003

Mr. Black moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2003 meeting.

Mr. Manahan seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Minutes of July 10, 2003

Mr. Manahan moved to table the minutes of the July 10, 2003 meeting until the next meeting for revisions.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

3.      September Meeting Date

Ms. McPheters stated she would be on vacation for the September 11, 2003 meeting.  The Board voted to have the next meeting on September 18, 2003.

Adjournment:  8:30 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



__________________________                           ________________________
R. Scott Wyman, Board Chair                          Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk