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

B.      Roll Call

Present: Martha Porch, Chair, Phil Hunt, Terry Turner, Joe Taylor, Steve Whipple,
Beth Howe

Absent:  Tom Powers

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

C.      Minutes of Prior Meetings

Mr. Hunt moved to approve the minutes of April 15, 2003.
Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

D.      Consent Calendar

1.      Re-location of the permanent sign for the Greely Middle School.

Ms. Nixon stated she had approved a deminimus change for the new middle school sign to be relocated to the southerly side of the new entrance road.  It is staked and flagged.  Ms. McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer approved the changed location.

E.      Hearings and Presentations

1.      Application Completeness - Minor Site Plan  Slow Bell Café, 2 Walker Drive, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 33, (Former Nellie G. Restaurant) SYTDesign Consultants, representative, Jonathan KomLosy, Owner.

The applicant withdrew this item.

2.      Public Hearing  Minor Site Plan Approval  To construct a 36' x 81" Boarding Kennel (cat shelter) for the Homeless Animal Rescue Team of Maine Inc. (H.A.R.T.) at Gray Road, Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 7B in the Local Business District, Thomas Greer, Pinkham & Greer Consulting Engineers, Applicant H.A.R.T., owner Susan Chase.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The applicant is a non-profit organization called H.A.R.T. (Homeless Animal Rescue Team) of Maine, Inc., P.O. Box 351, Cumberland, ME.  04021.  H.A.R.T. provides a humane, no-kill shelter for unwanted cats, awaiting adoption.  The applicant is seeking minor site plan approval for the construction of a building and parking area at the intersection of Route 100 and Range Road. Tonight, the Planning Board is asked to review the plan for application approval.  The representative is Marty Jensen.  Pinkham and Greer prepared the site plan.  

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The parcel is located at the corner of Range Road and Route 100 (Map U-16, Lot 7A) in the LB (Local Business) zone.  Minimum lot size is 40,000 sq. ft.  The parcel is 46,802-sq. ft. in size.  There is Purchase and Sale agreement dated 1/15/03.  The current owners are Susan Chase and Scott Verrill.
The proposal is to construct a 2,980-sq. ft. single story building with 4,995-sq. ft. of pavement and parking.  The building will be accessed from Range Road.
The applicant has received special exception approval for a boarding kennel for cats only.
This plan is classified as minor since it involves the construction of less than 5,000-sq. ft. (2,980-sq. ft. proposed).
A private well will service the parcel. There is a letter from Sweet Associates that indicates adequate water is available.
The parcel will be serviced by an on-site septic system.  The applicant has submitted a report dated 2/1/03 from Sweet Associates which states that three sites were tested and all sites are acceptable for subsurface sewage disposal according to the Maine Plumbing Code.
Power, telephone and cable are to be overhead across Range Road.

REQUESTED WAIVER:

Section 206.8.7.2: Stormwater Management.  The applicants engineer, Thomas Greer, states that the project has a minor increase in peak flows as noted in the Stormwater Management Report, and that downstream systems have the capacity to handle the minor increase.
Tom Saucier, SYTDesign, concurs with this analysis.

DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS:

Barbara McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer: Due to continuing changes in the DEP regulations related to stormwater management, I would recommend that a snow removal plan be developed and reviewed by the Town of Cumberland.  Hobbs Brook is classified as a river or stream with impaired use in the new State of Maine General Permit  Construction Activity regulations.  While it appears that a DEP permit is not required, I would suggest that the Town should address the runoff to Hobbs Brook as part of the local review process.
The applicant should secure any necessary permit(s) from the State of Maine Fire Marshals office before applying for a local building permit.

Adam Ogden, Public Works Director: The only comments I have are relative to the right of way line describe on the plan along Range Road and the proposed drainage easement. These issues can be resolved as conditions of approval and not affect the Board's final approval authority, if that is their pleasure.

There appears to be a difference of opinion regarding the right of way (R.O.W.) line(s).  The applicant's surveyor and the Town's surveyor disagree on the line and need to meet and resolve the R.O.W. line.  Our opinion is that there is a gap between the applicant's frontage and the Town's ROW, you will note that there are two R.O.W. lines shown on the plans.  I have previously alerted the Board of this condition back in December of 2001.  Our opinion is that the applicant's plan should acknowledge the Town's R.O.W. as surveyed in 2000 and move the line to reflect this boundary.

The applicant must prepare a metes and bounds description of the drainage easement and provide a legal description and proper easement document suitable for recording at the registry of deeds after review by the Town's attorney and offering and acceptance by the Town Council.

Dan Small, Fire Chief: I have reviewed the revised proposal for the HART shelter and have no further comments.  The fire protection requirements have been identified and addressed on the drawings.

Chris Bolduc, Rescue Chief: No comments

Joe Charron, Police Chief: No further comments

Peer Review: Tom Saucier-SYTDesign
        
In response to Alan Burnell's memo dated 5/13/03, we offer the following comments.
~
It appears the majority of our comments regarding the site plan have been addressed. In response to item 3 of their memorandum, we were not present at any discussion involving the parking lot, so it is not possible that we "misunderstood" the discussion. Apparently the Planning Board is satisfied with the layout as proposed,
~
Regarding the drainage easements, we discussed this with Adam and assume metes and bound description will be provided for the portion of the easement upgradient of the driveway culvert.
~
In regards to item 7, it is apparent that our measurements as to the location of the subsurface wastewater disposable field were correct, as the soil scientist indicated the HHE 200 was revised to conform with the site plan.~~In regards to the comment regarding our qualifications to review the subsurface wastewater disposal design, I would be happy to discuss this with you or the planning board if you desire. Our comments were specifically directed at the state codes and the location of the system, and were valid.
~
In summary, it appears that the current plan is now in general conformance with the ordinance and accepted engineering practice.
Outstanding Issues for Discussion
Snow removal plan.
Range Road boundary line.

Ms. Howe asked about the right-of-way.

Ms. Nixon stated the issue was addressed in Mr. Ogdens comments.

Mr. Tom Greer, Pinkham Greer Consulting stated the boundary line would agree with the Towns survey.

Ms. Howe asked about landscaping.

Mr. Greer stated that honeysuckle had been added to the fenced area.  The enclosure will be changed to conform to the same setbacks as the building.  The fenced area will have a concrete pad.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.  There were no public comments.

Mr. Greer stated meets and bounds and site distance have been added to the plan, he feels the applicant is ready for approval.

The Board reviewed the proposed findings of fact with the following findings:
.1      Utilization of the Site
Utilization of the Site - The plan for the development, including buildings, lots, and support facilities, must reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development. Environmentally sensitive areas, including but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, significant wildlife habitats, fisheries, scenic areas, habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals, unique natural communities and natural areas, and sand and gravel aquifers must be maintained and preserved to the maximum extent. The development must include appropriate measures for protecting these resources, including but not limited to, modification of the proposed design of the site, timing of construction, and limiting the extent of excavation.
The applicant has placed a note on the plan indicating that all construction and site alterations shall be done in accordance with the "Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District. DEPs latest edition.
Based on the information provided on the site plan, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.2      Traffic Access and Parking
Vehicular access to and from the development must be safe and convenient. Driveways must be designed to provide the minimum site distance according to MDOT standards. Access and egress must be located to avoid hazardous conflicts.
Based on the information provided on the site plan, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.3      Access way Location and Spacing
Access must meet the specific ordinance requirements.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.4      Internal Vehicular Circulation

The layout of the site must provide for the safe movement of passenger, service, and emergency vehicles through the site.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.5      Parking Layout and Design
Off street parking must conform to the specific standards.
Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the 12 parking spaces meet the requirement of the Ordinance.  The H.A.R.T. organization has twelve Board Members and parking will be adequate for their meetings.
The Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.6      Pedestrian Circulation
The site plan must provide for a system of pedestrian ways within the development appropriate to the type and scale of development. This system must connect the major building entrances/ exits with parking areas and with existing sidewalks, if they exist or are planned in the vicinity of the project. The pedestrian network may be located either in the street right-of-way or outside of the right-of-way in open space or recreation areas. The system must be designed to link the project with residential, recreational, and commercial facilities, schools, bus stops, and existing sidewalks in the neighborhood or, when appropriate, to connect the amenities such as parks or open space on or adjacent to the site.
Based on the information submitted, and the relatively few visitors expected at any one time, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.7      Stormwater Management
Adequate provisions must be made for the collection and disposal of all stormwater that runs off proposed streets, parking areas, roofs, and other surfaces, through a stormwater drainage system and maintenance plan, which must not have adverse impacts on abutting or downstream properties.
The applicants engineer, Thomas Greer, states the project has a minor increase in peak flows as noted in the Stormwater Management Report and that downstream systems have the capacity to handle the minor increase.  Mr. Tom Saucier, of SYTDesign, the Towns peer reviewer concurs with this analysis.  
Based on the information provided the standards of this section have been met.

.8      Erosion Control
.1      All building, site, and roadway designs and layouts must harmonize with existing topography and conserve desirable natural surroundings to the fullest extent possible, such that filling, excavation and earth moving activity must be kept to a minimum. Parking lots on sloped sites must be terraced to avoid undue cut and fill, and / or the need for retaining walls. Natural vegetation must be preserved and protected wherever possible.
.2      Soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies must be minimized by an active program meeting the requirements of the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction:  Best Management Practices, dated March 1991, and as amended from time to time.

The applicant has placed a note on the plan indicating that all construction and site alterations shall be done in accordance with the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District. DEPs latest edition.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.9      Water Supply Provisions
The development must be provided with a system of water supply that provides each use with an adequate supply of water. If the project is to be served by a public water supply, the applicant must secure and submit a written statement from the supplier that the proposed water supply system conforms with its design and construction standards, will not result in an undue burden on the source of distribution system, and will be installed in a manner adequate to provide needed domestic and fire protection flows.
Based on the fact that the applicant has provided a letter from Sweet Associates indicating their belief that adequate water is available via a private well to be drilled, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.10     Sewage Disposal Provisions
The development must be provided with a method of disposing of sewage which compliance with the State Plumbing Code. If provisions are proposed for on-site waste disposal, all such systems must conform to the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules.
Based on the fact that the applicant has provided a letter from Sweet Associates which states that three sites were tested and all sites are acceptable for subsurface sewage disposal according to the Maine Plumbing Code, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.
        
.11     Utilities
The development must be provided with electrical, telephone, and telecommunication service adequate to meet the anticipated use of the project. New utility lines and facilities must be screened from view to the extent feasible. If the service in the street or on adjoining lots is underground, the new service must be placed underground.
The applicant is proposing overhead utilities extending from the street to the building.  Based on the information provided, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.12     Groundwater Protection
The proposed site development and use must not adversely impact either the quality or quantity of groundwater available to abutting properties or to the public water supply systems. Applicants whose projects involve on-site water supply or sewage disposal systems with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater must demonstrate that the groundwater at the property line will comply, following development, with the standards for safe drinking water as established by the State of Maine.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.13     Water Quality Protection
All aspects of the project must be designed so that:
.1      No person shall locate, store, discharge, or permit the discharge of any treated, untreated, or inadequately treated liquid, gaseous, or solid materials of such nature, quantity, obnoxious, toxicity, or temperature that may run off, seep, percolate, or wash into surface or groundwaters so as to contaminate, pollute, or harm such waters or cause nuisances, such as objectionable shore deposits, floating or submerged debris, oil or scum, color, odor, taste, or unsightliness or be harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
.2      All storage facilities for fuel, chemicals, chemical or industrial wastes, and biodegradable raw materials, must meet the standards of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the State Fire Marshall's Office.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.14     Capacity of the Applicant
The applicant must demonstrate that he / she has the financial and technical capacity to carry out the project in accordance with this ordinance and the approved plan.
The utilization of Pinkham and Greer indicates adequate technical capacity and the letter from Northeast Bank indicates financial capacity.  
Based on this, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.15     Historic and Archaeological Resources
If any portion of the site has been identified as containing historic or archaeological resources, the development must include appropriate measures for protecting these resources, including but not limited to, modification of the proposed design of the site, timing of construction, and limiting the extent of excavation.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.


.16     Floodplain Management
If any portion of the site is located within a special flood hazard area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, all use and development of that portion of the site must be consistent with the Town's Floodplain management provisions.
The property is located in the Floodplain Overlay Zone Careas of minimal flooding (Community-Panel Number 230162 0015) No special precautions are necessary in Zone C.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.17     Exterior Lighting
The proposed development must have adequate exterior lighting to provide for its safe use during nighttime hours, if such use is contemplated. All exterior lighting must be designed and shielded to avoid undue glare, adverse impact on neighboring properties and rights - of way, and the unnecessary lighting of the night sky.
Based on the information submitted, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.18     Buffering of Adjacent Uses
The development must provide for the buffering of adjacent uses where there is a transition from one type of use to another use and for the screening of mechanical equipment and service and storage areas. The buffer may be provided by distance, landscaping, fencing, changes in grade, and / or a combination of these or other techniques.
Based on the information provided for proposed landscaping, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.19     Noise
The development must control noise levels such that it will not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.
Based on the information submitted, and the proposed use and hours of operation, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.20     Storage of Materials
.1      Exposed nonresidential storage areas, exposed machinery, and areas used for the storage or collection of discarded automobiles, auto parts, metals or other articles of salvage or refuse must have sufficient setbacks and screening (such as a stockade fence or a dense evergreen hedge) to provide a visual buffer sufficient to minimize their impact on abutting residential uses and users of public streets.
.2      All dumpsters or similar large collection receptacles for trash or other wastes must be located on level surfaces, which are paved or graveled. Where the dumpster or receptacle is located in a yard, which abuts a residential or institutional use or a public street, it must be screened by fencing or landscaping.
.3      Where a potential safety hazard to children is likely to arise, physical screening sufficient to deter small children from entering the premises must be provided and maintained in good condition.
Based on the information provided, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.21     Landscaping

Landscaping must be provided as part of site design. The landscape plan for the entire site must use landscape materials to integrate the various elements on site, preserve and enhance the particular identity of the site, and create a pleasing site character. The landscaping should define street edges, break up parking areas, soften the appearance of the development, and protect abutting properties.
Based on the information provided for proposed landscaping, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

.22     Building and Parking Placement
.1      The site design should avoid creating a building surrounded by a parking lot. Parking should be to the side and preferably in the back. In rural, uncongested areas buildings should be set well back from the road so as to conform with the rural character of the area. If the parking is in front, a generous, landscaped buffer between road and parking lot is to be provided. Unused areas should be kept natural, as field, forest, wetland, etc.
.2      Where two or more buildings are proposed, the buildings should be grouped and linked with sidewalks; tree planting should be used to provide shade and break up the scale of the site. Parking areas should be separated from the building by a minimum of five (5) to ten (10) feet. Plantings should be provided along the building edge, particularly where building facades consist of long or unbroken walls.
Based on the information provided for proposed landscaping, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

SECTION 300  AQUIFER PROTECTION (if applicable)
The parcel is located in the Aquifer Protection district. The proposed use will not involve any of the listed uses contained in Section 303 of the Zoning Ordinance.  Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed use will not adversely affect the quality of groundwater.

Mr. Hunt agreed a positive finding could be made for stormwater management, and a waiver was not necessary.

Mr. Turner asked about the parking if the retail use were expanded.

Ms. Howe stated an intensification of the use would require additional review.

Ms. Nixon stated a note could be added to the plan explaining the limited scope of retail use in conjunction with adoptions.

Mr. Hunt agreed the retail use is accessory and any conversion of the retail use would require review by the Planning Board.  He recommended the Board add as a condition that a note be added to the plan that there will be no expansion of the proposed use or the retail aspect of the operation without the review and approval of the Planning Board.

Mr. Hunt moved that the Board accept the language for Findings # 5 (Stormwater) and # 7 (Parking) as amended.

Mr. Hunt moved to grant Minor Site Plan approval with the standard and proposed conditions to the Homeless Animal Rescue Team of Maine, Inc., to construct a 36 x 81 boarding kennel (cat shelter) at Gray Road, Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 7B in the Local Business District.

3.      Public Hearing  Jordan Farm Major Subdivision Re-Approval of final plan, seven (7) lot residential subdivision at 130 Tuttle Road, 69.8 acres, RR2 zone, Tax Assessor Map R03, Lot 43A, Calvin and Julie Vashon, owners, John Mitchell, Mitchell and Associates, representative.

Ms. Nixon stated the applicant for Jordan Farms had received its Army Corps of Engineers permit and there was no need to extend their approvals.  The applicant hopes to begin construction the beginning of June.

Ms. Phyllis Hayes, of 14 Pine Ridge Road asked why there were only seven lots on a 69.8-acre parcel.

Mr. Hunt stated the design submitted by the developer was for seven lots.

4.      Public Hearing  Shoreland Zoning Permit  To construct a 4 x 40 fixed pier, and 10 x 4 set of steps at 56 Deans Way, Tax Assessor Map U03, Lot 5, Chris McCormick owner, Custom Float Services, representative.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The applicant, Chris McCormick, is seeking a Shoreland Zoning Permit to construct a private pier at 50 Deans Way, Cumberland Foreside, Map U-3 Lot 5. Mr. McCormick is represented by Custom Float Services of Portland, Maine.

DESCRIPTION: The proposal consists of a 4 x 40 fixed pier (the last 10 to be 6 wide) that will be attached to ledge.  There will be a 10 x 4 set of steps leading to the pier.  There will be a seasonal 27 x 24 ramp and a 12 x 20 float with skids.  The site is on the shore edge of Mr. McCormicks property.  There is an existing old 8 x 8 pier section with a broken wooden walkway.  This will be removed, including the steps and the new facility will be built using all new materials.  The float and ramp will be stored in the cove in the winter.

ZONING ISSUES:  
1)      The site is located in the Limited Density Residential (LDR) zone with a Limited Residential shoreland overlay (sec. 204.5.3, pg. 41).
2)      Section 204.5.1.4.5  (pg. 40) states that piers and uses projecting into water bodies in the require approval by the Planning Board in accordance with the standards of section 400 (i.e.: Sections 418 and 423, see below), and Section 602.5 (below).
3)      Section 418 (pg. 115) describes the four requirements to which piers&and other uses projecting into the water must conform. These are listed in the Findings section at the end of this memo.
4)      Section 423.2(a) (pg. 123) outlines the minimum lot standards for Public and Private Recreational Facilities. The minimum lot area is either 40,000 s.f. or the minimum lot size of the underlying zone, whichever is greater.
5)      Section 423.4 (pg. 125) repeats the four requirements described in 423.2(a) (pg. 123), and adds three additional requirements regarding structures built upon piers, which do not apply to this application. The relevant requirements are listed in the Findings section at the end of this memo.
6)      Section 602.5.1.3.3 (pg. 171) contains additional findings of fact upon which the Board must make positive rulings in order to grant a Shoreland Zone Permit. These are listed in the Findings section at the end of this memo.

APPROVAL BY OTHER AGENCIES:
Army Corps of Engineers, ACE notified in letter dated 4/16/03/ to Jay Clement.

Maine Department of Conservation was notified in letter dated 4/16/03 to Carol DiBello.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Section 14 (piers, wharves and pilings), Permit by Rule # 32015.

Town of Cumberland, Harbor Master Ted Curtis wrote in letter dated 5/7/03: The pier/float is located within a productive shellfish area.  The design of the plan to utilize the ledge outcroppings to support the pier and using skids on the bottom of the float will result in minimum damage to the resident shellfish.  Also the proposed replacement structure is located in a secluded cove and does not pose any problems to navigation.  The end of the float is located about four hundred feet from mean low water mark.  Mr. Curtis recommends approval of the replacement pier/ramp/float as proposed in the plan.

Mr. Charlie Poole, of Custom Floats, representative stated there is currently an old 8 x 8 pier section that had a ramp and float attached to it.  The pier is some disrepair and will be removed.  Custom Float Services proposes to build a set of 4 x 10 steps leading to a 4 x 40 fixed pier supported by pilings and install a seasonal 23 x 24 ramp and 12 x 20 float with bottom skids.  The pier will not extend beyond mean low water and is not in the navigable channel.  In fact is 400+- to the low water line.  The stairs will rest on the pier the pilings will be into the ledge with stainless steel setting.  The ramp and float are seasonal from May to October.  The float will be on skids to protect the shellfish and clams.

Ms. Howe asked how far out the pier would extend.  It would be useful to see the shoreland with an actual picture of the pier.

Mr. Poole stated the pier would sit on mudflats.

Mr. Whipple stated the DEP states the pier cant extend beyond the mean low water.

Mr. Poole stated the pier would be just beyond high water.

Mr. Taylor asked if there would be any fueling and was the pier use recreational.

Mr. Poole stated there would be no fueling and the proposed use was recreational.

Ms. Porch asked if foot traffic would be impeded?

Mr. Poole stated it was raised 6 and could be walked under or around.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.  There were no public comments.

Ms. Porch asked if there would be any adverse effects on fish and aquatic life or shoreland vegetation.

Mr. Poole stated there was no seal grass.

Mr. Hunt stated Ted Curtis; Harbor Master had reviewed the proposal and recommended approval as proposed in the plans.


The Board reviewed the proposed findings of fact with the following findings:

1.      Access from shore shall be developed on soils appropriate for such use and constructed so as to control erosion.
2.      The location shall not interfere with developed beach areas.
3.      The facility shall be located so as to minimize adverse effects on fisheries.
4.      The facility shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity and be consistent with existing conditions, use, and character of the area.
1.      Access from shore shall be developed on soils appropriate for such use and constructed so as to control erosion.
2.      The location shall not interfere with developed beach areas.
3.      The facility shall be located so as to minimize adverse effects on fisheries.
4.      The facility shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity and be consistent with existing conditions, use, and character of the area.
5.      Not relevant.
6.      Not relevant.         Pertain to structures built upon wharves or piers.
7.      Not relevant.
1.      Will maintain safe and healthful conditions;
2.      Will not result in water pollution, erosion or sedimentation to surface waters;
3.      Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater.
4.      Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat;
5.      Will conserve shoreland vegetation;
6.      Will conserve visual points of access to water as viewed from public facilities;
7.      Will conserve actual points of public access to waters;
8.      Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the Comprehensive Plan;
9.      Will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in a Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities Overlay District;
10.     Will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use;
11.     Is in conformance with the provisions of this article, and;
12.     Is not in a flood plain adjacent to tidal waters (Resource Protection/Flood Plain Overlay).

Mr. Hunt moved to grant a Shoreland Zoning Permit with the standard and proposed conditions of approval to construct a 4 x 40 private pier, seasonal float and a set of 10 x 4 steps at 56 Deans Way, Tax Assessor Map U03, Lot 5, Chris McCormick owner.

Ms. Howe seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous

5.      Public Hearing - Zoning Map Amendment  to recommend to the Town Council the re-zoning of properties from the Highway Commercial district to the Medium Density Residential district.  The properties are located at 11, 8, 6 and 4 Highland avenue; 6 and 10 Forest Ave; 9 George Road, 6, 10 and 12 Skillin Road, and property at Skillin Road, Tax Assessor Map U20, Lot 81.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: In February the Planning Board was asked to consider a recommendation to add single-family dwellings as a special exception in the HC zone.  After some discussion, it was agreed that adding single family homes in a commercial district was not desirable, and instead the Board asked that the Planning Department prepare a revised map for the zone, which excluded all lots without frontage on Route 100, from the HC zone.  This map was prepared and at the Boards next meeting in March, a public hearing was held at which there was a mixed response from residents who would be affected by this change.  The Board then asked the Planning Department to mail out a brief questionnaire to all affected property owners so that we could determine how each affected owner felt about the proposed change.  A copy of the questionnaire was included in the Board members packets.  The results were again mixed: 4 in favor and 3 opposed.  (Note:  The Board did not consider this information at its April meeting because the item was not advertised properly).  Based on the mixed response and the concerns expressed by those opposed to the change, the Planning Department recommends that we maintain the status quo.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.  

Mr. Stewart Moss, original applicant and owner of 6 Highland Avenue, stated that without the change he would not be able to use his property.

Ms. Jennifer Green, of 8 Highland Ave. stated she objected to the change and would like the properties to remain in the Highway Commercial district.  She would like to have the option for a commercial business.  Her property abuts Mr. Moss property on two sides.  She questioned the size of his lot.  She had been to the Registry of Deeds to obtain subdivision plans.
The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Turner moved to recommend to the Town Council that the properties at 11, 8, 6 and 4 Highland Avenue; 6 and 10 Forest Avenue; 9 George Road; 6, 10 and 12 Skillin Road and property at Skillin Road, Tax Assessor Map U20, Lot 81 remain in the Highway Commercial district with no change.

6.      Public Hearing  Zoning Amendment Section 608.7 Outside Consulting Fees  If any person, partnership or corporation owes the Town any amount for fees assessed under this section for any project under this Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance, such person, partnership or corporation shall not be issued any building permit or certificate of occupancy, or have a subdivision plat released for any other building or development in Town until all such outstanding amounts have been paid in full.

Ms. Nixon stated this request was a result of previous applications.

Mr. Taylor asked what recourse an applicant would have if a bill were disputed.

Ms. Nixon stated she was not sure.

Mr. Hunt stated that would be a question for the Town Attorney, the Town is looking for some form of administrative recourse if they were denied they would have due process.  The town is looking for some leverage.  He didnt think the word person was necessary as it was defined in the Ordinance.

The Board voted to table the request for clarification of the language.

7.      Sketch Plan  Major 11-lot subdivision, 12 Foreside Road, Tax Assessor Map U01, Lot 5, Frederic Light, P.E. Land Use Consultants, representative, Stephen & Laura Goodrich, owners.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: At the April 15, 2003 meeting the applicant presented a sketch plan.  The Board conducted a site walk on May 1, 2003, several board members were present, and viewed the topography.  The applicant is seeking direction for design work and will submit a preliminary review for the July meeting.

Mr. Hunt explained that at sketch plan there is no formal application it is an informational meeting with no substantive decisions.  It is not technically a public hearing however; it has been the practice of the Board to allow public comments.

Mr. Rick Light, Land Use Consultants stated Mr. Goodrich was with him at the meeting.  He gave an overview of the project.  Since the site walk they have received additional field survey information and wetlands information, which although not finalized, allows them to both incorporate comments received from previous meetings and to modify the plans slightly with more precise locations of site features.  Accordingly, they are submitting updated sketch plans as well as a site analysis plan for further discussion with the Board.  A site analysis plan showing the approximate property lines and other site information overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the site provides an effective means of evaluating site cover, buffers and distances to abutting properties for the Boards review.

The preliminary field survey (although not complete) suggests that the total lot acreage is near 25 acres, up from the estimated 23.8 acres based on earlier tax maps.  This increases the net residential acreage from 11 to 12 lots, subject to final survey information on slope areas, etc.  The plans have been modified to account for up to 12 lots.  Based on field information both plans suggest moving the road alignment to the north side of the small pond.

The wetlands as shown reflect more accurately the field locations delineated by Mark Hampton Associates.

The cluster plan has been revised slightly.  Several abutters indicated a desire to allow for the rear area to be connected to an existing, yet informal, trail to Hedgerow Drive to the south, which this would allow for.  The eyebrow shown on the earlier plan has been removed so that lot areas will reflect more marketable lot sizes in the area of 1.0  1.2 acres, which is consistent with the surrounding developments.

The plans suggest a small area for storm water management near the front (eastern) area of the site.  Land Use Consultants has reviewed options for connecting to an existing MDOT storm drain in Foreside Road with Adam Ogden, Director of Public Works and with the MDOT.  Further study will be required however, to determine the configuration of an onsite storm water management area prior to discharge to this system.

Land Use Consultants also met with Mr. Ogden to review applicable road design standards.  They are suggesting a 22-foot wide traveled way for the project with curbing and public sewer and water and underground cable utilities.  

Additionally, in response to information provided from the Cumberland Lands and Conservation Commission at the site walk, Land Use Consultants has contacted the Maine Natural Areas Program and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife regarding the potential for variable sedge, as listed S1 plant species.  A qualified botanist will conduct an on-site-walk-through in June to determine if any such plants are present on-site.

Ms. Howe stated she was not present at the site walk, but preferred the cluster plan.

Mr. Whipple asked if there was any consideration given to avoiding wetland impact on the East Side.

Mr. Light stated there was a geometric problem if the road were moved, the lots would be sub-standard.  They expect to fill some wetlands.

Mr. Whipple asked about the deep drop off at the turn around.

Mr. Light stated there would be a cul-de-sac, which will be adjusted with regard to the slope.

Mr. Turner stated he was also in favor of the clustered plan, and asked if the net residential acreage was based on the survey.

Mr. Light stated based on the 25-acres the property could support 12-lots.

Mr. Turner asked about sidewalks.

Mr. Light stated they would welcome input from the Board.

Mr. Turner stated that with a 20 foot right-of-way to the open space it would make sense to have a 20 foot easement on the other side.

Mr. Taylor asked about stormwater.

Mr. Light stated D.O.T. controls curb cuts there is a storm drain on Pine Ridge, Old Landing Road goes to a Falmouth storm drain.

Mr. Taylor asked about overboard discharge.

Mr. Light stated they would meet Town standards.

Mr. Hunt stated he was in favor of the preservation of the trails and the pond as the open space.  Sidewalks and byways should connect to the existing trails so the public can access from Route 88.  He prefers a narrow road with a separated walking trail; the Board is flexible with the surface of the walk ways.

Ms. Porch concurred with Mr. Hunt.

Mr. Powers and Ms. Porch asked about a right-of-way for potential access from Route One.  They both agreed it was important to continue trails and preferred the clustered plan.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.

Mr. Michael Savasuk, of 26 Stony Ridge Road voiced concern regarding maintaining the walking paths, the deep ridge and potential run-off from the pavement.  He was in favor of the clustered plan, and asked about buffering between the subdivision lots and the lots on Stony Ridge Road and development on the last lot.

Mr. Light stated there would be buffering, with the cluster design there would be no development on the back lot.  The sewer will be towards Route 88, with the cluster plan there will be open space at the end.

Mr. Savasuk asked why the right-of-way to Route One.

Ms. Porch stated traffic is always a concern, if Route 88 were closed it would give an alternative access.

Mr. Peter Sowles, of 28 Stony Ridge Road applauded the efforts of the owner and developer to obtain abutter input and maintain trails and buffering.  He was in favor of the cluster plan.

Ms. Porch asked Mr. Sowles if the trail system was adequate.

Mr. Sowles stated the trails are good.

Ms. Phyllis Hayes, of 14 Pine Ridge Road voiced concern regarding maintaining the trails, buffering and the high water table.

Mr. Robert Cram, a former Cumberland resident stated he was trustee for the Foreside Cemetery for forty years and questioned if there was an error in the amount of land in the cemetery.  There was a strip of 104 x 800 given to the cemetery, and he thought if the road went towards the cemetery there should be a hedge for buffering.

Mr. Chuck Sanders, of 16 Island Pond Road voiced concern if Dr. Crane would have access to Route One it would diminish the value of properties.

Mr. Don Olen, of 6 Pine Ridge Road asked if open space would be restricted to remain in its natural state.

Mr. Light stated a homeowners association or an organization of the Town would maintain open space.

Mr. Shawn Gorman, of 10 Foreside Road stated there was not a lot of difference between the clustered and traditional proposals.  If a resident wanted to add an addition he would want building plans to conform to the Ordinance.  He questioned the storm drain overflow.  He suggested that zoning might enact setback limits for harvesting lumber.

Mr. Light stated the stormwater plan is still being researched.

Mr. Stephen Goodrich, owner agreed with Mr. Sanders comments that a road through to Route One would diminish property values and he agreed with Mr. Gormans comments regarding timber harvesting.  He stated that if abutters had questions please contact himself or Rick Light at Land Use Consultants. They valued their input.

Mr. Hunt moved to recommend the cluster subdivision plan with common open space.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                       VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Light stated the applicant would be before the Board for the July meeting for application completeness.

8.      Sketch Plan  Rockwood Village, Thomas Drive, Cumberland Business Park, Tax Assessor Map R02D, Lot 1B, Office Commercial district, DST Realty, owner.

Ms. Nixon stated Mr. Guidi had met with the Town Manager and herself with concept plans for his development.  To have the required density requirement he would need a contract zone agreement.

Mr. Turner asked if the proposal was for lots 10, 9 and 8.

Ms. Howe asked for clarification on lots 1-4.

Mr. Jim Guidi, applicant stated he would like to develop approximately 20-acres on the land, which he owns, or has under contract, along Route One.  The land is known as Lots 6-10 in the Cumberland Business Park.  The development would primarily be residential with a limited amount of commercial development to supply services and amenities to both this development and the abutting Rockwood at Cumberland.

The development would require the creation of 4 lots plus an open space lot:

Lot 1 would be a residential development with approximately 20-25 detached dwellings on approximately 10 acres.  The 55 and older provision would apply.  Ownership could be structured either as single family houses or as condominiums.

Lot 2 would be a large-scale single building development to contain 40-60 small residential units plus approximately 5-1000 square feet of commercial space at ground level.  The project would have a 62 and older age requirement.  Ownership would either be in a single entity run as free market rentals or sold as condominiums.  The commercial space would supply services such as a health club, pool, restaurant or convenience store.

Lots 3 & 4 would be 1 to 2 acre lots reserved for expansion of the 62 and older developments.  Potential uses might include congregate care facilities, nursing homes or an Alzheimers treatment hospital.

A 3-acre open space would be centrally located and designed for easy access from all 4 lots.

The proposed project is in the Office Commercial district and there are several requirements in the ordinance that would prevent the project from going forward.  He would request relief on lot size, density, set backs, number of units per building, and road frontage.

Ms. Porch asked if Mr. Guidi would be hiring an architect to design the buildings and stated that roads would need to be mapped for a site walk.

Mr. Guidi stated yes.

Mr. Hunt stated he would like to see a true plan with boundary lines, roads, lot lines, sewer and water lines, net residential calculations to determine how many lots and what could be built, or to determine how the density needed to be changed.  The colored sketch does not provide enough information.

Ms. Howe asked about the acreage requirement for residential care.

Mr. Hunt stated he would prefer a zone change and not contract zoning, the concept of more density is consistent with the Towns desire for use in the zone.

Ms. Nixon stated that typically a contract zone request would begin at the Town Council, which would refer the request to the Planning Board.  She asked for the Boards opinion of contract zoning.

Ms. Howe stated she was not enthusiastic about contract zone, the Board would need more information before it could give a recommendation to the applicant.

Mr. Whipple agreed a scaled drawing with topography was needed.  He would be uncomfortable to make a recommendation.

Mr. Turner agreed the Board needs more information regarding the density.

Mr. Hunt stated usually for contract zoning the Town has an interest in the property such as Smalls Brook Crossing.  A contract zone is a use exported from a permitted use in another zone.  

Mr. Taylor asked about the original formation of the Cumberland Business Park.

Ms. Nixon stated that in the early 1990s Cole-Hahn had an interest in building a warehousing and distribution facility.  The abutters were concerned with noise and the impact on residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Hunt stated the land has had several plans, which the Town has attempted to help fit.
The Town recognized the need for affordable housing for the elderly was a good thing.  The location had sewer and water and could allow for greater density for elderly housing.

Mr. Powers also agreed the board needed more information.

Mr. Turner asked about the availability of sewer user units.

The Board took no action and advised the applicant to bring in a sketch plan with more details.

Ms. Nixon stated the applicant should communicate with Mr. Shane, the Town Manager.

F.      Administrative Matters

Ms. Nixon asked about conducting the June Planning Board meeting on Chebeague Island.  Mr. KomLosy has presented an application for the Slow Bell Café (former Nellie G. Restaurant).  The Town needs to consider the construction of a wave break off from the Stone Pier.

Ms. Porch asked if the Board would have dinner.

The Board will depart on the 5:00 p.m. boat and have dinner prior to the meeting.

Ms. Nixon asked about placement for the Planning Board packets.

Ms. Nixon stated Mr. Andy Berube would like to split a lot on Rangers Way and asked whether the Board would be willing to waive the net residential acreage requirement.

The Board stated no.

G.      Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



_______________________________               ________________________
Martha L. Porch, Board Chair                                Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk