11/8 -

FREEPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, OCOTBER 3, 2007
6:30p.m.

PRESENT: Conan Deady (Chairperson), Wendy Caisse, Cuyler Feagles, Andrew Manning, Suzanne Watson, and Donna Larson (Town Planner). Malcolm Collins was excused.

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Deady called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m.

Item I: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson noted that she had given Board members a letter written by George Denney on behalf of the Freeport Community Improvement Association and their desire for the Town to regulate color in the Design Review District. The Project Review Board is discussing this issue and it should be discussed with the Town Council before it is brought to the Planning Board.

There has been a meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Community Attitude Survey Development Committee. They have decided on topic areas and will be brining in a consultant for the next meeting. The goal is to accept the survey at the end of October and to mail it out the beginning of November. The Town Council will review it before it goes out.

The Planning Board members discussed reviewing it, and since there are members on the Survey Committee, did not feel the need to review it before it is sent. Ms. Watson noted that there was talk at the Survey Committee Meeting about getting opinions from the children in schools and doing focus groups. She has talked to the schools and they liked the idea. This may add additional information to the process, but will not hold it up.

ITEM II: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment would be to Section VI: Future Land Use Directions and Section VII: Policies, Goals, and Implementation Strategies of the Freeport Comprehensive Plan

The Board members each had the opportunity to comment on the proposed language before hearing public comment.

Ms. Caisse asked about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and the use of Commercial II “C-II” and whether or not it should really be included. Ms. Larson clarified that this section of the Comprehensive Plan discusses what is existing and what might change. Mr. Manning suggested using “Route One South” and “east and west side” as appropriate; the other Board members agreed.

Ms. Larson noted that one page 3 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, in the existing text, people can see that what the Board is talking about is not a new idea, as it was included in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Deady asked about the deletion of the word “clustered” from this section. Ms. Larson stated that the term is generally not used with commercial development. Mr. Manning stated that it was a general term. The Board discussed this and agreed to leave it in.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Amendments to the following sections are proposed; Section 410: Commercial II District (omit); Section 409: Commercial I District; Section 104: Definitions; Section 514: Off-Street Parking and Loading; Section 201: General Restrictions; Section 427: Performance Standards for Commercial Districts.

Mr. Deady suggested that east and west needed to be clarified, noting that for lots on the west side of Route One, they needed to add “lots in the Commercial I (C-I) prior to the adoption date.”

Ms. Larson noted that although he could not make it tonight, Board member Mac Collins submitted comments by email (dated 10/05/07) prior to the meeting. The grammatical changes he suggested would be made. The Board discussed all of Mr. Collins comments, and agreed to the following changes:
Section VII.3.4 -The Board agreed that this section should be kept vague, as details are included in the Zoning Ordinance, however did make some minor wording changes.
Section VII.3.5 – The sentence was changed to: “Require landscaping that retains existing features considered valuable and appropriate and that incorporates…”
Section 527.A.4 -“lot” was changed to “building”.
Section 527 – In the second paragraph, sentence two, was added to read “For details on how various design standards may be met, refer to the Route One South Design Guidelines.”

Ms. Larson noted that she also had comments from the Codes Enforcement Officer regarding proposed Amendments to Section 201 pertaining to doubling the minimum lot size when there is a residential and non-residential use on a property. The Codes Enforcement Officer has suggested deleting this standard all together and the Board of Appeals also made this recommendation a few years ago. Ms. Larson suggested that it may be a mistake for the Board to omit this standard in the rural areas without discussing it. The Board agreed to just add the C-I District to the list of districts that are exempt from this requirement and to further discuss this standard at a later date.

Mr. Manning / Ms. Caisse moved to open the public hearing. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Deady stated that the Board has been discussing this item for a year and there have been a series of interactive meetings. There may be some cases where the Board has made a decision that individuals disagree with, but the Board is seeking new ideas. People can comment on the entire proposal at this time.

Ms. Larson stated that the goals of the proposal are to be small business friendly, allow higher density residential uses, ensure quality development, and to protect long-range traffic circulation along Route One.

