12/13 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007
6:30 p.m.

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

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the September 26, 2007 and October 10, 2007 Project Review Board meetings.

Ms. Benson / Mr. Whitmore moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the September 26, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays / 2 Abstentions (Gorman, Goodall).

Mr. Donahue / Mr. Gorman moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the October 10, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays / 3 Abstentions (Anderson, Goodall, Whitmore).

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson informed the Board that she had done a Staff Approval for an alteration to the loading dock at the new LL Bean Hunt/Fish Store and for a change to architectural shingles at Brown Goldsmiths.

In addition, Ms. Larson informed updated the Board on the following:
- People should be receiving copies of the Community Attitude Survey in the mail. They can pick up a copy at Town Hall if they do not get one, or if they need another. One survey has been sent to residents, owners, and renters. Surveys were not sent to people out of town or to businesses as the purpose is to gage what it is like to live here. Surveys are due by November 30th and a self-addressed stamped envelope has been included. The findings will be reported in mid-January.
- The Planning Board has made a recommendation to the Town Council for proposed Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding the Route One South corridor. The Town Council will hold a public hearing on December 18, 2007.
- In the new Design Review District there is a situation where a garage which was built in 1960 and is on the same property as a Class A building. The house is Class A, but the garage is not. The property owner wants to take the garage down to construct an addition for which he will be required to come to the Board. She has looked at this with the Historical Society and the Codes Enforcement Officer and decided that since the garage is not Class A, the four month waiting period does not apply. The Board indicated that they were okay with this decision.

The Board reviewed and took action on the following Findings of Fact:

Findings for Wilbur’s of Maine (project reviewed and approved at the 10/10/07 mtg)
Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The scale of the building will not be altered.

2. Height.
The height of the building will not be altered.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The proportion of the building’s front façade will not be altered.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The rhythm of solids to voids in the front facade will not be altered.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The proportions of opening within the facility will not be altered.

6. Roof Shapes.
The roof shape will not be altered.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The applicant is proposing to install Hardie Plank composite siding with up to a four inch reveal. The material will have a smooth finish. A similar composite material has been used on other buildings in Town and some buildings nearby. The reveal of the clapboards are to be such that the bottom of the board lines up with the very bottom and the very top of the windows. The smooth finish of the board rather than the textured side is acceptable. The siding on the large building will be painted Pumpkin (California Paint Historic Pallet). The trim has been painted a pale yellow and the accent color on the doors will be brown. The smaller building will be painted yellow, with the Pumpkin trim and brown accents.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The relationship of spaces to buildings on the streets will not be altered.

9. Site Features.
Site features will not be altered.

10. Signs.
No signs are proposed.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Goodall moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact for Tom Wilbur for new siding at 174 Lower Main Street, application dated 09/21/07, finding that the proposal meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance. With the following conditions of approval:
1. The reveal of the clapboard not exceed 4 inches and that the bottom of the boards line up with the very bottom and the very top of the windows.
2. Exposing the smooth side of the board is acceptable.
3. The use of Hardie Plank is acceptable.
Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays/1 Abstention (Goodall)

ITEM III: Design Review and Site Plans
22 Main Street – Building Demolition
The applicant is seeking a Design Review Certificate to demolish the building at 22 Main Street. The four-month notice period has ended. Design Review District I – Class B property. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lots 132. Fassett House, owner and applicant.

Ms. Larson stated that the applicant has met the requirements of the four-month notice period. She explained that there were two parties previously interested in the building. Mr. Simpson (who took the building previously at 24 Main Street) is no longer interested in the building. Another property owner did extensive research into relocating the building to a different location in the village by getting multiple estimates to move and rehabilitate the building. It was not financially feasible. The applicant does not want to keep the building for their use.

Mr. Gorman / Ms. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve a Design Review Certificate for the removal of an existing building at 22 Main Street, in that the requirements of the four-month notice period have been met, and that another location for the building has not been found, application dated 06/14/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Design Review Ordinance. Vote: 7 Ayes / 0 Nays

Belcher House (Reebok) – 31 Main Street
The applicant is seeking a Design Review Certificate for new signage, a canopy, and a weathervane. Design Review District I - Class A building. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 21. 31 Main Street, Freeport, Maine LLC, owner; David Merrill, TFH Architects, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that as a condition of the applicant’s September approval; they are now returning to the Board for approval of the signs on the south side of the building and for the weathervane. Fred Reeder has reviewed and approved the signs for their compliance with the Freeport Sign Ordinance.

The applicant has revised the proposal, so that the entrance on the south side of the building now has a 12” white aluminum band instead of a canopy. There will be dimensional letters mounted on the band, with the letters ranging from 9”’-14”. On the front portion of the building, the arched gateway has been removed and signs are proposed on the eave of the porch. The signs will also be made of dimension letters and will range from 12”-16” in height. The letters will be either black or dark blue.

The applicant is proposing a weathervane to be located on the top of the building. The weathervane would be 22” high, by 24” wide, have the traditional compass points and a schooner. The material will be copper.

Dave Merrill, TFH Architects, spoke with his client and revised the signage as proposed. This is a simplified version that does not detract from the historic nature of the building. He gave the Board an overview of the signage proposal and noted that the signs on the roof will not be illuminated.

Ms. Benson asked about the weathervane and the proposed icon. Mr. Merrill stated that an alternative icon has not been eliminated, but he told the tenant if they wanted to do something else they would need to design it and return to the Board. For now they are proposing to go with a traditional design.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C 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.

5. Relationship of Facade Materials.
Any repairs to the building including siding, windows, doors and shingles will be wood components to match the existing features. The new aluminum storefront is being added to the addition connecting the house and carriage house. An aluminum canopy will be added over the south side entrance.

10. Signs.
The applicant is proposing a series of new signs and will be relocating the existing ground sign. The sizes of the signs have been reviewed for their compliance with the Freeport Sign Ordinance. Not all of the signs will be illuminated, however those that are will be lit with either gooseneck or ground fixtures. The signs will be constructed of wood or plastic. The lettering will be either dark blue or black. The logo for Reebok may also contain some red. The sign over the side entrance will be located on top of the aluminum band over the entrance, and the signs near the front entrance will be located on the side of the building facing the parking lot and on the eave of the porch. These three signs will consist of dimensional letters.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for 31 Main Street, Freeport, ME LLC for improvements to the Belcher House, to be built substantially as proposed, plans dated 10/23/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review 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) Prior to any site work, the applicant obtain a building permit and sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 7 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Gorman recused himself from the review of the next item and stepped down to join the public.

Freeport Village Station – Signs - Mill Street/Depot Street
The applicant is proposing new project identification signs. No other changes are proposed. Design Review District I - Class A & C properties. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lots 112-ETC, and 114. Berenson Associates, applicant; Sean Selby, Arrowstreet, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the signs were not approved at the last meeting and the applicant has since revised the design. The applicant has also made a few minor changes to the previously presented signs. This includes a modification to the design of the elevator and restroom signs, and the addition of directional signs which will be attached to some of the lamp posts.

In regards to the project identification signs, there will be two signs at the Main Street entrance, one at the Bow Street entrance, and two near the Mallet building. The signs will be made of aluminum and 15 s.f. in size. Each sign will have name plates for two tenants. There are 8 different panels being presented, as the applicant would like the ability to change the signs seasonally. Approval of all 8 sign options is requested.

Sean Selby, representative from Arrowstreet, thanked the Board for the criticism at the last meeting stating that it was very well placed; he hopes this proposal responds positively. They want the name of the development visible at each entrance and the signs will be on the same lamp posts used throughout the project. The tenant plates will allow for signs for storefronts that cannot be seen from Main Street. The plates must be this design to fit with the design of the overall sign. Mr. Marstaller noted that the signs will be changed seasonally with the store names below.

Mr. Donahue asked about the lighting manufacturer and noted that the lights look great. He asked about the single fixture and sign proposed on Bow Street, and stated that it is too bad that the other lights on Bow Street do not match. Mr. Selby stated that he could not remember who the lighting manufacturer was, but he could get that information. The lamp posts with the signs are about 16 feet in height, with posts throughout the project being 12’ or 16’ in height. They are working with Mr. Leighton, the abutting property owner on Bow Street, on an easement and are proposing a sign and light to go at the end of that plaza. If they cannot come to an agreement on the easement, they will pull the sign back on to their own property.

Mr. Goodall stated that this is a very good proposal which is subtle, sophisticated, and understated.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C 10. Signs:
The applicant is proposing project identification signs to be located at each of the three entrances for a total of five signs. The signs will be located on the lamp posts and will be 15 s.f. in size. The signs will be made of aluminum. There will be two tenant name plates on each of the five signs. There are 8 designs being presented and the applicant has requested approval so that they can seasonally change the signs. The applicant has revised the design of the elevator and restroom signs and is proposing to add some directional signs to lighting posts throughout the project.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Goodall / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Berenson Associates for project identification signs at Freeport Village Station, plans dated 11/01/07, finding that they meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review 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) Prior to any site work, the applicant obtain a sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays (Gorman recused)

Mr. Gorman rejoined the Board.

Bow Street Realty – Exterior Alterations and New Signs – Bow Street
The applicant is seeking approval to add a new window to the front of the former Bridgham and Cook Ltd building, and to add new signs and lighting. The applicant is also seeking approval for after-the-fact exterior alterations at the JCrew building. Design Review District I – Class C building. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 118-ETC. Bow Street Realty LLC, applicant; Fred Leighton, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant has made application for some alterations to the former Bridgham and Cook Ltd. Building on Bow Street. At the same time, he also needs to apply for some after the fact approvals, as some improvements made to this building and the JCrew building were not previously approved.

JCrew – All of the following changes are after the fact:
1) A 9” white trim board has been added to the front façade
2) The location of the stairs has been shifted, a vinyl rail system has been added, and the steps are constructed of composite material instead of wood as previously approved.
3) The two square windows on the front were shifted up higher on the peak and the trim detail was not added as there is no room.
4) The two glass plate windows on the side of the building were replaced with four smaller windows which are similar to the windows used on the front of the building. The windows take up the same approximate area.
Betsy’s (former Bridgham and Cook)-
The applicant is seeking after the fact approval for:
1) Using composite material and a vinyl rail system on the ramp and stairs, as opposed to the wood materials that were previously approved.
2) Adding white wood trim around the entrance.

The new changes the applicant is proposing includes:
3) A New business sign and light over the entrance – This sign will be carved wood with a purple
background and gold lettering and graphic. The dimensions are 8 feet in length and 22 inches in height.
4) Two gooseneck lights over the entrance area
5) A new sign with two gooseneck lighting fixtures on the rear of the building – This sign will
have gold leaf decals and not be carved. The logo may be omitted. Same dimensions as
sign on front.
5) Install a new 5’x7’ window on the front façade of the building.

Fred Leighton, property owner, stated that other than the after-the-fact approvals, he is also proposing to add a new 5’x7’ window to the front of the Betsy’s building. The window will have green trim, with 5 inch white trim around that. The trim will be aligned with the mullions above the door. The window will be used to show merchandise. He explained the reasons for some of the after-the-fact changes, and noted that composite and vinyl materials were used, along with window to match the new windows on the front of the building.

Mr. Marstaller asked if the window for Betsy’s was a plate with no mullions. Mr. Leighton stated yes; it would be like the windows on JCrew, but will match the trim of the door. Mr. Donahue stated that the windows on JCrew turned out well. He asked about the sign over the roof. Mr. Leighton stated that the JCrew sign on the roof has been abandoned, but there will be a sign on the side over the new windows. They will also be removing the words “Factory Store” from their signs.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The scale of the buildings will not be altered.

2. Height.
The height of the buildings will not be altered.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The installation of a 9 inch white trim board helps to break up the expanse of the front façade of the JCrew building.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The rhythm of solids to voids in the front façade of the former Bridgham and Cook building will be altered with the addition of a solid glass plate window in the front. The window will be located next to the store entrance.

5.Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The new window on the former Bridgham and Cook building will be rectangular in shape and 5’x7’ in size. The windows on the side of the JCrew building are rectangular with two smaller panes above a single glass pane window. There are four of these windows and they are similar to the aluminum storefront system.

6.Roof Shapes.
The roof shape will not be altered.

7.Relationship of Facade Materials.
The steps and entry ways are made of composite material with a vinyl rail system. The window and door trim on the buildings is wood.

8.Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The front steps on the JCrew building have been shifted and extend towards the road, as did the previous entrance to the building.

9. Site Features.
Site features will not be altered.

10. Signs.
There will be a new business sign and light over the entrance to the former Bridgham and Cook building. The “Betsy’s” sign on the front will be carved wood, with a purple background and gold lettering and logo. The sign on the rear will be similar, except the lettering will be gold leaf decal instead of carved. The sign on the rear will be illuminated with gooseneck fixtures. The signs will be 8’ in length and 22” in height.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Anderson / Ms. Benson moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and Design Review Certificate, for Bow Street Realty for exterior alterations at their property on Bow Street, proposal dated 11/06/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review District 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) Prior to installation, the applicant obtain a building permit and a sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 7 Ayes / 0 Nays

Maine Sailing Partners – Noble Drive
The applicant is presenting final 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 the applicant is returning to the Board for final approval of a new 9,600 s.f. building at the end of Noble Drive. The applicant has revised the building elevations to incorporate comments made at the last meeting. The layout and spacing of the doors and windows has been adjusted, trim has been added, and the entrance has been revised.

Due to the changes in the building design, the applicant has altered the site plan as needed to accommodate building changes such as the addition of a door and of the overhead door. Additional landscaping has also been added to the plan to aid in the screening of the building on the front side and facing the highway. The landscaping is on a berm approximately 2’ higher than the floor elevation of the building. There was talk at the last meeting about access from Bennett Road. The applicant has submitted an aerial photo showing the actual location of the property lines and the environment constraints, and how access from Bennett Road, which is a private road, is not an option.

The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the width of a two-way residential driveway to be 20 feet wide instead of the 26 feet required by the Ordinance. The Town Engineer has reviewed the request and suggested that a reduced driveway width of 20 feet would be adequate. Based upon the size and nature of the development, a reduced driveway width may be appropriate as the proposed driveway should provide safe and adequate access to the site. If the Board feels that this is an appropriate request, they will need to act on a waiver.

The applicant is also seeking approval to not build all of the required parking spaces at this time. The applicant is proposing to only build 8 spaces; 11 are required. The applicant has showed the three additional spaces on the plan, to show that they have the room to build them should the need arise.

The applicant has submitted stormwater management and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the Town Engineer. It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town of Freeport. No signs are proposed at this time. If the applicant wishes to install a sign in the future, they will need to return to the Board.

Mr. Marstaller noted that some Board members had missed the prior meeting(s) where this item was discussed. He wanted to make sure that those members (Goodall, Anderson, and Whitmore) had read the minutes to know where the review is at. Mr. Goodall, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Whitmore indicated that they had read the minutes and reviewed the materials submitted.

Kylie Mason, representative from Sebago Technics, stated that they have made changes as suggested by the Board. Changes include clustering the windows near the entrance, adding landscaped berms, making more of an entrance, adding window trim, and adding additional screening. The entrance will be green vinyl and some shingles. The back of the building is 16’ and the front is 20’. The berm will cover the bottom portion of the building.

Mr. Goodall asked about the visibility of the building from the public right-of-way. Ms. Mason stated that the building could be seen from the end of Noble Drive and from a slower speed on I-295. They have looked at an aerial to see how to cluster the trees in front of the building.

Mr. Marstaller stated that this is a visible site from the highway and the building will be up on a berm as well. It is also visible from Route One when the leaves are off the trees, as the site is quite open. Ms. Mason explained the topography of the site, again noting that landscaping and berms have been added to the visibly open areas. Plantings include a variety of trees throughout the site with some additional plantings near the building.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the height of the doors. Ms. Mason stated that the height is 18 feet and it is requested as that is the size needed to conduct business.

There were no comments from the public.

Mr. Donahue stated that he continues to have difficulties with the scale and form of the building. They have tried to screen the building and have made improvements, but in its naked form it is hard to find the building compatible with its surroundings.

Ms. Benson stated that the design has come a long way, the site is a good distance from the public, and it is an industrial building. They have added elements to make it more compatible and it looks good for this type of building. This is an approved use for this zone and adds to the diversification of Freeport. There are other large buildings that are also visible from the highway.

Mr. Gorman stated that he drove on the interstate and this site does not have much frontage. There is some cleared frontage but it is on the abutting Bennett site.

Mr. Marstaller stated that he disagrees and the building is 60’ x 100’. This building needs to meet the standard for proposed buildings and the relation to the environment, fitting harmoniously, and being compatible. He has a problem with the building which belongs in an industrial park. To change it to be more compatible they could make it more barn like, or change design features such as the roof, window treatment, and doors. The scale of the office area does not look right. He wants this to work and to not set a precedent for this zone. Other buildings in this zone have gone out of their way and added expense to make the buildings fit more in town. The screening is good, but if a building cannot stand on its own, then it is not visually compatible. His suggestion is that the applicant goes back to the drawing board and come up with something that looks less industrial.

Ms. Benson stated that she disagrees. This building is far from other uses and is an industrial building in a rural setting. A building can look industrial and still look good. The use needs a big open space inside. If the Board is concerned about a precedent, then they need to go to the Planning Board regarding sizes and materials on Route One north.

Mr. Gorman stated that he did not think that the building was highly visible from Route One or the interstate, and this is the type of use Freeport is looking for.

Mr. Donahue stated that he has concerns for approval, and even though this is a great use for the Town, there is a compatibility issue.

Mr. Goodall asked about the exterior of the building. Ms. Mason stated that there is some vinyl on the exterior, but it is mostly metal and it will be painted ash gray. Mr. Goodall noted his concern for the north end of the building facing the Bennett’s and I-95. The wall could be improved if the trim was extended around the corner to break up the façade. In addition, there is an open field which is not needed, so a diversity of plantings could be added to the field. Ms. Mason stated that she agrees, but she thought that the positioning of the proposed plantings is already lining up with the building. She asked Mr. Goodall exactly what he was looking for. Mr. Goodall suggested an arboretum look including scattered conifers and a few other types of trees which would then soften the sideline. He would suggest starting with 4’-6’ trees. Ms. Mason asked if this could be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Goodall stated that is would be done as a requirement that the applicant return to the Board with a planting plan before spring. He suggested that trim be added to the rear elevation, noting that since it may go through the windows, they should add a few more trees to the rear. He stated that he understands Mr. Marstaller’s concerns, but this is an isolated site.

Mr. Whitmore stated that the town needs less retail and more manufacturing. This is out of the way of many things, and adding trim and trees to the back is a good idea. He would vote for the proposal if the road width waiver is not granted.

Mr. Anderson stated that he sees the concerns of other members, but he is trying to weigh the project against the ordinance and the standards. This project is outside of Design Review and there are some good things about this project.

Mr. Marstaller stated that he is all for light manufacturing and he is not against metal buildings, but it could be more attractive than this. He wants this project to succeed and wants to see the best possible building for this style. He would like to table the item and give the applicant more time to work on it.

The Board asked the applicant about the color and the door style. Ms. Mason stated that the building will be ash gray. Greg Patterson, Patco Construction, stated that the doors will look like barn doors will be painted white with a black stripe down the middle.

Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
The applicant will retain existing vegetation where possible. New vegetation will be installed to screen the building from the abutting properties. The building has been situated so that the narrow ends of the building face the interstate and the abutting properties. The metal building will be ash gray, with green and white trim and green vinyl siding at the entrance.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
This property is not located in the Design Review District. The building will be 9,600 s.f. and located at the end of Noble Drive in the MD-B District. Extensive screening has been added to help blend the building with the environment.

c. Vehicular Access.
Vehicular access will be off of Noble Drive. There will be one driveway to access the site. The surface of the driveway and parking area will be gravel, with the exception of the handicap parking spaces and walkway which will be paved. The applicant is proposing a reduced driveway width of 20 feet, as opposed to the 26 feet required by the Ordinance.

d. Parking and Circulation.
The applicant is proposing to install 8 parking spaces. They have shown that the site can accommodate 11 parking spaces as required, however only plan to build the addition 3 spaces should the need arise.

e. Surface Water Drainage.
The applicant has submitted revised Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans. These plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer. It is recommended that the applicant enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town of Freeport.

f. Utilities.
Underground electric service will be installed on the site and connecting to the overhead electrical service on Noble Drive. There will be a private well and septic system on the site.

g. Advertising Features.
No signs are proposed at this time. If the applicant wishes to install a sign in the future, they will
need to return to the Board.

h. Special Features.
There will be no outdoor storage or outdoor dumpster areas.

i. Exterior Lighting.
The only lighting proposed is building mounted fixtures at points of egress. Full cut-off fixtures are proposed. There is no lighting proposed for the parking area.

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 to provide a buffer between the abutting property. Two berms will be installed in front of the building to provide raised areas for landscaping.

l. Environmental Consideration.
This project is not within the Shoreland Zone or the Marine Waterfront District. Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans have been submitted and reviewed by the Town Engineer. There will be a well and septic system on the site.

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

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board move to approve a waiver of Section 512.D.10 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance to allow a non-residential driveway to be 20 feet in width, in that due to the size and nature of the development, the driveway will provide safe access to the site.

Mr. Whitmore noted his concern for the width being too narrow for the volunteer Fire Department. Ms. Larson stated that this is wider than the required width for a subdivision road and the Fire Chief has reviewed and signed-off on the plans.

Vote on waiver: 7 Ayes / 0 Nays

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board move to approve a waiver of Section 512.D.10 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance to allow a non-residential driveway to be 20 feet in width, in that due to the size and nature of the development, the driveway will provide safe access to the site.
Vote: 7 Ayes / 0 Nays

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and site plan amendment, for Maine Sailing Partners for a new building and site improvements on Noble Drive, to be built substantially as proposed, site plan 08/17/07, most recently revised 11/07/07, 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) Prior to any sitework, the applicant do the following:
a) At the recommendation of the Town Engineer, the applicant enter into a
Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town
of Freeport.
b) The applicant is responsible for obtaining permits and paying all applicable fees associated with such permits from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Department.
c) The applicant establish a performance guarantee, in an the amount to be approved by the Town Engineer, to cover the cost of all site work, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, be established prior to construction. The performance guarantee shall cover the cost of all site work, including the driveway, parking areas, landscaping, erosion control, and stormwater management. Along with the performance guarantee, a non-refundable administrative fee of 2% of the performance guarantee, in the amount of to be approved by the Town Engineer, be paid prior construction.
d) Establish an inspection account, in the amount of $1,200.00, for inspection of the site improvements prior to construction.
e) When a building permit is issued, pay a pavement maintenance fee based upon the building size of 9,600 s.f. and current impact fee effective when the building permit is issued.
3) The applicant will only install 8 parking spaces at this time. The three additional required spaces are shown on the plan and will the town may require that the spaces be constructed should the need for additional parking arise.
4) The white trim shown on the front and south elevation, be continued around to the north elevation of the building.
5) Supplemental plantings of trees be established surrounding the building and dispersed throughout the site for the purpose of softening the visible impact of the building, to be approved by the Board.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 2 Nays (Donahue, Marstaller)

Lighthouse Crematory and Remembrance Center – Durham Road
The applicant is proposing a new 3,200 s.f. crematory which will be part of the Burr Cemetery. Tax Assessor Map 21, portion of Lot 40. Christopher Stilkey, applicant; Burr Cemetery Association and Christopher Stilkey, owners; Art Colvin, Associated Design Partners, Engineer.

Ms. Larson stated that the building will be on a piece of land that the Cemetery Association will be purchasing from Aqua Maine, and abutting the existing cemetery. Access to the site will remain off of Durham Road. In addition to the building and driveway, there will also be a small parking area and a monument display area.

There will be a paved access drive connecting to the existing driveway on site. The proposed width is 16 feet; a waiver would be required as 26 feet is required by the Ordinance. It is understandable that extra room is needed for the larger vehicles that will frequently access the site, however it appears that it may be possible to alter the parking area slightly to decrease the amount of impervious area. This would be something for the applicant to look into.

The applicant is showing a detention pond near the back of the site. Detailed stormwater plans will need to be submitted and reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to returning for final approval. The applicant will also need to include details on any lighting and landscaping. The applicant has included preliminary building elevations and a proposed sign in the submission package.

At this time, the applicant is only proposing the crematory building (and associated improvements) on the piece of land, however in the future the applicant may want to expand the burial grounds to this land, and if that is the case, the applicant would need to return to the Board for a site plan amendment.

Chris Stilkey, applicant and superintendent of Burr Cemetery, gave an overview of the existing cemetery and the land they will be adding. He showed the site plan and explained the proposed use of the crematorium. They will be keeping the same entrances to the site. One of the entrances is difficult and the other three are easier to get in and out of. He explained the layout of the driveway and parking area, noting that they looked at the turning radius of the vehicles that would be accessing the site. There will be an area for monument display and they will include some landscape buffering.

Mr. Marstaller suggested that although the use may not increase traffic much, they should address the issue of site distance and visibility at the entrances.

Ms. Benson stated that this is a narrow road and a lot of impervious surface is shown. She asked if there may be a way to reduce some of this impervious area. Mr. Stilkey suggested that they may be able to shave off some pavement at the end of the driveway near the garage and entrance.

Mr. Goodall asked who would be accessing the site. Mr. Stilkey stated that the site would be accessed by employees, people coming to look at monuments, and funeral directors who are coming for cremations. It is also possible that family may come to the site for observation or identification. People would not typically come in if a funeral is going on. Mr. Stilkey stated that he will also have his cemetery office in this building. There will also be an operator and a secretary who will work out of this building. Mr. Goodall noted his concern for the number of parking spaces as there is the potential for many people to be here at one time. Mr. Stilkey stated that this is the number of spaces his engineer came up with, but it could be a little tight. Mr. Donahue suggested that employee parking could be moved to the side or rear of the building which would make it a little more welcoming.

Ms. Benson asked about the sign. Mr. Stilkey stated that they are proposing a etched granite sign out near the road.

Mr. Anderson asked about the volume of the facility and where people would come from to use the facility. Mr. Stilkey stated that they would do an average of one per day, or 300-350 per year. The process takes two hours and then there is time required for cool down. There will be two units operating. There is potential to receive bodies from as far away as Rockland, where the next available crematorium is located. Ms. Benson asked about standards and regulations for crematoriums and the fuel source. Mr. Stilkey stated that all crematories in the State of Maine operate well, but the Maine Cemetery Association is currently work with the State to develop standards, due to national issues. They will be using propane.

The Board asked about Fire Safety. Mr. Stilkey indicated that he would speak with the Fire Chief about the use.

Mr. Stilkey noted that there are mostly pine trees in the area where the building will be located, so visibility is limited in most directions and the building will not really be seen until people get near it. They will be adding some landscaping near the entrance.

The Board set a site walk for Saturday, December 1st at 8am meeting at the back of Burr Cemetery. The applicant will clear the underbrush for easy access to the sit, will mark the limit of clearing, and stake out the building.

David Morgan, operates crematories in Portland and South Portland, briefly discussed possible future crematory regulations. He stated that there are 6 crematories in the state with 17 different units. There are about 17,000 cremations per year in Maine and the state cremation rate is 54%. We are over capacity in the State by 100%. More families are attending cremations due to recent events and certain ethnic groups watch cremations due to religious rituals. The Board may want to consider the fluent southern Maine market for cremation.

Bob Santomenna, Freeport Conservation Trust (Trust), stated that they have a conservation easement on Griffin Farm which is adjacent to the existing cemetery. The Cemetery Association is buying a portion of AquaMaine land which abuts Frost Gulley and I-295. AquaMaine has offered to give the Trust the remainder of the land. When the issue was brought to the Town Council, the Trust was not happy about the crematory use, but the zoning changes were adopted and Mr. Stilkey has ensured them that there will be no visibility of the crematory from the public road and from the adjacent property. The Trust is hoping that they will be able to ensure public access to the property in back, over the cemetery land. He asked Ms. Larson about the sign requirements. Ms. Larson stated that a sign up to 32 s.f. would be permitted.

Jason Wilson, owns Wilson Funeral Home in Gray, stated that there is currently no crematorium mid-state and the volume of the crematory will be lower than others in the State due to its location.

ITEM IV: Discussion of color and the Freeport Design Review Ordinance
The Board had a discussion on whether or not they wanted to recommend changes to the Design Review Ordinance to make color a standard of review. Ms. Pelletier read a draft of a possible language change to the ordinance. The change would incorporate the use of a color pallet. Ms. Larson added that the Board would either specify a specific pallet or people could use any historical color pallet. If someone wanted to use a color not on a pallet, then they would need to come to the Board for review.

The Board looked at a few samples of color pallets, noting that none of the pallets separate colors for siding and trim. Some pallets do however make recommendations based upon time periods. The Board was in agreement that color is an important issue and is a compatibility issue. The Board decided that they would want to talk to the Town Council about this issue, and maybe have a workshop before making any decisions. They would also like to be able to review the results of the Community Attitude Survey.

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

ITEM VI: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier