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

B.      Roll Call

Present: Phil Hunt, Chair, Terry Turner, Vice-Chair, Beth Howe, Bill Ward, Bob Couillard, Chris Neagle.

Absent:  Tom Powers

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

C.      Minutes of Prior Meetings

Ms. Howe moved to approve the minutes with technical corrections.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

D.      Consent Calendar / Deminimus Change Approvals

        1.  Removal of Front Pole Lights at Town Hall

Mr. Hunt stated these are matters which will not require a Public Hearing unless the Board votes one is necessary.  The pole lights at Town Hall were shown on the approved Site Plan.  Many people thought the illumination was excessive; the lights have not been used and have been removed. The Board did not find a Public Hearing necessary; the Consent Calendar item was approved.

E.      Hearings and Presentations

1.      Public Hearing - Minor Site Plan Review, Slow Bell Café, 2 Walker Drive, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 33, SYTDesign Consultants, representative; Jonathan KomLosy, owner.

Ms. Howe, an abutter has been recused from the hearing.

Ms. Nixon stated that last month the Board found the application complete. There are still a number of outstanding issues. Next month the Planning Board will hold its annual meeting on Chebeague, and if the application cannot be approved tonight, it should be ready for final approval next month.

BACKGROUND:
The applicant and property owner is Jonathan KomLosy of 2 Walker Drive, Chebeague Island, Maine.  The property is located in the Island Business zone.  The application is for site plan approval of a 40-seat restaurant with a take-out counter.  Restaurants are a permitted use in the IB zone.  The structure was formerly the Nellie G. Restaurant.  After that it was converted to a residential use, and therefore must undergo site plan approval for the change of use to a restaurant.  Tonight, the Planning Board is asked to review the plan for approval.  The representatives are Scott Decker of SYTDesign, and Alan Wolf, of Attorney Terry Snow's office.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
·       The parcel is located at 2 Walker Drive, off South Road, diagonally across from the Post Office (Map I-03, Lot 33).  The parcel is .85 acres in size.  Minimum lot size in the IB zone is 1.5 acres, however this parcel is a lot of record.
·       The proposal is to open a 40-seat restaurant with a take-out counter.  The restaurant and take out will be located on the first floor which is 1,172 sq. ft..  The upstairs which consists of 2 bedrooms and a bathroom (378 sq. ft.), will be living quarters for Mr. KomLosy.  The applicant anticipates operating the café and take-out on a seasonal basis (May through October) for the first few years.
·       The structure is currently a 1-3/4 story wood frame house.  It is 32" x 26 (2026 sq. ft.).  The applicant proposes to enlarge the existing 12 x 8 deck to permit five tables and chairs to be placed upon it, and to enlarge the waiting area for the take-out. What are the enlarged deck dimensions?
·       The parking area has space for 16 cars.  It is currently unpaved and will remain unpaved, so actual parking lines will not be marked.  A handicap parking sign will be placed.  
·       There are currently two entrances to the lot, one will be closed off to make room for parking and to make the entrance and exit safer.
·       This plan is classified as minor since it involves a structure of less than 5,000 sq. ft. (1,172- sq. ft. proposed).
·       The parcel will be serviced by a private well.  A new well has been drilled on the parcel across the road (also owned by Mr. KomLosy.) This parcel should be depicted and the location of the new well shown.
·       Final approval from the State Drinking Water Program is required prior to putting the well on line.  Two satisfactory water sample results must be obtained.
·       The parcel will be serviced by an on-site and site-adjacent septic system.  The applicant has submitted an un-signed easement deed from Paul Ferragamo to Jonathon KomLosy for the use of the Ferragamo parcel septic system.
Existing electric and telephone are on site on overhead lines.

REQUESTED WAIVERS:
Section 206.7.3.8:      Location of drainage courses, wetlands, stonewalls, graveyards fences stands of trees, important or unique features, etc.

Section 206.7.3.9:      Direction of existing surface water drainage across the site & off site.

Section 206.7.3.11:     Location and dimensions of existing easements & copies of documents

Section 206.7.4.2:      Surface water drainage and impact assessment on downstream properties.

Section 206.7.4.3:      Provisions for handling solid and hazardous waste.

Section 206.7.4.8:      Location and type of exterior lighting.  The Board did not grant this waiver last month. The applicants representative agreed to show the location and type of exterior lighting. The current plan still does not differentiate among the various types of lighting that exist and that are proposed (e.g., flood, incandescent, halogen, sign lights.)  The plan should be clarified to show the locations of the different types of lighting (incandescent or halogen or both?) and the correct amount of watts for each (60 watts or 75 watts?)  Also, Note #2 under Lighting Information on the plan states that no SIGNIFCANT spillover of lighting to abutting properties will occur.  The ordinance does not allow any spillover.  An abutter has written a letter to the Planning Board expressing concern about potential noise and lighting.  The lighting should be clearly depicted on the final plan to prevent any future problems.

Section 206.7.4.12:     Stormwater calculations/erosion & sedimentation control plan, etc. Granted by Board at 5/10/04 meeting.        

Section 206.7.4.11:     Traffic/peak hour and daily traffic generated by project. Granted by Board at June 13, 2003 meeting

ISSUES OF DISCUSSION:
Ms. Nixon reviewed the issues for discussion as follows:
1.      Town Engineers comments: These are primarily technical issues that Mr. Decker can address.

Mr. Scott Decker, of SYTDesign Consultants, the applicants engineer  addressed the outstanding issues as follows:
·       An Engineer stamp will be on the final plan.
·       The setback between parking field and South Road. A 15-foot setback is required.  Mr. Decker stated they were under the assumption that the 15-foot setback would not apply, as the parking area exists and is grandfathered. The area has been used for parking for previous facilities.

Ms. Nixon stated with the change of Code Enforcement Officers coverage this issue was not addressed by Town staff.  It is listed as a condition of approval.

Mr. Neagle stated that in prior packets, there was an existing condition plan, and some of the parking is new.

Mr. Decker stated yes, there are two new spaces.

Mr. Neagle stated the new spaces would not be grandfathered.  The Board could not waive Ordinance requirements.

Ms. Nixon stated the plan showed two spaces more than required by the Ordinance.

Mr. Decker asked how the Board would feel if the existing lot was a space or two short if the applicant had parking across the street.

Mr. Hunt stated they would review further to see if that were a problem.

·       Sign setbacks  the proposed sign should be 15 from the right-of-way, and 33 from the centerlines of South Road, whichever distance is greater.  The lot detail plan shall be revised accordingly.

Mr. Decker stated it was his understanding that the existing signposts are in the ground.

·       Solid Waste  It was noted that the existing shed would be used for temporary storage of solid waste, a removal frequency does not appear to be noted.  Perhaps a minimum removal frequency should be noted on the plan.

Mr. Decker stated the waste would be removed to the transfer station in accordance with the transfer station schedule (4 days a week).  A note has been added to the plan.

·       The Site Plan notes that the proposed deck will extend into the side setback.  
Mr. Decker stated a revised plan would show a deck that will conform to the side setback requirement.

Mr. KomLosy stated the deck would infill and not extend beyond the current structure.

·       The July 23, 2003 letter from the Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering provides a Preliminary Approval for the water supply, but notes that Final Approval will require submission of additional information to the Department.  No information was provided by the Applicant indicating that the requisite information was submitted to the Department, nor whether final approval has been granted.  The Planning office would recommend that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant submit evidence of Final Approval for the water supply to the Town.

Mr. KomLosy stated that his understanding was that the well needed to be in place and operational.
·       Due to past concerns over the adequacy of the septic system, should the Applicant be required to record daily water usage, and submit it to the Town on a monthly basis for the first season of use demonstrating that actual usage is less than the design flow?

Mr. KomLosy stated there are four water meters in the basement.  Al Frick submitted Fred Martindales water readings for a year, which showed there was no problem

·       The Board should consider a condition of approval that requires replacement of the existing system in the event that the actual water usage exceeds the design flow, or in the event that any evidence of malfunction is detected.

Ms. Nixon stated under State Plumbing Code the location of a replacement system is required.  She thinks what Mr. Palmer is suggesting is the Town requiring a replacement if the actual water usage exceeds the design flow.  She believes this is a Plumbing Inspector issue.

Mr. KomLosy stated there is a permit on the existing system, approved by the State and the Town of Cumberland Plumbing Inspector.  It operated at least three years with no mishaps.

·       Our office would recommend that the Applicant have Al Frick clarify the design flow for the replacement system.  On the HHE-200 it is noted as 2,160 gpd.  This is apparently based on 40 seats times 30 gpd/seat times a multiplier of 1.8.  The 1.8 multiplier is the adjustment factor for BOD/TSS.  Based on our experience, the design flow would actually be 1,200 gpd (40 seats times 30 gpd/seat).  The 1.8 adjustment factor would be used in sizing the leach field, but does not result in the "design flow being increased.  If the design flow were 2,160 gpd, the system would be classified as an engineered system, requiring additional design information that has not been submitted to date.

Mr. Decker stated Al Frick has issued a letter that can be submitted to the Town to clarify the issue.

·       The Town Engineer agreed that the stormwater calculations and controls are not warranted for this project due to the minimal nature of the proposed non-vegetated surfaces, and that the stormwater runoff will be directed to a vegetated buffer in the rear of the site.



2.      Amplified Music Issue:

Ms. Nixon stated the Applicant would like to have live music; the Town has received letters regarding concerns of noise from amplified music.  

Mr. Wolf stated, originally, Mr. KomLosys plan was to have outside amplified music. But that is no longer the case.

Ms. Nixon asked if indoor music would still require a special amusement permit from the Town Council.

Mr. Wolf stated that is correct.

Mr. Neagle stated that the Planning Board has the authority to address noise under the Site Plan Review standards.

Ms. Nixon stated that the Council issues special amusement permits.  They request information from Department Heads, and in a situation like this would look for information from the Planning Board.  The Town has no specific standards for approving or denying the special amusement permit.  There may be something said for allowing the applicant to have the permit, with the understanding that the Council has the authority to revoke the permit at any time.  It has not been determined what the impact on the neighborhood will be with the playing of indoor music.

Mr. Neagle suggested that a decibel meter be purchased and used by the Town.

3.      Proposed Lighting

Ms. Nixon noted the lighting plan is not clear.

Mr. Decker stated the lighting will be clarified.

4.      Septic Information  Has been covered

5.      Water license agreement

Ms. Nixon stated the Town Attorney has reviewed a Water License agreement; some additional language for an electrical line has been added.  The water agreement would need to be approved by the Council at the August 9, 2004 meeting, prior to execution of the agreement.

Mr. Wolf stated they are fine with the changes.



6.      Ferragamo Easement Deed

Mr. Wolf stated there is an agreement, in principle. It will be submitted to Mr. KomLosys attorney for review of the language and will be submitted when signed.

7.      Well Information

Ms. Nixon stated she did not have any information on file for the new well.

Mr. KomLosy stated Hansen Well Drillers stated the well is 5.5 gallon per flow at drilling, gives the State I.D. number and the depth is 120 feet deep.  All the information on the well will be added to the Site Plan.

Ms. Nixon asked if the old well was still operating?  Would it be taken off line when the new well is operational?

Mr. KomLosy stated he would be switching the well over.

Ms. Nixon stated the current well does not meet the State requirement for separation distance between a well and septic system for a public water supply.  She expressed concern about a possible mix-up and the wrong well being used.

Mr. KomLosy stated a color-coded seal could be placed on the existing well switch.

8.      Lighting of the Sign  A sign permit will be required.

Ms. Nixon asked how the proposed sign would be lighted.

Mr. Decker stated a note on the drawing states there will be a mounted light fixture that will shine down on the sign.

9.      Hours of Operation:

Mr. KomLosy stated the proposed hours are from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.  The first boat of the day is 6:40 a.m. and there are 100 commuters that could have breakfast.  There are also approximately 40 lobster fishers who leave early in the morning.

10.     Sight Distances:

Mr. Decker stated the sight distances have been added to the plan.

11.     Hale Right-of-Way Agreement:

Ms. Nixon asked if the right-of-way agreement had been submitted.

Mr. KomLosy stated it was in his Quit-Claim Deed.  He had a conversation with Donna Damon and several right-of-ways on the Island do not specify widths.

12.     Public Works Directors Comments:

Ms. Nixon reviewed Mr. Ogdens comments as follows:
·       Grease trap? : Mr. KomLosy stated one exists.
·       ADA requirements for the gravel parking  Mr. Decker stated the plan has not been reviewed with specifications of meeting ADA requirements.

Mr. KomLosy stated in April 2002 he received approval from the Planning Board for multi-use for this building.  The Chebeague Transportation Corporation was renting the building, using the existing parking lot.  The parking lot, which exists, is gravel, same as the grange and library parking lots.

Mr. Neagle asked if the parking shown on the plan actually exists on the ground? He was concerned that the new parking spaces do not meet the 15 setback requirement as required in the Ordinance.

Mr. Decker stated the parking lot has been modified.

The Board reviewed photos of the parking lot and the site plan for comparison.

Ms. Nixon stated that a year ago, she and Mr. Decker were out at the site.  It looked very much like the pictures except that a large dirt pile has been spread out.  It is a gravel parking lot the setback can be resolved.

Mr. Hunt stated the plans shows a configuration of a gravel parking lot, which is neatly squared with lines for parking stalls.  The reality is the area has been heavily cleared and parked on.  The configuration shown on the plan does not exist on the ground.  There is a grassed area, a looped driveway, some parking near the back on the L.  The drawing doesnt depict accurately what is on the ground.

Mr. Neagle stated lots 7,8,9,10,11 would not be parking, but a lawn. Spaces 14, 15 and 16 are in an island, with ledge, they are not parking spaces.  

Mr. Turner asked Mr. Neagle his areas of concern.

Mr. Neagle stated spaces 7, 8, 9 & 10; appear to be lawn.  Parking spaces 13, 14, 15 appear to be in the island.  He didnt feel the Board could approve a plan with parking spaces located only one foot from the road.  

Mr. Decker stated because photos show a grassed area, doesnt mean that parking hasnt been taking place on that area.

Mr. Turner stated grass is not an impervious surface.

Mr. Neagle stated in 2002 this property was converted to a single-family residence.  He feels the front setback needs to be re-designed; he would like to hear from the public regarding noise.  His opinion of noise is not whether it is amplified, but how loud it is.  He suggests a decibel level be set.  A decibel meter could be purchased to measure the noise level at the property line.

The Public portion of the meeting was opened.

Mr. Hale of Walker Road stated they are in support of Mr. KomLosys hope to establish a small café to provide simple meals for visitors and residents.  They are concerned about the live music and serving of beer, wine and liquor at his facility; it would completely change the character of his proposed Café.  The noise and possible disturbances would be an intrusion on those who live nearby.  They were also concerned about the Café staying open until 10:00 p.m..The Island is an early to bed, early to rise community. When the Inn is having music the music, can be heard at their house.  The maintenance of the right-of-way was a concern, and the deck, as shown, is in the right-of-way.

Mr. Neagle asked Mr. Hale is they owned the right-of-way.

Mr. Hale stated yes.  

Mr. Neagle asked if the deck was in the right-of-way.

Mr. Hale apologized, that is not the deck.

Mr. Neagle asked the width of the right-of-way.

Mr. Hale stated the road is currently about eight feet wide, if there was a problem he could build a driveway on the other side of his property.

Mr. Turner asked Mr. Hale to describe the parking lot.  On the other side of the ledge, Mr. Hale said there is a little bit of grass.  

Ms. Kitty Freeman, lives at 12 Capps Road, opposite the Hotel.  She said that when the hotel was holding weddings, the music was loud.  This is a three-generation Chebeague family that wants to supply the Island with a need; she was in support of the application.

Mr. Joe Vincent an abutter stated his main concern was with the entertainment.  He agreed the Island needs a restaurant.  He asked when the last time anyone went to a restaurant with live music?  He was opposed to live entertainment and a liquor license.  When Mr. Martindale ran the restaurant it was open until 10:00 p.m., the neighbors could hear the kitchen help up to an hour after closing.

Ms. Kathy Vincent asked about Mr. KomLosys intent for catering wedding receptions for off-site weddings.  She had received a letter stating they would be holding some wedding receptions.  Her concern was the size of functions for weddings and non-profit fundraisers.

Mr. KomLosy stated his intent is to use the facility as a kitchen; there are not many approved kitchens on the Island.

Ms. Vincent stated she used to work for the Nellie G. and said it is cramped and music would be loud.

Mr. Turner asked Ms. Howe about what currently exists; most of the area is gravel and impervious area that has been used for parking.

Ms. Howe reviewed the parking area.

Mr. Turner asked if the brown area on the plan is a parking area.

Ms. Howe stated when the Nellie G. was approved they had a landscaping plan which was put in place and the parking area evolved.

Mrs. Bonnie KomLosy asked about the Special Amusement permit, she wasnt sure when this was instituted.

Ms. Nixon stated the Town Clerk administers Special Amusement permits.  The Town Council holds a public hearing, and votes to grant or deny the request.

Ms. KomLosy asked what other groups this permit would cover.

Ms. Nixon stated she thought a dance, band, and an entertainment event.

Ms. KomLosy asked about the Chebeague Hall, how is it charged.

Mr. Hunt stated this permit is not new.  It is primarily directed to commercial operations such as restaurants, inns, and bars - establishments with entertainment.  

Ms. KomLosy stated Jonathan would work to fulfill all requirements.

The Public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Hunt stated there are several items that do not have sufficient information to make positive findings of fact.

Ms. Nixon stated she was unable to make positive findings and recommended tabling the application.  There are sixteen conditions of approval.

Mr. Neagle was in favor of tabling the application.

Mr. Turner asked if there were items the Board could take care of at tonights meeting.

Ms. Nixon stated the requested waivers have probably been addressed on the new plan, which hasnt been submitted for review.  The issue is the music and hours of operation.

Mr. Hunt stated the Board must make an affirmative finding on noise under Item # 19.

Mr. Neagle stated it is not within the Boards authority to regulate liquor and special amusement licenses.

The Board voted to hold a site walk on August 17, 2004 prior to the meeting at Chebeague Island Hall.

Mr. Turner asked if the deck would be addressed.

Mr. Decker stated yes, they would review the deck setback.

Mr. Hunt stated that the parking space configuration shoudl be figured out.  He agreed with Mr. Turner there is an open gravel area, which can probably be laid out in a way to provide spaces.  There is a history of operation with the site.  The parking area should take care of itself.  

Mr. Ward moved to table the Minor Site Plan Review for Slow Bell Café, at 2 Walker Drive, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 33.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

1.      Public Hearing  Final Plan Review  Minor Site Plan  Longmeadow Farm Alpacas, Barn Construction, 135 Main Street, Tax Assessor Map U08, Lot 6, 28 acres, HC district, Pamela Harwood, owner; Scott Decker, P.E., SYTDesign, representative.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows:

REQUEST/BACKGROUND:     
The applicant is Pamela Harwood, owner of Longwood Alpacas.  The applicant is seeking minor site plan approval to construct a 40 x 40 barn to be used for raising alpacas.  Scott Decker of SYTDesign prepared the site plan. The survey was conducted by Daniel LaPoint, PLS #1183.  This survey was done in 1988.
The property is located at 135 Main St. (Route 9), Tax Map U078, Lot 6.  This is in the HC (Highway Commercial) zone.  Animal husbandry is a permitted use in this zone.  The parcel is 25 acres in size, with 60.09 of road frontage.
Tonight the Planning Board will consider granting minor site plan approval.

II.     PROJECT HISTORY:
June 15, 2004: Application deemed complete.  Waivers granted (see below):

III.    WAIVERS APPROVED:
Section 206.7.2.7: location of intersecting roads & driveways within 200 feet of the site
Section 206.7.3.12: location of nearest fire hydrant or water supply for fire protection
Section 206.7.4.9: location of all utilities including fire protection systems

Mr. Neagle asked about the granting of waivers, he stated the minutes do not reflect granting waivers.

Ms. Nixon stated they would come back to the issue.
III.    PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The principal activity of the business is to breed alpaca livestock and annually harvest the fiber.  Alpacas are not bred for food.  The applicant proposes to build a 1600 sq. ft. barn with a 3-sided shelter and some electric perimeter fencing.  The applicant anticipates building a herd of 10 breeding females and some other alpacas for a total herd size of between 15 and 20 animals.  The applicant may sell yarn and clothing made from the fiber of the animals, but this retail operation would be by appointment only.

III.    TOWN ENGINEERS REVIEW (Review by Al Palmer dated7/13/04):

Information provided to Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc. on July 13, 2004 for review included:

Package from Ms. Pamela Harwood to the Town of Cumberland containing a Minor Site Plan Application for a farm, dated May 24, 2004 with attached plans.

Based upon our review of the information provided, we would provide the following comments for Town Staff and Planning Board consideration:

Section 401.5 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates in part that:
newly established livestock grazing areas shall not be permitted & within seventy five (75) feet, horizontal distance of other water bodies, nor; within twenty-five (25) feet, horizontal distance, or tributary streams and wetlands

It would appear that Mill Brook would be an other water body and the plan should be revised to depict a 75 setback, as at its closest point, it would appear to be approximately 68 at this time.  The classification of the two other brooks either as an other water body or tributary stream (rear grazing area) should be confirmed by the Applicant.  The setback from the fence to the northern most brook should be shown on the plan.
Will a sign be installed at Route 9?  If so, appropriate setbacks should be noted.
The minimum setback for the rear shed (12 x 24) should be shown on the plan.
While no minimum setback is noted in the ordinance from a manure stockpile to an abutting property line, our office would recommend that one be considered, and noted on the plan.  The current stockpile area, while shown graphically, is within 5 feet of the property line.  The Applicant and Board may want to agree to a minimum setback.  Our office would then recommend that a means of containing the stockpile along the property line be considered so as to insure that the pile does not spill into the setback.
If the 3-sided shed is proposed for shelter of the animals in the winter, the Applicant may want to reconsider the orientation of the structure, with respect to the prevailing winter.

Our office agrees with the statements that stormwater calculations and controls are not warranted for this project due to the minimal nature of the proposed non-vegetated surfaces, that the stormwater runoff will be directed to a vegetated buffer, and the location of the site in the Mill Brook watershed.

Mr. Hugh Harwood, Applicant, addressed the Engineers Review comments as follows:
1.      Mill Brook Stream  They agree with the Engineers comment and the setback will be shown on the plan.
2.      Sign  There will be no sign.
3.      The minimum setback for rear shed will be shown on the plan; it is 30 feet as per Ordinance requirement.
4.      A setback for the stockpile area 5 from the property line will be shown on the plan.
5.      The 3-sided shed will not be used during the winter, the Alpacas will be moved up to the barn for the winter winds.
The public portion of the meeting was opened.
There were no public comments.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Neagle asked if there was a more current plan.

Mr. Harwood stated yes, the Board members did not have the updated plan.

Mr. Turner asked if the Applicant had the required 75 setback from the Mill Brook.

Mr. Harwood stated yes.

Mr. Hunt stated it that the information was complete and no waivers were required.

Proposed Findings of Fact

.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 proposed use involves the construction of a barn and a three-sided shelter. The site will not require any grading work, however there will be some electric perimeter fencing installed.   The total herd size of 15-20 animals should not adversely impact the site.  Appropriate erosion control measures in the vicinity of the construction area are proposed.

The Town Engineer has noted in his review that Section 401.5 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates in part that newly established livestock grazing areas shall not be permitted & within seventy five (75) feet, horizontal distance of other water bodies, nor; within twenty-five (25) feet, horizontal distance, or tributary streams and wetlands

        It would appear that Mill Brook would be an other water body and the plan should be revised to depict a 75 setback, as at its closest point, it would appear to be approximately 68 at this time.  The classification of the two other brooks either as an other water body or tributary stream (rear grazing area) should be confirmed by the Applicant.  The setback from the fence to the northern most brook should be shown on the plan.
With the approval of proposed Condition of Approval #2, 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.

Any visits to the site will be minimal and by appointment only. The plan needs to show the sight distances in each direction.
With the approval of Condition of Approval #3, 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 review by the Town Engineer, the access meets the ordinance requirements.
Based on the above, 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.
The proposed plan will provide adequate area for the safe movement of passenger, service and emergency vehicles.
Based on the above, 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 anticipated number of visits (3-4 per month) the site as depicted is suitable for any needed parking.
Based on the above, 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.

There is not expected to be any significant pedestrian usage.  This is a farm operation.  
Based on the above, 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 Town Engineer has stated his agreement that stormwater calculations and controls are not warranted for this project due to the minimal nature of the proposed non-vegetated surfaces, that stormwater will be directed to a vegetated buffer, and the location of the site in the Mill Brook watershed.
Based on the above, the Board finds that 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 proposed erosion control measures for the construction of the barn.  This has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer.
Based on the above, 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.

This use will require little additional water supply.  The existing well appears adequate for the needs of the animals.  The on-site brook will be used for fire protection purposes.
Based on the above, 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.

This use will not require any sewage disposal system.
Based on the above, 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 existing utility lines on the property are overhead, as are neighboring properties.  A new electricity line will be run overhead from the house to the barn.  
Based on the above, 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.

With the proposed setbacks added to plan and adhered to, along with the containment of the manure stockpile as recommended by the Town Engineer, this project will not adversely impact groundwater.
With the approval of Condition of Approval #2, 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.

The only waste that is expected to be generated from this use is that of manure.  The applicant has stated the amount of waste that the proposed number of alpacas typically produces and has indicated how the waste will be handled.  The Town Engineer has suggested a containment system be provided along the property line.  This has been addressed as Condition of Approval #2.
With the approval of Condition of Approval #2, 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 applicant has provided information stating that the funds have been secured through Peoples Heritage Bank.  A letter from the bank is on file. Technical capacity has been evidenced by the use of SYTDesign Engineers.
Based on the above, 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.

While the applicant has not provided any evidence regarding historical or archaeological resources, the residence exists and the barn is to be located on an open area of land.  
Based on the above, 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.

All existing and proposed structures are located in Zone C-Areas of minimal flooding as depicted on FEMA Map #230162 0015 B. While this standard states that the entire site must be considered if a portion of the site is within the floodplain, the land affected is open field and pasture and no hazard to property would result from a flood.
Based on the above, 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.
The applicant needs to have the plan modified to show the location and types of lighting on site.
With the approval of Condition of Approval # 4, 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.

There is a dense vegetated buffer between this site and adjacent sites, which serves as an adequate buffer.  
Based on the above, 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.

The applicant has stated that alpacas do not emit noise.  There will be no noise impact on abutting properties.
Based on the above, 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.

The only waste to be generated is manure-- the storage and containment of which has been addressed as Condition of Approval #2.
With the approval of Condition of Approval #2, 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.

The secluded nature of this farm and the natural vegetation on site does not require any additional landscaping or buffering.
Based on the above, 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 to 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.

The main residence and parking area exist.  The new barn will have a grassed area available for parking.
Based on the above, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

SECTION 300  AQUIFER PROTECTION (if applicable)
The use is located in the Aquifer Protection district.   A positive find by the Board is required.
The site is located in an Aquifer Protection Area.  The small amount of animal waste that will be generated, combined with the plan to dispose of the waste allows a positive finding to be made by the Board.
Based on the above, the Board finds that the standards of this section have been met.

Mr. Turner moved to approve the findings of fact.

Ms. Howe seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous

Ms. Howe moved to grant Minor Site Plan approval for Longmeadow Farm Alpacas, Barn Construction at 135 Main Street, Tax Assessor Map U08, Lot 6, 28 acres in the HC district with the Standard and Proposed Conditions of Approval.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.      That all required fees are paid to the Town prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
2.      That the applicant revise the final plan to depict a 75 setback as at its closest point to Mill Brook.  Also, that the other two brooks are classified as either an other water body or a tributary stream and the appropriate setback depicted on the plan.  Also, the setback from the fence to the northern most brook should be shown on the plan.  The method of containment is to be added to the plan.
3.      The plan needs to show the sight distances in each direction.
4.      The applicant needs to have the plan modified to show the location and types of lighting on site.

4.      Public Hearing  Preliminary Plan Review  major 14-lot subdivision, Old Colony Estates, 10 Blackstrap Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 71 and 70B, 51.9 acres, RR2m district, representative, Larry Bastion, P. E., Sebago Technics, Normand Berube Builders, Inc., owner.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: Last month the applicant was at the Planning Board for preliminary review and was tabled due to the many outstanding issues.  Many are still outstanding.  The Engineers report was received late last week.  She met with Larry Bastion last Friday and several issues were addressed.  Ms. Nixon reviewed the outstanding issues.
1.      Net residential acreage calculation regarding ledge.  The Engineer deducted the ledge outcropping from the net residential acreage calculations. The Ordinance is vague regarding area of land not suitable for development.  This ledge area  in the open space could be viewed as a similar situation as the easement in open space for Orchard Ridge.  

Mr. Bastion stated he had initially deducted the ledge outcropping from the net residential acreage.  He has reviewed the Ordinance and based on Falmouth, Windham and Scarborough there are many sites with bedrock.  Which are considered buildable, but require blasting.  The ledge is located in the open space.  He asked for a definition of bedrock outcrop. His proposal was to not deduct the ledge as unsuitable soils.

Mr. Hunt asked how the ledge would affect the number of lots.

Mr. Bastian stated it would decrease the proposal by one lot from 19 to 18 lots.

Ms. Nixon stated ledge at Jordan Farm wasnt visible until the construction of the road.

Mr. Turner stated Mary Lane didnt count the ledge.  Ledge is not considered unbuildable it can be blasted.  

Mr. Neagle stated he would deduct ledge outcroppings as land difficult to develop.

2.      Proposed T-shaped turn-around at the end of Phase I: should a cul-de-sac be built or at least designed and the area reserved in case Phase II is not developed?

Mr. Bastion stated a T-shaped turn-around would be built in the event Phase II is not approved or built.  Berube Builders would build a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Turner asked about a guarantee or time frame for a cul-de-sac to be built.

Ms. Nixon stated the road is not being proposed for acceptance until Phase II is completed.  There can be a line item in the letter of credit.

Mr. Bastion stated the developer is planning to develop Phase II within six months.

Mr. Turner stated there should be a proposal if Phase II is not built, there should be a provision for the cul-de-sac to be built at developers expense.  He asked who would plow and maintain the road prior to Town acceptance.
Mr. Bastion stated he would talk with the developer and determine a period of time, (perhaps 3 years).  He hadnt discussed plowing the road with Adam Ogden.

3.      Trails  None are shown as existing or proposed.  There is a tote road that winds through the parcel, unfortunately it seems to be right through what appears to be Lots # 8 14.  Ms. Nixon reviewed Section 7.5.E with Mr. Bastion, and explained that when the preservation of an existing trail is not feasible, that relocating the trail to the perimeter is often done.  When the Greenbelt map was consulted, the area of Town southwest of Route 100 appeared to be missing.  The Board needs to discuss options for accomplishing the intent of Section 7.5.E.

Mr. Couillard stated there is a trail along the edge of the wetland on the back of the property.  The only other trail is the one that was used at the site walk.

Mr. Neagle asked if the Greenbelt Map was not found for this part of the Town.

Ms. Nixon stated the map is not complete.

Mr. Neagle stated trails are great but unless shown on the Greenbelt Map, he didnt think we could require trails.

Ms. Nixon stated there is open space around the edge of the property and the Comprehensive Plan encourages trails.

Mr. Bastion stated an easement has been provided for a road connection to Falmouth that could be used as public access.  

Mr. Neagle stated if there was a trail network developed at some time to the north and south, a trail is provided by lot # 7.   If a trail system were developed in the future, a trail could be developed through the site.  He would prefer to have a trail through the open space, rather than, along a road.

Mr. Bastion stated he thought the applicant would be willing to come to an agreement for trails.

4.      The Boundary of Phase I

Ms. Nixon suggested to Mr. Bastion that the boundary of Phase I be changed to be more  depicted more clearly on the plans.

Mr. Neagle asked why the lot in Phase II next to lot # 8 was not in Phase I, the lot has frontage and is clearly a building lot.  A note should be added to the plan stating no future development without Planning Board approval.

Mr. Bastion stated the applicant is proposing 14 lots to avoid a Site Location of Development Application (SLODA) at this time.

The Board agreed the lots retained by the developer should have language, which states lots to be retained by developer and no development without Planning Board approval.

Mr. Neagle inquired about ownership of the common area.

Mr. Bastion stated a Homeowners Association would own it.

5.      Ms. Nixon asked for the location of all stormwater retention areas on the cover sheet, and to add language that clearly indicated the potential for Phase II to be developed in the future.

Ms. Nixon reviewed Mr. Sauciers peer review memo, and stated the items are technical and can be addressed for final approval.  Mr. Saucier has discussed the issues with Mr. Bastion.

Ms. Howe stated she was pleased to see the possible road and hopes in the review for Phase II the road will remain as a right-of-way, not necessarily constructed.  She agreed with the arrangement of the temporary cul-de-sac.

Mr. Couillard stated he would like to see a north  south trail run along the boundary line of both phases.

Mr. Bastion stated he would review a trail with the owners; there is the buffer area to be preserved with vegetation.

Mr. Neagle referenced Fire Chief Smalls comments regarding lights and key boxes with outside lights.  If the applicant is happy, he was fine, but felt it was overreaching.

Ms. Nixon stated this came up last month with regard to Orchard Ridge.  Fire Chief Small felt this was optional, the Town could provide lock boxes as a service, but they are not required.

Mr. Hunt opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Bob Simonds, of 269 Bruce Hill Road stated he spoke with Fire Chief Small and thought the section of the proposed Fire Protection Ordinance was revised to state key box and monitored alarms had been removed, but the sprinkler and flashing lights were still part of the Ordinance.

Ms. Nixon stated the Fire Chief would be present for the proposed Fire Protection Ordinance.

Mr. Maloney, of Maloneys Ridge Way stated he was concerned with stormwater drainage and detention.

Ms. Nixon stated the stormwater plan has been reviewed; Mr. Saucier had technical issues that would be addressed.  The application states that post development cant exceed pre-development.  She will ask for clarification, although stormwater has not been addressed as a problem by the engineer.

Mr. Maloney stated his concern was water run-off.

Mr. Neagle stated the Board shares his concerns, but the plan shows water dispersed no more quickly than today.

Mr. Hunt appreciated the reminder to review the stormwater.

Ms. Jennifer West, of the Conservation Commission asked that adequate protection be provided for the wetland from the roadway in Phase II.

The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Hunt stated the item would be tabled because of outstanding issues, but suggested the Board address some of the issues.  One of which was the classification of net residential acreage regarding the ledge outcropping.  Mr. Hunt reviewed the definition of net residential density calculations.  Mr. Hunt thought the question of inclusion of ledge was addressed in the Idlewood subdivision, and suggested Ms. Nixon was asked to research the records.

Ms. Nixon stated Rockwood has a large section of visible ledge.

Ms. Howe stated it was obvious there was ledge there.

Mr. Turner thought the ledge shouldnt be deducted if it is not mentioned in the Ordinance.

Ms. Howe agreed, ledge above ground isnt different than ledge six to ten inches below ground.  It is not always obvious ledge is present, ledge shouldnt be counted because it is visible.

Mr. Neagle disagreed and thought the ledge should be counted.

Mr. Ward recommended deferring to previous decisions.

Mr. Hunt stated the T-shaped turn-around with cul-de-sac right-of-way could be worked out.  The pedestrian passage through the open space area should be identified on the plan; essentially there is a walkway to be laid out as a right-of-way to the Copp property.  He stated it might be more desirable to develop the piece as one Phase; it seems an unduly cumbersome way to proceed.  The applicant needs to be very careful and work with Mr. Maloney to assure there is