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.
Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:         Mr. Frank Durgin requests a variance of eight (8) feet from the sixty-five (65) foot rear setback requirement for construction of a 20' x 20" deck at 10 Littlefield Road, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 131, in the Island Residential district.  The variance request must meet the criteria for practical difficulty in Section 104.97 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Longley read a letter from Herbert Maine, of 250 North Road dated August 9, 2004.
Dear Board Members:
        My Wife and I have lived at 250 North Road since 1989 and have known Frank and Marianne Durgin since that time.  We have been notified that they are proposing to build an enclosed deck on their property at 10 Littlefield Road.  We are writing you in support of that proposal.  We understand that the Cumberland Zoning Bylaws require a setback of 65-feet and the Durgins are requesting a variance from the requirement of 7.5 feet to a distance of 57.5 feet as depicted in the attached map.  We are very familiar with the Durgin property and see no adverse impact resulting from the proposed variance.  We have no objection to such a variance.
        I would also like to state that we were Frank and Mariannes neighbors when they replaced the family homestead at 10 Littlefield Road some years ago and have always been impressed with and inspired by their commitment to preserving the character and integrity of the Island community and our neighborhood.

Mr. Durgin, applicant presented three handouts to the Board consisting of letters in approval of the request from the Fernandez, Mark and Beth Dyer and Joan Maxon, and photos of his property.   Mr. Durgin reviewed the photos of his property and the location of the proposed deck.  He stated the deck could not be added to the front of the house, the house was built to resemble the original house.  Placing the deck on the side of the house would interfere with bedroom windows.  The house was built with a sliding glass door for a future deck.  Mr. Durgin stated if he were not able to obtain a variance he would contact Mr. Fernandez to purchase the needed land.

Mr. Wyman asked if the house was built on the same footprint as the original house.

Mr. Durgin stated one corner is the same.  The original house was 18 x 25 and the new house is 24 x 40, slightly bigger, but has the same style.

Mr. Wyman asked when the house was built, were the setbacks measured for a future deck.

Mr. Durgin stated no, he was not aware of the setback requirement.

Mr. Manahan asked what Mr. Durgin would have to change to meet the 65 setback requirement.

Mr. Durgin stated the deck would have to be 12 instead of 20.

Mr. Wyman asked if the deck addition would be enclosed.

Mr. Durgin stated yes, it would have windows with screens on three sides.

Mr. Wyman asked if the door was going to be on the side.

Mr. Durgin stated yes, in front of the bulkhead.

Mr. Black asked if the three-season room would be insulated.

Mr. Durgin stated no.

Mr. Copp asked what would be the pitch of the roof.

Mr. Durgin stated the addition would have a hip roof, with a 3 / 12 pitch.

Mr. Copp asked if there would be a foundation.

Mr. Durgin stated the deck would be on cement posts.

Mr. Wyman asked if the front of the house was 300 from the road.

Mr. Durgin stated the house sits back; the hill is used for sledding in the winter.

Mr. Wyman asked if the garage was built prior to the house.

Mr. Durgin stated the garage was built in 1989 for storage when the house was being built.  The house was built in 1993.

Mr. Copp asked if the lot behind Mr. Durgins was unbuildable.

Mr. Durgin stated the lot has an existing house.  There is approximately ½ acre on the other side of Petticoat Road.  

Mr. Black asked what significant economic injury would be suffered if the variance was not granted.     

Mr. Durgin stated he would have to buy land from Mr. Fernandez.

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. Copp asked if the deck could be built longer and not as wide.

Mr. Durgin stated the bulkhead on one side, basement windows and a bedroom window limits the location.

The Board reviewed the practical difficulty standards with the following findings:







Mr. Turner stated he agreed the practicality of the deck would not impinge on others property, but the Board is held hostage by the drafting of the Ordinance.  It is harder to satisfy the requirements of the "practical difficulty standards than to show undue hardship which is more subjective.  The Board adopted the practical difficulty standards in an attempt to ease the burden of the applicant.  He voiced sympathy for the applicant.

Mr. Wyman agreed.

Mr. Copp also agreed, the purpose of the Board is to make decisions as to whether it will harm a neighbor or it is deminus.

Mr. Black also agreed with Mr. Wyman, Mr. Turner and Mr. Copp.

Mr. Manahan agreed no one objects, it is a logical location however, the applicant cannot meet the standards of the Ordinance.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a variance of eight (8) feet from the sixty-five (65) foot rear setback requirement for construction of a 20 x 20 deck at 10 Littlefield Road, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 131, in the Island Residential District.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  0 in favor
                                                           Unanimous opposed

2.      Special Exception                           Lucia Reardon and Paul Weiss
                                                  314 Blanchard Road
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 89C
                                                  Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District

Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:  Lucia Reardon and Paul Weiss request a Special Exception for a Home Occupation for a pediatric Speech-Language Pathology practice at 314 Blanchard Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 89C in the RR2 district.

Mr. Reardon, applicant stated she would like to open a speech-language pathology practice in her home to evaluate and treat children with communication challenges, helping them to reach their full communication potential.  The practice would involve children and their family or caregivers coming to her office, entirely located within the current house.  The hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 500 p.m..  She estimates a maximum of 15 children coming to receive individual treatment during the week.  This would produce at maximum, 4 cars in the driveway in any one-hour interval.  Because she has contacts through agencies such as Child Development Services in three different counties, it is likely that she will be treating individuals in other locations such as preschools and homes, thus reducing the number of clients seen at the home office.    Treatment of these children involves mostly one-on-one time at a table or on the floor playing with toys, or looking at pictures, or manipulating a variety of different stimuli.  At times, group treatment is called for.  This involves up to 4 children with articulation or social deficits working with structured facilitation to reach their individual objectives.  Typically a communication therapy session lasts 50 minutes and would not produce noise that could be heard outside of the home office.  No environmental by-products or damage would result from this practice.  The proposed practice would be completely compatible with current uses of the neighboring properties with reference to intensity of use, and visual impact.  She has spoken with 3 out of the 4 neighboring households, and all verbally gave their consent to the proposal, understanding that they would be receiving notice from the Board.  She and her husband, Paul Weiss, have plenty of driveway parking for potential clients to safely park off the road.  She would like to have a small sign on the door to the entrance of the house that meets the town home-business guidelines.

Mr. Wyman asked if she owned the house.

Ms. Reardon stated yes.

Mr. Wyman asked if there was adequate parking for up to four cars, and if a sign was requested.

Ms. Reardon stated yes, there is parking and she would like a small sign.  She currently has 15 children in outside development programs such as schools.

Mr. Wyman asked about the hours of operation.

Ms. Reardon stated 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Mr. Wyman asked if there would be any group sessions.

Ms. Reardon stated it would be unlikely, but if there were group sessions the maximum number of children would be four.

The Board  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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

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

Mr. Manahan asked if a 2 x 2 sign on the door would be adequate.

Ms. Reardon stated yes.

Mr. Paul Weiss, applicant stated they had lived at 314 Blanchard Road since December.  The proposal would not cause pollutants, not increase traffic and have no adverse affect on the neighborhood.

Mr. Black asked if there would be any employees.

Ms. Reardon stated no.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a special exception to Lucia Reardon for a home occupation for a pediatric speech-language pathology practice at 314 Blanchard Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 89C in the Rural Residential 2 District With the condition that a 2 x 2 sign be allowed.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Wyman stated that a special exception is different from a variance request.  An applicant requesting a variance must meet the criteria in Section 104.97 of the Ordinance.  A special exception is neither special nor exception it is tantamount to a permitted use.

Mr. Longley stated he has been explaining to residents that variances are difficult to obtain, there is a large burden of proof on the applicant.  He didnt have that conversation with Mr. Durgin.  
3.      Special Exception                           Denise L. Rogers
                                                  44 Kathy Lane
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U19, Lot 16A
                                                  Rural Residential 2 District

Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:  Denise Rogers requests a special exception for a home occupation for an Arts & Crafts Stained Glass Studio at 44 Katy Lane, Tax Assessor Map U19, Lot 16A in the Rural Residential 2 District.

Mr. Rogers, applicant stated she is currently renovating space above her garage for a stained glass studio.  She does custom artwork, repairs and teaches classes.  She currently has four interested students.

Mr. Wyman asked if the garage was attached.

Ms. Rogers stated yes, the garage has existed for 9 years.  The entrance is from the exterior of the garage and between the garage and house.

Mr. Wyman asked about the classes in the studio, would the process include torches and flammable materials.

Ms. Rogers stated students would use a soldering iron, which is a 100 amp appliance, hand cutters, and an electrified cutter for difficult cuts, the only hazardous material is lead which is 60% lead and 40% tin solder.  The students will take the lead and supplies with them or re-use the solder in other projects.  A local business has offered to allow her to join their re-cycling program.

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

Mr. Black asked if she would have any employees.

Ms. Rogers stated no.

Mr. Black asked the hours of operation.

Ms. Rogers stated from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and one evening until 9:00 p.m.

Mr. Black asked if there was a limit on the number of students at one time.

Ms. Rogers stated she could accommodate up to six students at one time.

Mr. Black asked if there would be retail space.

Ms. Rogers stated yes, to allow students to purchase supplies.  There will be no store hours; it will be by appointment only.

Mr. Black asked about a sign.

Ms. Rogers stated yes, she would like a sign on the front section of the garage.

Mr. Black asked the size of the sign.

Ms. Rogers stated a 2 x 5 ft. would be large enough.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Turner moved to grant a special exception for a home occupation for an Arts & Crafts Stained Glass Studio at 44 Kathy Lane, Tax Assessor Map U19, Lot 16A, in the Rural Residential 2 District, with the condition that the sign not exceed ten square feet.
Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

4.      Special Exception                           Time Warner Cable of Maine
                                                  197 Blanchard Road
                                                  Cumberland Fairgrounds
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 8

Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:  Time Warner Cable of Maine requests a Special Exception for construction of a 400-sq. ft. concrete block building for use as a local distribution hub at 197 Blanchard Road (Cumberland Fairgrounds), Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 8, in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) district.  The special exception request must meet the requirements of Sections 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the zoning ordinance.  The request will receive minor site plan approval from the Planning Board.

Ms. Nancy Bozenhard, representative reviewed the proposed project as follows:  The project proposal is to locate a local distribution hub that is a block-constructed concrete structure (20 long by 10 high.)  Time Warner has secured easement option rights within the property limits of the Cumberland Fairgrounds.  The existing facilities located on Skillin Road will be removed at the construction and wiring of this facility.  The concrete building will be placed in the far back corner of the fairgrounds and will be well landscaped.

Mr. Wyman asked if the 20 x 20 concrete building would have a pitched roof.

Ms. Bozenhard stated yes, as shown in the photo in the packet.  There will be a 1,000-gallon propane tank and a generator.  There will be three parking stalls and the site will be visited 1 or 2 times a week, by a pick up truck.

Mr. Wyman asked about protection for the propane tank.

Ms. Bozenhard stated the propane tank would be inside a fenced compound on a cement slab, totally remote from the traffic area.

Mr. Manahan asked why the applicant needed a special exception.

Ms. Bozenhard stated as required in the criteria of Section 204.1.1.2.8 (Accessory structures of public utilities subject to Site Plan Review).

Mr. Manahan asked the function of the building.

Ms. Bozenhard stated to enhance digital phone, and data communication.

Mr. Copp asked the time frame for construction.

Ms. Bozenhard stated they had agreed with the Farmers Club to start after the fair, there would be no construction during that week.  The construction will take approximately 4 - 6 weeks.

Mr. Copp stated it would be good to have the equipment on Skillin Road removed.

Ms. Bozenhard stated it is a win-win proposal, it will be an improvement to Skillin Road and the Farmers Club will benefit.

Mr. Wyman asked about the buffering and 8 fence.

Ms. Bozenhard stated there would also be 8 or 9 foot spruce trees.

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

The Board reviewed the special exception standards with the following findings:

The Board made positive findings for Section 603.2.3 from the information written in the application.

.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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 only noise will be from the generator; which is back up for a power failure.  The generator will be exercised ½ hour once a week.
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 vibrations that exceed a peak 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;
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 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 Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

                             

5.      Special Exception                           Michele Brown
                                                  10 Corey Road
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U07, Lot 3
                                                  Highway Commercial District (HC)


Mr. Longley presented background information as follows:  Ms. Brown requests a special exception to relocate a previously approved day care home occupation at 50 Woodlands Way, Tax Assessor Map R03, Lot 18 in the RR1 district, to 10 Corey Road in the Highway Commercial District.  Ms. Brown previously operated her day care home at 43 Harris Road.  Section 204.7.27 indicates that day care centers in the Highway Commercial district are subject to:
·       Special Exception review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
·       Site Plan review by the Planning Board
The Board will need to determine that the use will comply with Sections 104.36, 408A, 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Wyman was recused, Ms. Brown has provided daycare for his daughter.

Mr. Longley stated Ms. Brown would also receive Site Plan approval from the Planning Board.

Mr. Manahan read Mr. Longleys memo of 9/9/04 into the record.  The memo stated: a review of the plans for a daycare at 10 Corey Road and a copy of the existing septic design dated 10/10/90 as submitted only allows for 5 employees up to 75 gallons per day.  It would be Mr. Longleys recommendation that if the Board grants the Special Exception it should also condition that a septic design for the maximum number of students and employees be designed and reviewed by the Plumbing Inspector and installed prior to Occupancy.

Ms. Brown, applicant stated she runs a home based after school enrichment program.  The location at 10 Corey Road would give access to a larger space and the possibility to expand her program.  The program includes karate, dance, music and art lessons.  The maximum number of children is ten.  There are two employees, herself and the special teacher for karate, dance, music and art lessons.  The hours are 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.  On Wednesday hours are from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to accommodate early release day.  On snow days and school vacations she is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Ms. Brown stated she has applied for state licensing for a private school and daycare.  This license allows special teachers.  The location has the Fire Marshalls approval, but they havent decided what needs to be done to the garage door.
Ms. Brown stated the building is in two halves, she would like to ultimately expand to occupy both sides.  She will lease the right side of the building on Corey Road, furthest from Route 9.  The parking and grass play area will be away from Route 9.

Mr. Manahan asked if Ms. Brown would be concerned with a condition on the septic as recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer.

Ms. Brown stated she had already talked with Mr. Ward the owne,r and he will take care of the septic issue.

Mr. Manahan reviewed the special exception standards in 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the zoning ordinance, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

The Board then reviewed the Standards in Section 408A.2 with the following findings:

·       408A.2 Standards for Day Care Centers and Nursery Schools:

In addition to state requirements and the requirements of any other ordinance, including the special exception and site plan review ordinances; the following standards shall apply to the review of day care centers and nursery schools:

.1      No Day Care Center or Nursery School shall be located on a lot less than 24,000 square feet in area.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      Day Care Centers and Nursery Schools shall have at least 1,000 square feet of lot area per child received into the home, including the operator's own children under 16 years of age.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.


.3      Day Care Centers and Nursery Schools shall be subject to the provisions of Sec. 7.15 -- Sewage Disposal -- of the Cumberland Subdivision Ordinance.  At a minimum, the applicant must present the approval of the Town's local plumbing inspector that the proposed Day Care Center or Nursery School's sewage disposal system can accommodate the proposed use.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.4      There shall be a fifteen-foot setback for outdoor play areas in side and rear yards, which setback shall be enforced by fencing and/or plantings.  Outdoor play areas shall not be permitted in front yards or yards adjacent to a street.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      There shall be one (1) off-street parking space for each employee and volunteer worker not living at the site, and the parking area shall be designed to provide a safe location for vehicular ingress and egress and for the loading and unloading of children.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.6      The Planning Board and/or the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may attach additional conditions directly related to screening and buffering, hours of operation, vehicular access restrictions, off-street parking, traffic volume, wastewater disposal, and barriers and other safety devices. [Sec. 408A enacted effective 12/13/89]



Mr. Manahan voiced concern of safety; not knowing what type of use will be in the other side of the building.

Mr. Black asked if there should be restrictions on the type of uses allowed for the other half of the building, and about the play area of 24,000 square feet

Ms. Brown stated she had no problem including language in the lease that would address the 24,000 square feet of lot area.  Ms. Brown stated she has been talking with Mr. Ward about leasing the building since last winter.  If the other side of the building were leased to a tenant that would endanger her children she would re-locate.

Mr. Manahan stated a use in the other side of the building would need to be compatible with the use of the daycare.  The Board would have the authority to review a new use.  He asked about the size of the lot area.

Mr. Longley stated the assessing records indicate the lot is 3.14 acres.

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

Mr. Black asked about the railroad tracks.

Ms. Brown stated she would have a fenced in play area.

Mr. Copp asked about the layout of the building.

Ms. Brown stated the building had been re-furbished; the building is divided into two halves.  There is a bathroom upstairs and downstairs.  The daycare will occupy both the upstairs and downstairs of one half of the building.
Mr. Black moved to grant a special exception to Michele Brown for a daycare center at 10 Corey Road, Tax Assessor MapU07, Lot 3 in the Highway Commercial district; with the following conditions.
·       That the lease agreement states there shall be at least 25,000 sq. ft. of lot area to meet the criteria stated in § 408A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
·       The septic design for the maximum number of students and employees be designed and reviewed by the Plumbing Inspector and installed prior to Occupancy.
·       The play area is to be fenced in accordance with §408A.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
·       Subject to Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  5  Unanimous
                                                           1  recused (Wyman)

Administrative Matters:

1.      Minutes of July 8, 2004   

Mr. Manahan moved to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  5  Unanimous
                                                           1  recused (Black)

2.      October Meeting Date

Mr. Longley stated he would be on vacation the week of October 11^th; the regularly scheduled meeting would be October 14^th.  The Board agreed to hold the October meeting on October 21, 2004.

Adjourn:  8:45 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



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