Stephanie Slocum, Executive Director of Freeport Economic Development Corporation, thanked the Planning Board for the all inclusive process and the opportunity for public input. There are still a few issues remaining with some property owners, but she is here speaking on behalf of her Board. Their concerns are with shared parking and access points, but they are comfortable with the ordinance now and the FEDC Board supports the changes.

Jock McDonald, with partner Wishcamper owns 54 acres, in regards to the density, it is a positive movement towards greater density but with the difficulty of their site, greater density is needed for developing multifamily. Six to eight units per acre would be appropriate and greater density would be desirable.

Paul Kozell, representing 281 South Associates, 3 Bonney Street, and CPM Constructors, stated that they do not support the proposed changes, are concerned of the elimination of the C-II District and do not think that there is a rational basis. There will be some uses that will no longer be available to them, including the types of business they are involved in, and due to the 300 foot setback, would restrict some of the things that they want to do. They cannot understand why some businesses would not be permitted within 300 feet of Route One and feel that they should not be restricted. There should be more of an emphasis on architectural design to give them standards to work with and not take away options. They do not agree with the retroactive language which is a result of an application they have pending.

Andrew Arsenault, resident of Route One, stated that this document does not do much to help their site as a landowner on Route One. His family has owned their land since the 1800’s and this document is a threat to their existence as a residence as some uses will not longer be permitted. He is confused with the Policies and Goals of the Comprehensive Plan and if a two-family is not desired now. With the changes, he will lose the use of a two-family on a one acre lot. He feels that a two-family is a reasonable request. He disagrees with the curb-cut issue and he is upset that he has been told by the Town Planner that has does not have two curb-cuts on each lot. They have chosen to not develop their property but should be allowed to develop a residential use as well as to put in a two-family. He hates that he only has the option to develop commercially. The curb-cut language is tricky and he objects to the curb-cut issue especially because it would take away existing curb-cuts and it is manipulative. He would like to maintain the option to develop his property as residential and he is not opposed to his neighbors to be able to develop commercially but feels that as a resident, he got set aside. The two-family use is an issue because he can no longer get a two-family on 40,000 s.f. He agrees with the comments made by Mr. Kozell.

Kenn Mann, owns property on Route One South, stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan language is confusing, because it does not say where the growth areas are now and if changes are proposed to the growth areas. Ms. Larson noted that this area is a growth area. He strongly objects to losing curb-cuts on existing properties, and feels that new ones should be limited and existing curb-cuts should be grandfathered. He is concerned that existing curb-cuts will be put on the table for elimination.
Mr. Deady stated that the language allows for flexibility for the Project Review Board to eliminate curb-cuts only if someone comes to the Project Review Board for a change with a high density and they cannot just take a curb-cut away. Ms. Larson stated that a benefit of reducing curb-cuts is higher density and there is no change if someone does not want higher density. Mr. Mann stated that the Board could argue that any curb-cut is a safety issue. Ms. Larson stated that it would be discussed on a project-by-project basis and the Town Engineer, Public Works Director, and Police Chief are involved in the review of all development proposals and sometimes peer reviews are done.

Mr. Mann suggested that the real danger to safety and business is not curb-cuts, but is the speed of vehicles which. Traffic lights, not blinkers, would have a calming effect. State Statue states that a traffic study is needed to amend the Comprehensive Plan and there should be an analysis of Route One. Instead of a study being done, curb cuts are being eliminated and there is no basis to support it.

Mr. Mann also suggested that there be a time table for implementation, as required by the State. There should also be more of a description of the growth areas, as this section is confusing. He thinks that construction services should be allowed in the 300 foot setback from Route One, as it is allowed there now. He does not think that there should be different standards for buildings that are connected to public utilities. He does not care for the reference to the safety standards that curb-cuts must meet. The language on the number of signs per building should be omitted, as it is covered by the sign ordinance and the standard for flag poles is not clear. He supports the comments by Mr. Arsenault.

Mr. Manning clarified that the minimum lot size for properties connected to public versus private utilities is based upon the states requirement that to have a well and septic, 40,000 s.f. is required.

Mark Sangillo, 353 US Route One, owner of Imported Motor Cars, asked if he would be able to keep his two free-standing signs as the ordinance says that one is preferred. Ms. Caisse noted that this would be a preference, and he would need to comply with the standards of the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Larson noted that this recommendation exists today, and the Sign Ordinance is not being changed. Mr. Feagles stated that he will not be affected since his signs are existing. Mr. Sangillo thanked the Board for their time and efforts and for considering the needs and wants of the property owners.

Tom Schwarm, 11 Grover’s Crossing, asked if the Commercial District was being expanded on the YMCA property. He noted that if this is the case, if the YMCA ever ceases to exist, then these new uses would be available to the property and he would like to consider another vehicle to allow the YMCA use without the change to commercial. Ms. Larson summarized the proposed district boundaries as shown on the proposed map. In the case of the YMCA parcel, it would be expanded to include the area with the parking and airnasium. Since a portion of the property is already commercial, it seemed better in this case to follow the property line and be consistent.

Drew Wing, stated that this has been a long good process. He feels there is the need for architectural standards and decreased curb-cuts if there is increased density. There needs to be a mechanism to allow for flexibility and the commercial zone would be such a mechanism. It is unfortunate that Mr. Arsenault would have a loss of use on his property as his family has been there for so long. He thinks the changes will make the area look better.

Mr. Arsenault asked about procedure. Mr. Deady stated that the Board would discuss the amendments and how to proceed. Mr. Manning suggested that he would want to see another draft with the changes before the item goes to the Town Council. The other members agreed.

Mr. Feagles / Ms. Watson moved to close the public hearing. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays.

Ms. Caisse / Mr. Feagles moved to open the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

There were no additional comments.

Mr. Feagles / Ms. Watson moved to close the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Zoning Map Amendment – Commercial I and Commercial II Districts
The proposed amendment is to eliminate the Commercial II District from the Freeport Zoning Map and add that area to the Commercial I District.

Mr. Manning / Ms. Caisse moved to open the public hearing on the proposed map amendment to the Commercial I and Commercial II Districts. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

There were no additional comments.

Mr. Feagles / Ms. Watson moved to close the public hearing on the proposed map amendment to the Commercial I and Commercial II Districts. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays.

Mr. Deady asked the Board for reaction to the comments. Mr. Manning suggested that the two-family issue could be addressed, as that was not the intent and the use should be allowed. The Board discussed this and agreed to omit the land per dwelling unit on the west side of Route One, so that there could a a two-family on a 20,000 s.f. parcel. They left the proposed language on the east side of Route One, as proposed, as there was no loss.

Ms. Caisse stated that with construction services is seems to be that the use is taken away. Ms. Larson stated that the proposal would not make the existing use non-conforming. Mr. Kozell stated that construction services is permitted in the Commercial I and Commercial II Districts now and some of their business is within 300 feet of Route One. They are losing the ability to expand their business with the 300 foot buffer. Mr. Manning stated that he understands Mr. Kozell’s concern, but not all businesses would be good neighbors and would not be part of the gateway vision. Ms. Larson showed an aerial photo of where the 300 foot buffer would apply. If a business were non-conforming in the first 300 feet, they would only be able to expand up to 15 % in the setback, but could expand to the back.

Mr. Manning suggested that with construction services there may be certain aspects that they do not want within 300 feet of Route One but other aspects may be okay. Ms. Larson read the definition of construction services. The Board agreed to allow construction services within 300 feet of Route One, but under “Other Standards” they would state that bulk materials, stored and stockpiled materials, and large equipment and parts shall not be visible from US Route One. These standards would also apply to manufacturing and processing. Mr. Kozell offered to work with Ms. Larson on the language. Mr. Wing suggested that the Project Review Board could have oversight with particular operations. The Board agreed that they would not want the Project Review Board to be able to waive this standard. Ms. Larson noted that under the standards of Site Plan Review, the Project Review Board has the authority to require landscaping or screening.

Ms. Slocum asked if the Board had similar thoughts for other uses such as warehouse and storage facilities. The Board agreed that they are trying to work to make changes to the proposal that affected existing uses so that uses are not taken away from people. The Board has looked at other uses with 300 feet of Route One, and does not want to revisit that issue.
Mr. Mann asked if the Board were going to clarify the growth areas. Ms. Larson stated that the growth areas are shown on an existing map and she will make the change to the proposal so that it says “growth areas instead of “existing and proposed growth areas.”

Mr. Deady asked about language under the space and bulk standards for the C-I District and a mention of access points needing to meet safety standards. The Board decided that this sentence should be deleted. Ms. Larson clarified that the Town issues curb-cut permits on Route One, but since Maine Department of Transportation owns the road, they are also a stakeholder in the decision.

Mr. Manning spoke in regards to the implementation timeline for the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that the language could note that the process would be ongoing. Mr. Mann stated that the timeline is important since they are updating the Comprehensive Plan concurrently with the Zoning Ordinance changes and he feels that this takes away from the Comprehensive Plan and the intent. It makes the Comprehensive Plan irrelevant. Ms. Larson suggested that under the section of Goals and Implementation Strategies, a sentence to state that the Zoning Ordinance amendments be adopted concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Mr. Deady asked if the Town Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments. Ms. Larson stated no as there were no items of concern. Ms. Larson noted that there has been a Town-wide Comprehensive Transportation Study done and these amendments are consistent with that study.

The Board discussed the changes to the Zoning Map. Mr. Manning stated that the changes are consistent with the intent to try to use property lines as district lines. The Board agreed that they are okay with the proposed changes to the Zoning Map. Mr. Schwarm stated that it seems that by trying to clean-up the district boundary lines that are extending the commercial zone and setting a precedent. He suggested that the existing zoning line may follow the old boundary line of the YMCA property. Ms. Caisse noted that the Board had looked into adding the Lambert Road area to the Commercial District and decided against it. The Board would be okay with the Town Planner further investigating the land use change.

Ms. Larson asked the Board about the issue of making the proposed changes retroactive. It would be done as part of the motion and a retroactive date would be included. Mr. Deady noted that it is legal in most cases. Ms. Larson noted that an application has been submitted to convert and existing property into a storage facility within 300 feet of Route One and this would not be allowed by the new standard. Mr. Manning noted that there was a letter from the Town Attorney on this issue.

Mr. Mann advised the Board not to do this as it was not previously discussed in all of the past discussions and it is not fair to the property owner.

Ms. Larson stated that there would be a meeting to review the retroactive language and the Board could hold a public hearing on the issue. Mr. Manning asked if the change regarding that use had been made when the proposal came in. Ms. Larson stated that the application was submitted September 19th and in June, the proposed language had restrictions about certain uses within 300 feet of Route One. She did inform the applicant in August about the standards being discussed and informed them that they could be retroactive. The applicant decided to still proceed with developing their plans.

The Board agreed that they wanted to have a public hearing on the retroactive issue. It was noted that the Town Council would have the final say on whether or not the language was retroactive. The Board indicated that they would like to see a timeline on the discussions of the Commercial Districts. They will review the final proposal at the next meeting, but will not have a public hearing on the rest of the language. The public hearing is not closed however people will have the opportunity to comment at the Council level.

Mr. Feagles asked about the density standard of 15,000 s.f. of land per dwelling unit required, beyond 300 feet of Route One. He questioned how the Board came up with that number, since the issue brought up seems to be that it is not dense enough to develop property in the area and this is once of the last places in Town where there could be high density. Mr. Manning stated that in past discussions the Board was comfortable with this number, but not making it denser until the issue could further be revisited. There needs to be a discussion about density with density bonuses or transfer of development rights and more of an evaluation before the issue is revisited. Mr. Deady noted that this is an issue that needs to be revisited quickly.

The Board had a brief discussion about upcoming meetings. There would be a public hearing in November and the Board will take action on the proposal at that meeting. Ms. Larson noted that she would like to talk about the changes to Shoreland Zoning as they will be required by 2008. Mr. Deady suggested that it would be helpful to have someone come talk to the Board about transfer of development rights.

ITEM III: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.


Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier