A.      Call To Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

B.      Roll Call

Present: Phil Hunt, Chair, Tom Powers, Vice-Chair, Beth Howe, Bill Ward, Chris Neagle, Bob Couillard

Staff:  Carla Nixon, Town Planner, Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk

C.      Election of Officers
Mr. Hunt reviewed the procedure of electing Board officers for the 2005 year.

Ms. Howe nominated Mr. Hunt for Board Chair.
Mr. Powers seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Neagle nominated Mr. Powers for Board Vice-Chair.
Ms. Howe seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Hunt stated that Mr. Terry Turner had chosen not to extend his term of service on the Planning Board.  The Board wished to recognize Mr. Turner for his loyal service.

Mr. Bill Richards has been appointed as a new member.  Mr. Richards was not present at the meeting.  He will attend his first meeting in February.  Mr. Ward and Mr. Powers have agreed to continue to serve on the Planning Board for another three-year term.

D.      Minutes of Prior Meetings

Ms. Howe moved to approve the minutes of the December 21, 2004 meeting with minor technical corrections.

Mr. Powers seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

E.      Consent Calendar / Deminimus Change Approvals:
Site Plan Amendments to the Major Site Plan Approval - Greely Jr. High School Renovations, 303 Main St.; Tax Assessor Map U11, Lot 1, MDR district, M.S.A.D. # 51 owner,
S.M.R.T. Engineers representative.  

Ms. Nixon stated that the original approval was granted on June 15, 2004.  The amount of funding required for the renovations to Greely Junior High as approved by the Planning Board on June 15, 2004 was not approved in the September referendum.  The Building Committee has developed a two-phased plan to implement the changes originally approved.  The current plan does not change the footprint of the existing structures or expand the nature of the use.  Hence, the Planner has made a determination that full review is not required under the provisions of Section 206.2  Applicability of Site Plan Review.  The Code Enforcement Officer, Bill Longley, confirmed this interpretation.  

Ms. Howe asked if there would be any public notice regarding the changes.

Ms. Nixon stated the June approval encompasses the current request and that the phased plan has been in the papers.

Mr. Neagle stated he did not feel a public hearing was necessary.

The Board unanimously voted to accept the amendments to the Major Site Plan Approval for Greely Junior High School renovations as a deminimus change.

F.      Hearings and Presentations

1.      Public Hearing  Shoreland Zoning Permit  To construct a 5' x 150" permanent pier on pilings with a seasonal 3 x 50 aluminum gangway and 12 x 24 timber float with skids.  At 7 Zaugg Lane, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I04, Lot 83 in the IR/SOD districts; owners John H. Turner, Trustee and Harriett Tee Taggert, Trustee, representative Charles Poole, Custom Float Services.

Ms. Nixon stated she had prepared findings, however, on Friday, January 14^th Ms. Nixon received via e-mail many letters of concern from residents and abutters.  Ms. Nixon stated she had consulted with Officer Milton Calder, a member of the Shellfish Committee, he stated the area is not a productive shellfish area because it is rocky.  Ms. Nixon suggested tabling the application, which would not delay the Applicant as they are waiting for approvals from outside agencies.

Mr. Hunt read into the record the names of the residents who sent letters of concern:

Opposed: Kathy Maskell; Mary Lee and Chuck Hilly; Blackford Middleton, MD & Ursula G. King; Carol Brown; Lindsay Pomeroy; Peggy Brown; Scott McGovern; Linda and Michael Stephens; Anne Brown; Nancy and Bob Earnest; David Swafford; Anna-Marie Zaugg; Rosemary Capps Merchant; Alexandra Zaugg Swafford; Nicholas Swafford; Andrew Swafford; Alexander Swafford

In favor: Martha Trower; Michael Porter; Carlos Nottebohm; Sam Hunter

Neutral or Informational: Jerry Johnston; Nancy Brown Earnest; Elizabeth & Robert Whitman

Mr. Hunt read excerpts of Ms. Donna Damons letter (Town Councilor).
This letter is to neither support nor reject the project before the Planning Board, but rather to raise some issues which she feels need to be addressed if the wharf is going to be built.  She is taking a class and wont be able to attend the public hearing in person.  She would appreciate having her letter read into the record. Ms. Damon stated she is writing the letter as a citizen with a long history of supporting public access in the Town of Cumberland and in no other capacity and in no way was she using her influence as a Town Councilor.

Ms. Damon stated I have been concerned about the growing number of wharves that have been built on Chebeague during the past few years.  As more property changes hands at large prices and as the long time summer population ages, the urge to have recreational wharfs will increase.  Chebeague residents are fortunate they are able to walk around the shore almost anywhere, so structures on the shore affect more people than those who live in the immediate vicinity.  Even though the Town sends notices to abutters who live within 300 feet many people are impacted.  Because the Island does not have Cable TV and many people dont have computers and the Forecaster is not always available on the Island we need to develop alternative methods of notification and posting on Beverly Johnsons website (The Chebeague Website Page).  
Ms. Damon has discussed the issue of wharves with the Council after, the White wharf was built.  During that process the vast majority of people on Chebeague did not know anything about the wharf until the construction company started to build it.  Ms. Damon stated she knew legal notices were sent out and it was in the paper, but more of these wharves are being permitted in the winter when the abutters are scattered across the country.  In the case of the White wharf, there was a newspaper notice, but unfortunately no one on Chebeague, who was concerned, happened to see it.  No notice was posted on the Island web site.  With public input the wharf might have been constructed in a way that would have improved access along the shore at high tide.  She wasnt sure that the Planning Board considered or even knew that the Whites only owned to the top of the bank and shared "the shore in common with others, which includes the other people in their subdivision, who are guaranteed that right in their deeds and the general public for fishing, fowling and navigating and in practice walking along the shore and recreating.  The intertidal zone was separated years ago by deed and doesnt fit the Moody Beech definition.  The wharf abuts a 1300 strip of Town owned shoreline, and for all intents and purposes the wharf blocks the publics and the other land access around the point at high tide.  The Towns property is not shown on the Town map.  This issue raised her awareness of the holes in the wharf permitting process in the Town Ordinances, and she raised the question last year when no wharves were being discussed.  A moratorium was suggested so that a study could be done when there was no specific application in the pipeline.  The issue was referred to the appropriate departments, both of which had personnel changes, so the issue fell through the cracks.  

Now another wharf is being considered and many of my original concerns remain.  Once again a popular stretch of Island shoreline is the site of the proposed wharf.  Once again the meetings are held in the winter when the abutters are not around, and there is confusion around who was notified and was not.  Once again Town property (Soule Road which ends on the shore) abuts the parcel where the wharf will be built, but no mention is found in the application or in the review.  Soule Road est. c. 1913, the only current Town access to this popular area, is incorrectly drawn on the accompanying map and is not shown as going to the shore as described and reaffirmed by the Town Council in 1989.  It is impossible to tell from the map where on the face of the earth the wharf will lie because the road is not shown separating lots 80 and 83.

Ms. Damons letter raised the following concerns:  
·       Erosion:  While this area is now rocky there was a time when this area was the sandiest

·       Public access along the shore: While the plan shows the height of the wharf at mean low

·       Archeology: This area has been identified as a potential Native American site.  An
Ms. Damon stated she was confused as to Officer Calders role in the site plan review.  She understood the issue of the clam-flats and perhaps navigation, but there is no information that he addressed other issues on site.  Does the Planning Board do site walks of wharf locations?
Ms. Damon thanked the Board for listening to her concerns.  She holds the Turner/Taggerts in highest regard and is only concerned about issues of public process and public access.

Mr. Jack Turner, Applicant, stated his family has been summer residents on Chebeague since 1903.  His parcel is a 1-acre lot with 250 of shoreline southwesterly along the public access road at the end of Soule Road.  The wharf would be at that edge of his property.  There are no other piers on Hamilton Beach.  It is 150 to reach the low water mark; people will be able to walk under the pier during high or low tide.

Mr. Charlie Poole, of Custom Float Services stated he has designed the previous three or four piers on Chebeague Island and the mainland.  Mr. Poole stated the Turners have a summer cottage located on this property that looks to the east on Casco Bay.  They are proposing to build a permanent 5 x 150 pier supported by driven pilings with 3  50 spans.  There will be a set of steps approximately 4 x 20; that will lead from the top of the bank to the pier deck.  There will be a seasonal 3 x 50 aluminum gangway and seasonal 12 x 24 float with skids.  The float will be moored with large permanent mushroom or granite block style anchors.  Winter storage for the float will be on nearby Littlejohn Island in a cove at relatives home.  The gangway will be stored on the pier for the winter months.  With the exception of light clearing of some brush where the steps will go, there will not be any land clearing or disturbance to the property.
The US Army Corp of Engineers, Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection, The Maine Historic Preservation Commission (including 5 Maine Indian tribes) and the Maine Dept. of Conservation Submerged Land Program have been notified or permits applied for, for this project.  The pier will be 16 to 17 at low tide and 5 to 6 at high tide, there will be a 7 to 10 clearance for the entire structure at low tide, with 4 piling vents every 50 feet.  The anchorage area for the float is well inside where boats are moored.

Mr. Neagle stated it would be helpful for the Board to have a copy of the deed to determine waterfront ownership.  Mr. Neagle asked about the beach conditions.

Mr. Poole stated the beach is rocky.

Mr. Neagle asked about the impact on neighbors and existing conditions, would the pier change the use and character of the area.

Mr. Turner, owner stated Hamilton Beach is a popular beach on the Island.  In front of his house on the northeast rocks give way to a sandy beach; people do traverse his section to reach the beach.  There is a public right of way on the southwest side of his property.

Mr. Couillard asked if there would be a visual impact and would the location of the pier affect how the sand washes on the beach.

Mr. Turner stated there is no sand on his beach, and hasnt been for many years.

Ms. Howe asked if his ownership was to the top of the bank or to the low water mark.

Mr. Turner stated there is a bolt in the rock at the high water mark.

Ms. Howe sated she was familiar with Hamilton Beach, there is migration of sand, baby lobsters have been seen in the area, and there was an arrowhead found in that location.

Mr. Poole stated the request has been sent to the State of Maine Dept. of Conservation and Maine Historic Commission for review, as well as to 5 Maine Indian Tribes.

Mr. Ward asked about Officer Calders qualifications.

Ms. Nixon stated he has lived on Chebeague for most of his life, and since no one has been hired to replace Ted Curtis as Harbor Master, Officer Calder, based on his knowledge of the area and Shellfish Committee experience reviewed the request.

Mr. Hunt asked if the proposed pier would interfere with anchoring of boats.

Mr. Turner stated no, the pier would not extend out as far as the moorings in the cove.  People do not bring boats other than canoes or kayaks into the cove it is too rocky.

Mr. Hunt asked if the pier would interfere with lobster or crab traps.

Mr. Turner stated occasionally there would be traps amongst the moorings, but they are typically in deeper water.

Mr. Poole stated there is 2 to 3 of water at low tide.

Mr. Hunt asked about if there was any erosion of soils on the upland area.

Mr. Poole stated there is no evidence of erosion.

Mr. Hunt asked if there would be any petroleum products, water lines or utility lines on the pier.

Mr. Turner stated three would be no petroleum, the pier will be built for water and electricity but he is not sure if it will be installed.

Mr. Hunt asked if the Shellfish Warden had reviewed the application.

Ms. Nixon stated no, Ted Curtis was the Shellfish Warden, he has retired and has not yet been replaced.

Mr. Hunt asked that Ms. Nixon verify with the Shellfish Committee or Shellfish Warden if the project would interfere with mooring, fishing etc.

Mr. Hunt opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Michael Porter, of 27 Soule Road, stated he is in favor of the pier, the beach in front of Turners property has deteriorated, only on very high tides can you get a boat into the area, it is very rocky.

Ms. Sally Capps, of 63 Capps Road stated she was neither supporting or opposing the pier, but would like a picture of the pier on the beach.

Mr. Mark Miskell, of 11 Moulton Beach Road stated he thought there was a difference in the sand deposition on the beach in the four years he had been a resident.  He stated the area in front of Mr. Turners is primarily rocky; he questioned the stability of the bank, and thought the addition of a pier would change the existing conditions in the cove.

The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Ms. Howe asked about the capacity to consider questions such as sand movement and beach erosion.  She stated she had walked the area and the beach was rocky with some sand.  

Mr. Poole stated the Applicant would need an NRPA permit.

Ms. Nixon stated one of the required findings is that the pier will not be longer than necessary.  She asked the reason for the length of the pier.

Mr. Turner stated 150 from the bank to the low water for loading people and dunnage from the water to the house.

Ms. Nixon asked if there would be a concern of children jumping off the end into shallow water.

Mr. Turner stated that is true of any float on the Island.

Mr. Powers moved to table the request for a shoreland zoning permit to construct a 5 x 150 permanent pier on pilings with a seasonal 3 x 50 aluminum gangway and 12 x 24 timber float with skids.  At 7 Zaugg lane, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map Io4, Lot 83 in the IR/SOD districts; owners John H. Turner, Trustee and Harriett Tee Taggert, Trustee, representative Charles Poole, Custom Float Services.

Ms. Howe seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous

The Board requested the following:
·       The Applicant is to provide a deed for the property to determine if ownership is to the edge of the bank or to the high water mark.  
·       A site plan that shows the proposed pier on the property, and the includes Town right-of-way.
·       The Planner will compose a letter to outside reviewing agencies:


2.      Application Completeness  Minor Site Plan Review and Section 433  Telecommunication Facilities, to co-locate antennas and equipment in the existing tower of the Cumberland Congregational Church, at 282 Main Street, Cumberland, Tax Assessor Map U11, Map 47 in the Medium Density Residential district; new Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, applicant; Barry J. Hobbins & Gardner, LLC, representative.

Mr. Hunt stated approximately a year ago US Cellular replaced the existing steeple on the Church with a new steeple that allowed for antennas to be concealed from view.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The Applicant is New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC.  The Agent is Hobbins and Gardner, LLC.  Bay State Design Associates, Inc. of Woburn, MA prepared the site plan.  The Applicant has entered into a lease agreement with the Cumberland Congregational Church to install wireless antennas inside the steeple of the church located at 282 Main Street.  The Applicant will lease space in the steeple and space outside of the rear of the church to locate two small cabinets for the related equipment.  The Cumberland Congregational Church is located at 286 Main Street.  It is on Tax Map U11, Lot 48 in the Medium Density Residential zone.

The Planning Board is asked to conduct a minor site plan review under Section 206, and review for compliance with Section 433.1 Telecommunication Facilities.  The Board will determine if the application is complete and decide on which, if any, waivers shall be granted.


The following is intended to provide a summary of the submission requirements for site plan review in the Town of Cumberland.  For precise requirements, please refer to the Town of Cumberland Zoning Ordinance Section 206.7

Per Section 206.4 Classification of Project, Please note:  The Town Planner will first determine if the project will be classified as a major or minor site plan.  Classification will determine submission requirements.  THIS IS A MINOR SITE PLAN.

SECTION 206.7.2 Site Plan Review Application Submission Requirements
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS


SECTION 206.7.3 Existing Conditions
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS



SECTION 206.7.4 Proposed Development Activity
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS


PLANNERS COMMENTS:

(a)     A report from a Registered Professional engineer in the state of Maine that describes the tower, the technical reasons for the tower design and the capacity of the tower, including the number, type, and volume of antenna that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculations.
2.      Evidence is required showing that the current electrical service is sufficient for the

Mr. Neagle asked where the new equipment building would be located on the site.

Mr. Ward asked how many customers could be housed on the current antenna.

Mr. Neagle disclosed he is a member of the Cumberland Congregational Church, and he and Mr. Welch had practiced law together many years ago.  He did not feel it would affect his ability to review the proposal.

Mr. Tom Welch, of Hobbins and Garner, LLC stated the proposal had been well summarized.  He stated James Burgess, Site Development Manager of Bay State Design Associates, Inc. was also present.  US Cellular built the stealth design steeple. There is a pole that runs down the middle of the steeple.  There is a requirement of 10 vertical distance requirement between antennas; with the size of the current structure there is only room for two carriers, U.S. Cellular and New Cingular.  New Cingular will have two cabinets located near the rear of the Church.  There will be two co-axial cables that will run to the cabinets.  The cabinets will be set on a concrete pad; the buildings will be screened by plantings.

Mr. Hunt stated the function of the Board is not to review the merits of the application, but to determine its completeness.

Mr. Neagle moved to find the application complete for Minor Site Plan Review and Section 433-Telecommunication Facilities, to co-locate antennas and equipment in the existing tower of the Cumberland Congregational Church, at 282 Main Street, Tax Assessor Map U11, Lot 47 in the MDR district; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, applicant: Barry J. Hobbins, Hobbins & Gardner, LLC, representative; and to grant the requested waivers.

Mr. Powers seconded.    VOTE:  Unanimous



3.      Public Hearing  Preliminary Plan Review  Major 9-lot subdivision, Apple Grove Estates, 36 Orchard Road, Tax Assessor Map R08, Lot 63, Rural Residential 2 district; Orchard Hill Estates, LLC, applicant; Thomas Terison, owner, Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham Greer Consulting Engineers, representative.



4.      Public Hearing  Old Colony Estates  Re-Approval of Final Plan, Major 14-lot subdivision, 10 Blackstrap Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lots 71 and 70B, 51.9 acres, RR2m district, representative, Jeff Amos, P.E., Sebago Technics, Normand Berube Builders, Inc., owner.
 
Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows:  This project was granted final approval on October 19, 2004.  Section 4.4 E3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that Approval of any subdivision plan not filed for recording within 90-days after Final Plan approval shall become null and void.  The Applicant has been waiting for the easement release deed from Central Maine Power.

Mr. Powers moved to Re-Approve final approval for Old Colony Estates, a major 14-lot subdivision at 10 Blackstrap Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lots 71 and 70B.  The re-approval is subject to the findings of fact and standard and proposed conditions of approval of the October 19, 2004 approval.
Ms. Howe seconded.      VOTE:  5 in favor (Howe, Couillard, Hunt,
                       Powers, Ward)
                       1 opposed (Neagle)
This approval is dependent upon and limited to the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed to by the applicant.  Any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents, except deminimus changes as so determined by the Town Planner, which do not affect approval standards, is subject to review and approval of the Planning Board prior to implementation.

1.      That all fees be paid as required.
2.      That the applicant provides documentation of the CMP utility easement release.  To be reviewed and approved by Town Attorney and Town Planner prior to the pre-construction conference.
3.      That the two plan notes be changed as recommended by the CEO in his comments dated 10/5/04.
4.      That note #18 on sheet 4 are corrected to remove redundant language.
5.      That the proposed homeowners documents be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to the pre-construction conference.
6.      That a letter of credit or escrow be established in an amount approved by the Town Planner, Public Works Director and Town Engineer.  The cost of the cul-de-sac construction is to be included in the amount.
7.         The applicant must submit a binding commitment letter or other proof of financial capacity acceptable to the Town Manager.
8.      The 75 buffer area is to be more clearly marked and the note on future development of the 17.01-acre parcel are clarified.
5.      Traffic.  The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the highways or public roads existing or proposed;
14.     Storm water.  The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate storm water management;


5.      Discussion  Conceptual Design, Major Site Plan Review  Seafax Company, Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 11B, representative Ann Archino Howe, SYTDesign Consultants, owner, Peter Kennedy.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows:  As currently proposed, the design does not meet the 75 front setback requirement of the Route One Design Guidelines.  The Applicant requested a discussion with the Planning Board.

Ms. Ann Archino Howe, of SYTDesign stated Mr. David Weatherbee, of Seafax was also present.  Ms. Archino Howe reviewed the proposal: Seafax, a company currently located in Portland, Maine is considering the purchase and development of their company headquarters on an approximately three-acre parcel on Route One in Cumberland.  This parcel is adjacent to a parcel owned by the Town of Cumberland.  The proposed program for development will consist of an approximately 20,000 square foot building (10,000 square foot footprint) with parking for 100 cars and an area for a storm water management facility.  Access will be a drive from Route One.  Utilities will be provided from existing or extended lines in Route One.
Wetlands have been identified on this lot.  Because this lot is currently part of a larger parcel for which wetland permitting is being completed, the Applicant will have a finite amount of wetland that can be filled by the project.   Most of this will be needed for the building and entrance drive.

Seafax is examining the feasibility of accomplishing their design program goals on this particular site given the size of the lot and the area of wetlands.  The Applicant can meet the zoning requirements for setbacks, but not the Route One Design Guidelines of 75-feet for the front setback.  The Applicant understands the goals of the Guidelines and expects to present a design for the property that will complement the surrounding development, be of high architectural quality, and surrounded by landscaping that reinforces the park-like nature of the area.

The Company is seeking a sense of the Planning Board about the feasibility of presenting an application to the Town that meets the zoning ordinance, but not the setback requirement of the Design Guidelines with the understanding that the design will meet the intent of the Guidelines through other means.

Ms. Howe asked if this split would require subdivision review.

Ms. Nixon stated this parcel is outside of the proposed Cumberland Foreside Village or contract zone agreement.

The Board discussed the possibility of creating a subdivision with the split of this 6-acre parcel.

Mr. Neagle stated he would consider the application, with the Route One Guidelines being just that - guidelines.

Mr. Couillard stated a building was just built in the Cumberland Business Park; the building was built parallel to Route One with the 75 buffer.  He thought the building resembled a wall.  

Ms. Howe stated she was involved in drafting the Route One guidelines and would like to see them adhered to when possible.  The weakness of the Route One guidelines is that parking doesnt have to be setback 75 feet.

Ms. Archino Howe stated the Applicant would like to keep the spirit of the guidelines.

Mr. Ward stated there have been similar requests, which have been denied.

Mr. Powers stated he agreed with other Board members he would like to see the proposal consistent with the guidelines.  Mr. Powers stated it is a project the Town would like to encourage.

Mr. Hunt stated he thought the building in the Cumberland Business Park looked nice parallel to the road.  The intent of the Route One guidelines is to have an attractive design with parking lots with trees, plantings etc.  The Town would like to have Seafax locate its business in Cumberland.  

The Board took no action.  The Board requested that the Planner consult Town Attorney Natalie Burns regarding possible subdivision requirements for splitting the 6-acre lot.
The Board would like the applicant to follow the intent of the Route One Guidelines.  
The Board was supportive and encouraging of SeaFax locating their business in Cumberland.


6.      Public Hearing  Capital Improvement Plan  Presented by Town Manager, Bill Shane and recommendation to Town Council.

Mr. Shane, Town Manager presented an overview role of the Planning Board in recommending the Capital Improvement Plan to the Town Council.  The Town Charter requires that a five-year Capital Improvement Plan be prepared and submitted to the Town Council.  The Town Manager, in conjunction with the Planning Board, shall develop the capital program, which will include:
·       A general summary
·       Projects for the next five years
·       Cost estimates and finance recommendations
·       Annual operation and maintenance cost
·       Past practice has been to include the CIP in the budget in a variety of line items.  This year will mark the Town Managers initial attempt to open the dialogue regarding What makes Cumberland a desirable community to live in and raise a family?
CIP 2005  2010
·       Obligation
·       Responsibility
·       Desirability
Obligations = Debt Payments
·       Enterprise Fund Debt = $3.33M  i.e. Sewer, Senior Housing, Val Halla  Self funding
·       Overlapping & Contingent Debt = $167M i.e. School, R.W.S.
·       Town Issued Debt = $7.8M
Responsibility = Maintenance
·       Buildings
·       Equipment
·       Environmental Mandates
·       Infrastructure
Desirability = Why Cumberland?
·       Open Space & Recreation Areas
·       Preservation of Lands
·       Good Schools & Planned Growth
·       Good Infrastructure
CIP 2005  (rated by Town Department Heads)
1.      Fire Dept. Generator                        $  25,000
2.      Salt Shed-Public Works                      $ 250,000
3.      New Computer Accounting System        $ 175,000
4.      Fire Dept. Air System                       $   50,000
5.      PW-Drainage Projects NPDES                  $ 458,000
6.      Twin Brooks Shelter                         $   25,000
7.      Library Air Conditioning                     $   37,000
8.      Drowne Road Connector to Rt. 9        $ 500,000
9.      Rt. 9  Water & Sewer Main Extensions         $ 350,000

Conclusion:  This is the Towns first attempt at a comprehensive CIP and although the Charter defines identifying projects within a 5-year time window, Mr. Shane believes it is important to discuss and evaluate as many of the potential future projects as practical.  Please look over the projects and begin to place them on your personal radar screens.

Mr. Hunt stated it was great to have the opportunity to meet with the Planning Director and identify the things that are important to different Board members, granite curbs and under drains, and sewers and road connectivity.  The Board felt that when it came to choosing a roadway or a computer system for the accounting department they were not equipped to decide which is more important.  Mr. Hunt stated he did feel the Board could help with the land use projects.

Mr. Neagle agreed he didnt feel qualified to determine needs of other Departments.  He suggested the Council might want to re-visit the Charter as to why the Planning Board is involved in the process; all of the ideas presented are good.

Mr. Couillard agreed as a Planning Board member he was not sure of their role, but as a taxpayer, asked how CIP projects were funded.

Mr. Shane stated this is not a budget document, items must first rise to a priority need level, particularly with drainage projects the amount may be estimated at cost per foot estimates, not specific numbers for a project.

Ms. Howe stated from an Island perspective she thought it would be useful to do some planning between the scale of the Long Range Plan and CIP.  She felt the context for this kind of lying out of future projects could be useful.  She felt the Chebeague Plan does lay out a number of specific plans.  She would like to see the Capital Improvements Plan as a mechanism for systematically accomplishing mid-term goals.  She thinks it is sensible to have the Planning Board involved in the CIP.
 
Mr. Shane stated the Island is currently undergoing a ground water study..

Ms. Howe stated she thought the Island needed an aquifer re-charge study.  The Chebeague Long Range Plan states the need to have a gravel pit.  

Mr. Ward thanked Mr. Shane for his time and suggested that the Board members be able to submit individual suggestions to the Planner.

Mr. Powers stated the Board monitors the Ordinances, and reviews plans.  The Board hasnt had a lot of opportunity to plan with the exception of the Route One Design Guidelines.  Mr. Powers stated it is useful for the Planning Board to understand the bigger picture, and be able to give input on issues such as connectivity of roads.  He thanked Mr. Shane for his presentation.

Mr. Hunt stated the Board is tasked with updating the comprehensive plan and reviewing zoning ordinances and districts of the Town.  This is a process that is not done enough; the Board is busy reviewing plans and projects.  It would be helpful to approach the Board with plans for the Route One Corridor. Does the Route 100 corridor fit into the Capital Improvement Plan and growth management?  The Board would like to work closely with the Council, to match up ideas and zoning uses.  The Board doesnt see broad planning issues in its monthly meetings.  Projects are reviewed as unconnected projects; the Board tries to anticipate growth or development on the nearby parcels of land.  

F.      Administrative Matters  The Board signed mylars for Rockwood Phase IV, and Old Col