11/20 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: David Marstaller (Chairperson), Erik Anderson, Jane Benson, Jason Donahue, Dale Whitmore, and Donna Larson (Town Planner). James Gorman and Clifford Goodall were excused.

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the September 12, 2007 Project Review Board meeting.
Mr. Whitmore / Ms. Benson moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the September 12, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays /1 Abstention (Anderson)

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson explained that she had done Staff Approvals for a new sign at the CO/OP on Main Street. The Staff Review Board has approved a Change of Use for 13 Middle Street and for antenna for US Cellular.

ITEM III: Site Plans
Maine Sailing Partners – Noble Drive
The applicant is presenting conceptual plans for a 9,600 s.f. building and parking area on Noble Drive. Tax Assessor Map 21, Lot 32A. Patco Construction Co., Inc and Maine Sailing Partners, applicant; William S. Bennett, owner; Kylie Mason, Sebago Technics, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that applicant is proposing a new building on a parcel of land which is located at the end of Noble Drive and abutting the interstate. The building will be the new home of Maine Sailing Partners, a company that manufactures sails. There will be a new driveway off the end of Noble Drive which will lead to an 8 car parking lot. The driveway has been situated in a way to provide the least possible disturbance to the site. Ten parking spaces are required by the Ordinance and the applicant is requesting a waiver to not build all ten spaces at this time. The final plans should indicate where the two additional spaces could be build, should the need arise. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the standards for a non-residential driveway to allow a width of 18 feet versus the 24 feet required by the Ordinance. The driveway and parking area will be gravel, however the ADA parking space and the pedestrian walkway in front of the building will be paved.

The metal building has been situated so that the smallest portion of the building is facing the abutting properties. There are no specific design guidelines or standards for this district and the building probably wouldn’t comply with requirements of other districts. One Board decision is whether the location of the building (not directly on U.S. Route One and adjacent to I-295) and a use that doesn’t require or desire visibility means that a metal building meets the standard; or could the building meet the standard with some minor modifications. The standard that the Board applies to all projects is “relation of proposed buildings to the environment”.

The site is mostly cleared now however there is some existing vegetation in the rear which will be retained. The applicant is proposing to add buffering along the property line to the south. There will be no outdoor storage or trash areas that will require screening. Information on Stormwater Management, lighting, signs and a detailed landscaping plan should be included with the final submission.

There are no public utilities in that part of town, and therefore there will be a well and subsurface wastewater disposal system on the site. The applicant should submit information indicating that there is a passing test pit on the site.

Kylie Mason, Sebago Technics, representative, stated that there will be a gravel driveway and an eight car gravel parking lot which will have a paved handicapped space and a paved walkway connecting to the building. They have tried to buffer the view of the building from the neighboring property and have met with the neighbor to discuss buffering. There will be a stormwater pond on site. There will overhead electric from Noble and then underground electric on-site and to the building. The building is 60’x160’, 9,800 s.f., and is situated so the smallest portion faces the neighbor. The building will not be visible from Route One and a small corner may be visible from I-295.

Mr. Whitmore stated that this parcel has a lot of wetlands which dump into the gully which has an urban impaired stream. He asked about the septic and hydrology of the site. Ms. Mason stated that there will be a retention pond on the site to treat stormwater. There will be minimal fill and they will not trigger a DEP permit as there is less than one acre of developed area. There is no need for a stormwater permit. There are passing test pits on the site.

Mr. Marstaller asked about tractor trailers accessing the building and about the overall use and appearance. Win Fowler, applicant, stated that tractor trailers will access the site about twice a year. Greg Patterson, Patco Construction Company, explained that the company prepares and makes sails. The building is a pre-engineered metal building with green siding and a little bit of masonry (split-face, 8” blocks) on the end wall. It is a manufacturing building and they have added some windows. The roof will be galvanized. They have chosen colors to blend with the environment. Mr. Donahue asked about the height of the eaves. Mr. Patterson stated that there is a significant slope to keep snow away from the business area.

Mr. Donahue asked the applicant how the building was harmonious with the terrain and environment. Mr. Patterson stated that the building is similar to buildings in other zones. The only person the building is visible to is the one selling the building. Ms. Mason stated that it is not a bad building and it is not on Route One or in a view shed of more than a few people. The building will be used for manufacturing and is on the ideal lot. Mr. Donahue suggested that the Board would need a sitewalk to see if the building was appropriate.

Mike Salisbury, 10 Noble Drive, stated that he cannot see the building and has no issue with the building. He has talked to the applicant and does have some concerns about the increase in traffic. He encouraged the Board to have a site walk and to look at the access which will be from the end of a dead-end road. He understands that this will not be retail traffic, but he has kids and is concerned for the change to the traffic pattern of a residential neighborhood. He asked why access was not off Bennett Drive instead of Noble Drive. He noted that the intersection of Route One and LaRue Drive is difficult and there is no stop sign at the intersection of LaRue and Noble. Noble Drive is very dark as there are no lights. It is a straight and narrow road and people drive quickly. There are no speed limit signs. This is a great Maine business; he just asks that the access be carefully considered.

Mr. Fowler stated that he has 3 full time and two part time employees who make sails for recreational sailboats. They do not see customers regularly on-site. UPS does come daily. This parcel does not directly abut Bennett Drive and the other side of the parcel is very wet.

Mr. Marstaller asked about proposed lighting. Ms. Mason stated that lights are proposed at the entrance but not in the parking area as the employees only work normal business hours.

Rich DeGrandpre, Town Councilor, stated that he supports the project which is good for the diversity in economic development. The company makes a good product and this is a great opportunity for Freeport. The design of the building is similar to others on Route One, but this one will not be visible. He stated that the traffic signs are not a big deal and they could discuss them with the Traffic and Parking Committee which meets once per month.

The Board agreed to have a sitewalk on October 10, 2007 at 5:00p.m. meeting at the existing turnaround on Noble Drive. The public is welcome to attend and abutters will be notified.

Mr. Anderson disclosed that he previously recused himself from the review of the next item due to his past employer being involved with the project, however he is no longer working for that company. The Board did not see any conflict.

Leon Gorman Park – Bow Street
The applicant is returning to the Board for a site plan amendment and Design Review Certificate to add additional land, including a skating pond and trails, to the existing park. Class C properties. Tax Assessor Map 13, portion of Lots 63-ETC, 79-ETC, and 81B. LL Bean, applicant; Town of Freeport, owner; Stephen Mohr, Mohr and Seredin, Landscape Architects.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant presented conceptual plans to the Board back in April, and is presenting plans for the remaining land and skating pond at this time. This project is within the Freeport Village Overlay District and the Design Review, however none of the improvements will be visible from the public right of way and therefore a Design Review Certificate is not required.

The skating pond is 11,000 s.f. and will be located in the berm of the existing stormwater pond. The pond will be 16 inches deep at the deepest point. There will be a 12’x18’ wood structure pavilion, covered seating, and trails that will go around the pond and connect to the existing trail system. An amphitheater and fire pit will be located at the north end of the pond. The applicant is proposing some signage, including, directional signs, a park identification sign, and a park monument stone.

Access to the pond will be from School Street. The Hilton Garden has agreed to allow 14 of their parking spaces to be used for the park. This will mean that the total number of parking spaces for the park is 24 spaces, with some parking at each end of the park. This lot will be plowed in the winter. A 6’ paved path will connect the parking area and pavilion. The parking area will be closed off at dusk to prohibit access to the park.

The applicant has submitted revised Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans. These plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer (see memo dated 09/20/07 for outstanding items). There are a few items to still be addressed; this has been added as a condition of approval. The applicant has also applied to the DEP for a revision of the NRPA permit.

Water and underground electrical service will be extended to this portion of the park. The applicant will also install a frost-free hydrant which will provide water to fill the pond. The applicant needs to get written approval from the Freeport Water District for this.

The pond will be illuminated with 400-watt floodlights. In addition there will be ceiling lights in the pavilion. Cut-sheets have been submitted. All fixtures need to have full cut-offs. How lighting will be used is a function of the management plan that is being reviewed by the Town Council and the Conservation Commission. Any comments that the Board has regarding this issued will be directed to the Town Council.
Steve Mohr, Mohr and Seredin, introduced Mike King and Janet Wyper who were also present to represent the applicant. Mr. Mohr explained that the trails will provide a continuous loop throughout the site and they will clean up the steep area and provide a connection with the parking area. They will not be using the existing stormwater pond and will be adding a new skating pond, pavilion (12’x18’ and 7’6” in height), amphitheater, fire pit and warming hut. Parking will be provide from the existing parking lot adjacent to the development. The layout of the park also allows room for the potential future extension of School Street. They are expecting approval of the amended DEP permit next week and DEP staff has not identified any issues. Signs will be the same as used at the other entrance. Construction will take about five or six weeks and the intent is to have this section of the park open for skating this winter.

Mr. Donahue asked if the warming hut was open on all sides. Mr. Mohr stated that it has been left open for security reasons. Mr. Donahue asked about the appearance of the pond in the off season. Mr. Mohr explained that the pond has a clay liner and is coated with stone. The catch basin will drain dry during the summer and the clay and stone combination should keep grass from growing and therefore retain the basin look. They are not using any geotextile.

Ms. Benson asked about the lighting plan. Ms. Larson stated that the applicant is working with the Town Council on park management issues and they will resolve issues such as lighting timers. There will be some safety concerns due to the location in the gulley, but if needed, the wattage can be reduced. Mr. Mohr stated that there will be (3) 400 watt, metal halite, hooded flood lights which will be set at an 85 degree angle. This is a lot of light and there will be a glow created from the ice. There will be a light control in the pavilion. The management plan will allow the lights here and on the walkways to only operate at a certain time.

Mr. Donahue asked about the size of the pond. Mr. Mohr stated that this pond is about 10,200 s.f. and for comparison the one in Yarmouth is about 18,000 s.f. They needed to make this pond a bit smaller to fit into the site. The Board agreed that the pond has a nice shape. Mr. Anderson asked why the stormwater pond was not being used. Mr. Mohr stated that the stormwater pond has the inability to hold water and if there is ice, it is thin due to the movement of the water. The stormwater pond is down gradient and is 6’-9’ lower than where this work is being done. They are using the walkway and a wood guard rail to discourage people from going down the embankment to the stormwater pond and they may also add some small “no skating” signs. The staff has suggested that a split rail fence be used instead of the guardrail and they need to finalize the size and style with staff.

Mr. Whitmore asked about snow removal. Mr. Mohr stated that the 6 foot walkway will allow access from the parking lot to the pond, access will be maintained in the winter, and there will not be equipment on the ice as it will be cleared with paddles. There is a hydrant to maintain the ice.

Mr. DeGrandpre asked about raised speed tables on Bow Street and if it were part of tonight’s discussion. Ms. Larson stated that this issued was being addressed by the Traffic and Parking Committee.

Rachel Mills, 89 Bow Street, stated that she would appreciate it if the lights were kept as low as possible as she will have a view of the pond. It is a big help to be able to see into the pavilion, as there have been security issues with the current pavilion and people being in there at night.

Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
The applicant will retain some of the existing vegetation. The new skating pond will be located next to the existing water quality pond. The trials will cause minimal disturbance and connect the parking lot, skating area, and to the remaining trail system.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
This is a Class C property in the Design Review District, however the improvements will not be visible from the public right-of-way. The trails will connect with the remaining trails on the property. The pavilion will be made of wood, as are the other structures on the property.

c. Vehicular Access.
Vehicular access to the parking lot will not be changed. This parking lot will be plowed in the winter. There will not be any vehicular traffic in the park.

d. Parking and Circulation.
In addition to the existing parking area on Bow Street, there will be 13 parking spaced provided in the existing parking lot owner by Dover Properties. This lot will be plowed in the winter. There will be a total of 24 parking spaces, with some on each end of the park.

e. Surface Water Drainage.
The applicant has submitted revised Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans. These plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer (see memo dated 09/20/07). There are a few items to still be addressed; this has been added as a condition of approval. The applicant has also applied to the DEP for a revision of the NRPA permit.

f. Utilities.
Underground electric service will be installed. There will be a frost-free hydrant installed to supply the water for filling the pond. The park will be connected to the public water system. The applicant needs to obtain written approval from the Freeport Water District.

g. Advertising Features.
Three types of signs are proposed: directional signs for the parking area; park identification sign; and a park monument stone. The park sign will be the same as the one approved for the Bow Street entrance. The sign face will be 12.25 s.f. and will be made of signboard and plywood with vinyl letters.

h. Special Features.
The skating pond will be installed next to the existing stormwater pond. There will also be a fire pit, pavilion, and amphitheater. The applicant is proposing landscaping to screen the park from the abutting properties to the north. The park will be owned and maintained by the Town of Freeport.

i. Exterior Lighting.
There will be some security lighting within the park along the trails and in the pavilion structure. The skating pond will also be illuminated. Details of how lighting will be managed should be included in the park management plan being developed by the Town Council.

j. Emergency Vehicle Access.
All Public Safety Department Heads have reviewed the plans.

k. Landscaping.
Existing vegetation will be retained where possible. The applicant is proposing additional landscaping along the northern property line. This will screen the developed area from the abutting property. The landscaping will blend with the existing landscaping on the property.


l. Environmental Consideration.
This project is not within the Shoreland Zone or the Marine Waterfront District. The project will be connected to both the public water and sewer systems. Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans have been submitted and reviewed by the Town Engineer. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has reviewed the plans and determined that there are no known Significant Wildlife Habitats on the property (letter dated 03/29/07). The applicant has applied to the Maine DEP for an amendment to the NRPA Permit.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of Section 602 Site Plan Review.

Mr. Anderson / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and site plan amendment, for LL Bean Inc. for the Freeport Village Park on Bow Street, to be built substantially as proposed, site plan August 22, 2007, finding that it meets the standards of Section 602 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance, with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
2) The applicant revised Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plans, as requested in the Town Engineer’s 09/20/07 memo, and to be approved by the Town Engineer.
3) The applicant obtain written approval from the Freeport Water District for the connection and installation of the frost-free hydrant.
4) Prior to any site work, the applicant receive approval from the DEP for the revision to the NRPA Permit.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Coastal Studies for Girls – Wolfe’s Neck Road
The applicant is returning to the Board for a site plan amendment to the previously approved plan, including a change to the phasing plan for the project, and to request an extension of the approval. No other changes are proposed. Tax Assessor Map 24, Lots 43, 44A, and 54 C. Coastal Studies for Girls, applicant; Wolfe’s Neck Farm Foundation, owner; William Walsh, Mohr and Seredin, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that phase I and II of the project will be switched. Previously, Phase I was converting the barn to a meeting hall and dining facility and putting on an addition. Phase II includes renovating the existing Ward House and using it for administration and housing for faculty.

Phase I will now be the renovation of the Ward House and stabilization of the barn. This will also include installing 2 septic tanks, pump chambers and a grease trap to connect to the approved leach field. The applicant will also construct the driveway and parking area to the rear of the building, and a temporary gravel parking area with 9 spaces. Phase II will be the renovation of the barn and the construction of the paved parking area, lawn parking, and required septic components.

The change in phasing will allow for the use of the Ward House as a dorm, offices, and classrooms, ultimately enabling the school to open sooner and on a smaller scale, accommodating no more than 14 students. The stabilization of the barn will prevent deterioration until the renovations in Phase II begin. This change in phasing will also allow the summer programming to start sooner, also on a smaller scale.

The Fire Chief has reviewed the change to the phasing plan and the use of the Ward House and has stated that the building must have sprinklers. In addition, all the conditions from the December 16, 2007 approval still apply.

The applicant would like the Board to allow an extension of the original approval. The project was approved on December 19, 2007 and the approval would expire a year from that date if substantial construction has not begin. The applicant is seeking an extension to allow the approval to be valid until December 19, 2008. This would allow the applicant more time to fundraise, to work out details with their contractors, and allow them to work around the winter conditions.

Bill Walsh, Mohr and Seredin, introduced Pam Erickson, co-founder of the Coastal Studies for Girls School. Ms. Erickson stated that they are requesting a phasing change and an extension of the approval. They are reversing the order of Phases I and II which will allow the school to open smaller and grow into a large school. This will be better for the farm and the community. They are also looking into off-site classroom space. Ms. Erickson gave a brief explanation of the curriculum and noted that the summer programs will remain unchanged.

Mr. Walsh stated that previously the barn and the area around it were part of Phase I. This has now been switched and the improvements and use of the Ward House will now be Phase I. The other phases will remain the same. They are adding nine temporary gravel parking spaces at the end of the driveway and therefore they will have 16 total spaces for Phase I. They have 9 employees. The septic tanks have also been moved to serve the Ward House due to the increase in flow. The complete renovation to the Ward House and the stabilization to the barn make sense, as they are the gateway to the property. The applicant is also seeking a one year extension of the original approval.

Mr. Whitmore asked if the well at the Ward House would supply enough water. Mr. Walsh stated that the new well would be put in during Phase I. The building will have sprinklers and there will be water storage on-site.

Mr. Anderson clarified that there is no change in use, just a change to the phasing plan and timeline. Mr. Walsh stated that was correct. Mr. Marstaller stated that this plan makes more sense and he asked if the applicant would be redoing the foundation of the Ward House. Paul Attardo, Van Dam Architects, stated that the building has a rubble foundation and they need to lift the building so it can be repaired. Mr. Whitmore stated that from previous discussions, he thought that they would keep the granite look.

Ms. Benson questioned disturbance of the site during construction. Mr. Walsh stated that the area of disturbance will not be that much different and they will stay off the field where people were concerned for the species.

Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance) changes to the previously approved findings are underlined if they are being added, and struck through if they are being deleted. All other findings of the previous approval are unchanged by this proposal.

d. Parking and Circulation.

This parking standard for a high school according to the Ordinance requires one space per each adult employee plus 25 parking spaces, for a total of forty spaces. The plans show 46 spaces. The 26 paved spaces will be built early on in the project and the remaining 20 lawn parking spaces will be installed when the dormitory is built. In the case of a special event, surplus parking will be available on the Wolfe’s Neck Farm property. A Traffic Impact Study has been completed by William Bray (09/20/06). No high crash areas have been identified on Wolfe’s Neck Road. The surface of the parking lot shall be of an environmentally sensitive material. In addition to the permanent 7 space parking lot, a temporary, 9 space, gravel parking lot will be installed during Phase I of the development to provide parking for the uses in the Ward House. This parking area will be removed during the construction of Phase II when the remaining parking is constructed.

f. Utilities.

There will be three private septic systems on-site; there is one existing system A new system to service the Ward House will be installed. The pump and tank will be located in front of the Ward House and close to the road. Albert Frick, licensed site evaluator, has located two sites for systems that meet the State Plumbing Code. Sevee & Maher, hydrogeologists, has done a nitrate analysis of where the plumes from the septic systems will go and a study on the availability of and the potential impacts on groundwater. State data on wells in the area show that all wells with data provided at least 300 gallons per day for a residence. The study concludes that adequate groundwater is available and the well location will not be in the area of the nitrate plumes. Due to the number of people this well will serve, the school is considered a Public Water Supplier by the State of Maine Drinking Water Program and the applicant will need to get State approval for the well. Obtaining this approval has been added as a condition of approval. This designation will require regular monitoring and reporting to the state. If the well is located off the site, the appropriate legal access must be obtained.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board move to approve an amendment to the previously approved plan for the Coastal Studies for Girls School, plan dated 6 September 2007, to be built substantially as proposed, finding that is meets the standards of Section 602 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of approval:
1) This approval incorporates by references all supporting plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions of approval.
2) All of the conditions for the original site plan approval on December 19, 2006, still apply.
3) This approval is valid until December 2008. If substantial construction us not commenced by
this date, the approval will become void unless such time limit is extended by the Project Review Board.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM IV: Subdivision
Freeport Living Retirement Community – PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is seeking preliminary approval for a retirement community off Stagecoach Road / Pine Street. The proposal includes adding 155 living units in a variety of housing types including a lodge and an assisted living building. This project requires both Subdivision and Site Plan Review. The location of the Retirement Community Overlay District was approved by the Freeport Town Council in October 2006. Tax Assessor Map 23, Lots 43, 45, 49, & 64. Greystone - Freeport Living LLC, applicant; Terrence DeWan, Terrence DeWan and Associates, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that since the last meeting the applicant has had the wetlands, soils, and topographic information updated which has resulted in some minor changes to the plan. The amount of net residential acreage has increased, however the number and types of unit has remained the same.

The greenhouse buildings shown on the conceptual plan have been removed, and those units have now been combined in to one assisted living structure. The location of the assisted living building and lodge have been changed and the two buildings will now be located on the southern end of the property (in the C-II District), with a skywalk connecting the buildings. The amenity building which was shown on the last plan has also been omitted, as those services will now be in the lodge. In addition, the road has been slightly realigned, based upon the updated topographic information. The applicant shows 85 parking spaces for the lodge and assisted living facility; 80 are required by the Ordinance. Each of the cottages would also have their own parking.

There is no longer any vehicular access on to Pine Street. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plans, and due to the new location of the lodge and assisted living building, and the layout of the road, emergency access on to Pine Street is no longer necessary. All of the buildings in the development will be required to have sprinklers.

Gorrill-Palmer has completed a traffic study. They have determined that this project is not large enough to warrant a State Traffic Permit. In addition, there is adequate site distance at the proposed entrance and no high crash locations have been identified. The applicant will be required to get a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Town of Freeport.

The applicant is proposing a conservation easement to the Freeport Conservation Trust over the land in the Resource Protection II and Medium Density Residential II Districts (this is not required by the Ordinance). The applicant would retain ownership of the land. There will be trails on this land which will connect to the interior walkways and to other parts of the site.

The applicant has submitted elevation drawings of the proposed buildings and one showing the view of the end cottage from Pine Street. All buildings are under the 35 foot height maximum. The main lodge will have a footprint of about 30,000 s.f. and the assisted living building will have a footprint of about 11,250. The applicant is thinking of siding the buildings will cement based clapboards and shingles and there would be a variety of window types. Final details of the buildings will be included with the final submission, but the applicant is looking for some general feedback so they can proceed with the final designs.

The applicant has received written approval for the connections to the public water and sewer systems. The applicant is working on legal documents for the project. Greystone/Freeport Living will retain ownership of the development. They will be sole owners of the assisted living component as they will be rental units, and will have co-operative ownership with the tenants in the remaining units. The applicant will be talking to the Town and the Water Company regarding access to the water tank. This will also need to be included with the final draft of the legal documents.

The applicant is working on Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plans which will need to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to returning for final approval. The project is only impacting 4,056 s.f. of wetlands and therefore a Wetland Alteration Permit from the DEP will not be required. The applicant will need to apply to the DEP for a Site Location Permit and this approval should be granted before the applicant returns to the Board.

Drew Wing, applicant, stated that they have responded to the concerns of neighbors and plans have been adjusted. Services have been consolidated and the assisted living functions are entirely in the commercial zone which will decrease ambulatory traffic and the need for emergency access to Pine Street. They are creating a pedestrian friendly environment through the use of trails and sidewalks. They have avoided the wetlands, are impacting less that 4,300 s.f. and have decreased the area of land cuts. They are only using half of the available net residential acreage. A non-development zone is proposed for the area in the Resource Protection II District and they will offer a conservation easement to the Freeport Conservation Trust. The amenity building shown in the concept plan has been removed and consolidated into the independent living building. This will allow more intermingling within the community.

The applicant presented renderings which included a view of the cottage from Pine Street and of the appearance of the lodge, assisted living building, and the connecting sky walk. The skywalk will be good for operations, especially in the winter, and will be good for the sharing of services. Images of the front of the lodge and a sample cottage layout were also presented.

Mr. Marstaller asked what the size of the largest building would be. Mr. Wing stated that the footprint of the lodge would be about 30,000 s.f. and the building would have three stories plus a basement. The third story would be built into the roofline. They feel like this is the smallest size building they can do, for the programming that is needed.

Ms. Benson asked about the history of the location of the lodge. Mr. Wing stated that it was previously in the Rural Residential I district and it is now located in the Commercial District. The building will be cut into the hill and will be camouflaged by the tree line. It is further from Route One now, but in the same general area. It is slightly higher than when the Board previously looked at it.

Mr. Donahue asked about the composition of the buildings closest to the entrance. Mr. Wing stated that ideally the cottages would have cedar or cement planks. They are doing the cost engineering now, and will make adjustments as needed. There will be daylights basements as they can be done and they will break-up the facades of the structures. They want the buildings to look good when people drive in. Mr. Marstaller asked if people will see the larger buildings when they drive in. Mr. Wing stated that they will have little visibility of the larger building since it will be below the tree line. Mr. Donahue asked about the floor elevation of the lodge. Mr. Attardo for the applicant state that the first floor of the main lodge is at 204 feet. Mr. Wing noted that the elevation of Route One is about 130 feet. It was noted that the water tower at the top of the hill is significantly higher.

Mr. Anderson asked how the existing gravel service road relates to the road configuration. John Kennedy, Sevee and Maher, stated that the Water District wants to maintain access to the tower and they will most likely grant access over their road so that the District can access the tower and maintain a hydrant. They will work with the Water District on the design. They have also met with the Fire Chief a few times regarding fire safety and access to the site. The Fire Chief is okay with the proposed road widths since the buildings are sprinkled.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the location of this development in relation to abutting houses. Mr. Wing stated that it is about 200 feet from the closest cottage to a house. The house on the abutting property near the lodge does not show on the plan due to its distance.

Ms. Benson asked about the location of the building closest to Pine Street and about the community gardens. Mr. Wing stated that the building closest to Pine Street will have five units and parking in front of the porch. There will still be community gardens in the area of the existing house.

Mr. Anderson / Mr. Whitmore moved to open the public hearing. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Robert Aranson, resident of Winston Hill, and representative of Citizens for Neighborhood Preservation, stated that the group is less than pleased with the Town’s handling of this matter. There are some factors that should have prevented this project. This area is Rural Residential and Resource Protection Zoning and is a neighborhood area and they object to this land being rezoned as a commercial property. There is already enough density at the head of Pine Street and this will also increase the density in the area. This is also a bedrock Aquifer recharge area. He has spoken with Bob Gerber, who is a resident, and has studied aquifers in Town and will be submitting a statement on his behalf. In 1986, Mr. Gerber studied and identified potential bedrock aquifer recharge areas in Freeport and they are limited. Some of these areas have been confirmed and the Town should be investigating and protecting these areas through rezoning. Mr. Gerber sent an email to the Town Planner in June about this. This neighborhood group will be working on putting referenda on the ballot to eliminate the Commercial II Zone and the floating overlay district, and to zone separately bedrock aquifer recharge areas. The group is prepared to seek an injunction on this project if there is a bedrock aquifer recharge area on this site.

Julie Coleman, resident of Winston Hill, asked what would happen if this project is not completed, what control there is over future ownership and about the management of the property. Mr. Marstaller stated that the applicant will have to put up a performance guarantee to ensure that the proposal is completed as presented; this is part of final approval. Ms. Larson stated that if ownership changes, the developer will have to return to the Town and the DEP if someone else is going to build it and they would still be required to have a performance guarantee. If there were changes to the proposal, they would have to go back to the Board. Mr. Wing stated that they have had discussions with a local management company, but have not finalized anything yet. John Orestis, who has been talking with the applicant about managing the facility, stated that his company has been in the area for 25 years and they own and/or manage other facilities. Any agreement would be for a 5 year term. Mr. Wing stated that the cottages and independent living units would be for sale and the assisted living units would be rented.

Diane Feskanich, Winston Hill, asked about the land being given to the Freeport Conservation Trust (“Trust”). Mr. Wing stated that they are in discussion with the Trust about giving them an easement on 8 acres of the property and there will be trails. They will try to maintain standards for only clearing within 30 feet of the buildings and will cleanup other areas as needed. The land between the development and Winston Hill will look like a forest. Bob Santomenna, Freeport Conservation Trust, stated that a conservation easement has been offered to them. They would try to keep the land in a natural wooded state and they would expect the right to maintain public trails in that area and on the development. The easement would mean no development on that area forever and trails and woodlands with public access.

Doug Martin, Harbor Ridge Road, stated that he was less than pleased in the initial stages of the process of the overlay district and the ability for such a district to be located anywhere. They developer has done a good job listening and scaling back the project. He asked about the traffic study completed by Gorrill-Palmer and suggested that more of a traffic study would be needed and it should be done at the expense of the developer and be reviewed by an independent professional. He is concerned for the taxes and increased revenue and the ability of the project to become non-taxable. The use will have a high sewage and water use and the sewer plant is already approaching a critical level. We need to make sure that this will not have a negative impact on the river or the fishing industry.

Carter Becker, resident, asked what protection there is for vehicles during construction accessing the site and which will cause damage to infrastructure. He requested that they bring vehicles in on their own road off of US Route One to minimize damage on the resident’s road. The development is coming closer to Stagecoach Road and it would be a good thing to retain the under story.

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

John Sevee, Sevee and Maher Engineers, stated that the issue of groundwater came up when the applicant went before the Town Council. He spoke with Mr. Gerber about his work. Mr. Gerber reviewed aerial photos for topographic features which suggested that there were underlying bedrock features throughout town. This particular area has not been field tested. When the Gerber study was done, areas were zoned as Resource Protection to protect draw down. There is about a 25 acre potential in this area with about 8 acres being on this property and therefore the building has been relocated out of the Resource Protection area. The applicant is proposing public water and sewer so there is no threat to water quality. This area was delineated in the Gerber Report because it abuts the South Freeport well water supply and this area may potentially be interconnected.
Mr. Marstaller asked about the new impervious surface and the relation to the recharge area. Mr. Sevee stated that there will actually be a net gain in recharge to the site. The Department of Environmental Protection will review this application too and will look at this issue.

Mr. Sevee showed an aquifer map and noted that the section of the property in that area, will be the conservation area. There are other areas in town where there are sand and gravel aquifers and the water quality and quantity is better than in the bedrock areas. This is due in part to the high amounts of granite in the bedrock areas and radon standards which have been reduced. In the future, a bedrock water source without treatment is less likely.

Mr. Marstaller asked what precautions the applicant was taking for radon. Mr. Wing stated that they will put the piping in for systems and the homeowners can test and install if needed. Mr. Marstaller asked about the traffic. Mr. Wing stated that two analysis’ have been done and the site distance is two times the requirement and the traffic generated will not trigger a permit from the State. Ms. Larson suggested that if the Board wanted, a peer review could be done of the traffic study completed by Gorrill-Palmer. She noted that the applicant will also have to pay a substantial impact fee.

Ms. Benson asked about the road length. Mr. Wing noted that the length of the road has been reduced about 1,000 feet. Ms. Benson noted the difference in the appearance of the road width between the conceptual plan and the plan being presented tonight. Mr. Tom Farmer, representative, stated that is was just the way the right of way was shaded and there was no change to the road width. Mr. Marstaller noted that the plan is the same overall with number of units and building sizes, however the building footprints have been reduced.

Mr. Anderson asked about impact fees and access to the site during construction. Ms. Larson stated that they would access the site off Route One and they will build enough of a road bed to get in. She has not yet calculated the Pavement Maintenance Fee, but it could be in excess of $100,000.00. The traffic will changes over a period of years, as the entire development will not be built at once.

Mr. Wing spoke in regards to taxes paid from this project. He noted that the applicant entered into an agreement with the Freeport Town Council so that if they ever change the use from a profit to non-profit use, it will be done as a tax paying entity unless otherwise approved by the Town Council.

Mr. Marstaller asked about cutting restrictions. Mr. Wing stated that they will be sensitive to the neighborhood and will want to clean up dead trees by the trails, but will retain a thick buffer.

Ms. Benson asked about the capacity of the sewer system. Mr. Wing stated that every project will impact the sewer system and they are estimating about 25,000 gallons per day. The Sewer District has reviewed the request for a connection and in a letter stated that they have the capacity. The more users that connect mean more fees which helps to update and maintain the system. Ms. Larson noted that the Sewer District reviews all plans for projects that want to connect to the utility, and they have never expressed concern about being close to capacity.

Ms. Benson asked about stormwater. Ms. Larson stated that this would be reviewed by the DEP and the Town Engineer. The new stormwater rules look for simpler and more dispersed systems so water can infiltrate more than run off. Mr. Sevee noted that to maintain water quality, stormwater is evenly dispersed to smaller areas.

The Board agreed that they would like a peer review of the traffic study done. Mr. Anderson encouraged people to bring traffic concerns to the Traffic and Parking Committee. Ms. Larson noted that as recommended by the Town-wide Transportation Study, the developer of the Concord Brook Condominiums has added a turn lane at the intersection of Pine Street and Route One.

Mr. Donahue noted that lighting could be an important aspect of the project and he would like to see a comprehensive lighting plan, including façade lighting, included in the final submission. He also noted that the location of the entrance has been improved since the last plan.

Ms. Benson noted her concern for the location of the lodge which has been moved. Ms. Larson stated that the lodge is in the same plateau as when the Board previously looked at the plans. Mr. Wing noted that the sky bridge gives a sense of elevation between the buildings and there is about an 11 foot difference between the two buildings. They have looked at every angle of placement of the development and this is how the lodge ended up in this location. Ms. Benson suggested that the Board take another site walk. No other Board members though that this was needed at this time.

Mr. Anderson / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board move to approve the preliminary plans for the Greystone/Freeport Living Retirement Community, plans dated 07/26/07, revised 08/20/07, with the following conditions of approval:
1) This approval does not constitute approval of the final plan or intent to improve the
final plan.
2) In addition to the submission requirements of the Freeport Subdivision Ordinance and the Freeport Zoning Ordinance, the following items be incorporated into the final plan and/or submission:
a) written approval for a Site Location Permit from the DEP
b) approval of the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plans from the Town engineer.
c) Copies of all legal documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 1 Nay (Benson)

ITEM V: Persons wishing to address the Board on non-agenda items.
None.

ITEM VI: Adjournment
Meeting adjourned ay 9:33 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier