01/11 -


FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007
6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: David Marstaller (Chairperson), Jason Donahue, Cliff Goodall, James Gorman, Dale Whitmore and Caroline Pelletier (Assistant Town Planner). Erik Anderson and Jane Benson were excused

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the November 14, 2007 Project Review Board meeting.
Mr. Gorman/Mr. Whitmore moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the November 14, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 5 Ayes/ 0 Nays

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Mr. Marstaller informed the Board that Ms. Larson was excused from the meeting, and that Ms. Pelletier was sitting in for Ms. Larson.
Ms. Pelletier informed the Board of the following:
• Rick Simard provided a hand out for all boards and committees regarding quality of CATV service
• Fred Reeder provided the Board with a memo regarding issues with Wilbur’s siding, trim and the alignment with the windows Fred will be working with contractor
• Community Attitude Survey- Residents should have received the Community Attitude Survey in the mail and the deadline has been extended until December 14, 2007. Residents may pick up a copy at the Town Hall if they did not receive one or if they need an additional survey. Residents are encouraged to fill out the survey
• Proposed ordinance amendments for Route One South are going to the Council December 18, 2007
• Ms. Larson has done the following staff approvals: Change of use at Bucks Naked BBQ, change of use at Alta Dental, and an after the fact fill permit for Thos. Mosher.



ITEM III: Approvals
4 Dennison Avenue – Residential Alteration – Design Review
The applicant is proposing an addition to a residential dwelling. Design Review District II – Class A property. Tax Assessor Map 13, Lot 94-ETC. Logan Murray and Mary Macdonald-Murray, owners and applicant.

Ms. Pelletier stated that the applicant is proposing an addition to a residential dwelling on Dennison Avenue. An existing detached garage (built in 1960) will be removed to make room for the addition. The addition will be two stories, and lower in height than the existing house. The first floor will be used for living space while the second story will be used for storage. The dimensions are 20’ wide by 30’ long. The addition will be sided in vinyl with a 4 inch reveal to match the existing dwelling. The windows will also be vinyl with 2/2 to match those on the house. The trim will also be vinyl. The base of the addition will be concrete, and they will paint it red to match the brick. The roof will be covered with brown architectural shingles.

The Freeport Historical Society has reviewed the proposal and made some recommendations. Based on those recommendations, the applicant has agreed to make some changes to their plans. The applicant will be adding the shingles in the gable end of the addition and extending the white trim board that goes around the center of the house. The applicant has agreed to add two full size windows to the front of the building. This will cause the applicant to have to change the interior layout of the kitchen and relocate the sink to the side wall. Therefore, the applicant would like to retain the small window in the kitchen which will be on the side of the building and would like to retain the second small window on that side as it is in the bathroom. This side of the building is not that visible from the road. The applicant has submitted a revised elevation showing these changes.

Mr. Goodall stated that it was his understanding that the Historical Societies comments could be crafted into conditions of approval. Ms. Pelletier agreed that would not be a problem and she could draft some conditions.

Mr. Marstaller asked for public comment. There were none.

Mr. Goodall asked the applicant if other than the changes with the windows, was there any other suggestions from the Historical Society which they did not agree with. The applicant stated that the existing foundations of the other properties do not contain brick, they are gray, and that they wished to keep the foundation gray, but would do whatever the Board would like. Mr. Marstaller suggested that the applicant can decide about the foundation, and that it does not need to be a condition of approval.

Mr. Gorman asked the applicant if the landscaping would be as is in the rendering. The applicant stated that the landscaping would be the same shrubbery as in the rendering.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The addition will be two-stories and lower in height than the existing house. The building will be set back from the road, as the parking area will remain in the front. The applicant will retain a 16.5 side setback.

2. Height
The addition will be two-stories and lower in height than the existing house. The addition will be lower than the abutting buildings, as was the existing garage and the other accessory buildings in the neighborhood.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The addition will be lower than the abutting buildings, as was the existing garage and the other accessory buildings in the neighborhood.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
On the front façade, the applicant will install two windows on the first level and one on the second, maintaining the rhythm of solids to voids as exists on the main structure.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
All doors and windows will be rectangular in shape. The windows on the front façade will be similar
in size and height of those on the main structure.

6. Roof Shapes.
The roof shape will match that of the dwelling.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The façade materials will be vinyl, as are those on the house. The roof will be covered with brown
architectural shingles.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The building is set back from the road and will be in the location of the existing garage. The
driveway and parking area will remain in front of the addition. The addition is set back
further than the dwelling.

9. Site Features.
The driveway and parking area will remain in its current location.

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. Goodall / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Logan and Mary Murray for a residential addition at 4 Dennison Avenue, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 11/20/07, 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 construction, the applicant obtain a building permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
3) Scallop shingles be added to the peak of the building while retaining space for one clapboard above the window on the second story.
4) The location of the trim board on the addition, between the first and second stories of the building, be in proportion to that on the main dwelling.
5) The window trim on the eave side of the building match that on the front of the existing dwelling, including the trim detail between the two windows.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays (Donahue recused)

Gritty McDuff’s - 187 Lower Main Street -Design Review
The applicant is proposing to add a grain silo and new sign at their business on Lower Main Street. Site Plan Review and Design Review are required. Design Review District I – Class C property. Tax Assessor Map 8, Lot 23. Gritty McDuff’s, applicant; Elizabeth Soule, owner.

Mr. Marstaller asked if the applicant would like to add anything. Applicant did not wish to add anything.

Mr. Marstaller asked if the Board had any questions.

Mr. Whitmore had some questions concerning the dust in the silo and fires. Billy Stebbins, representative, stated that there would not be that much dust. Ms. Pelletier stated that the Fire Chief did not comment of the dust being of concern. Mr. Whitmore then asked about the safety of the ladder on the side of the silo. The applicant stated that the ladder would have a lock.

Mr. Donahue asked if there were other locations on site where the silo could go. The applicant stated that there were issues with how the grain came out of the silo. Mr. Donahue asked about the aesthetics of the silo (color, size, etc). Mr. Donahue was concerned with the silo blocking the view of the building.

Mr. Goodall suggested that the applicant could paint the silo. The applicant was concerned with the cost of maintaining the paint. Mr. Goodall also stated concerns with the silo in terms of the scale of the building and the existing silo. Mr. Goodall suggested that the applicant add skirting to the bottom of the silo to blend in with the existing structures. The applicanted agreed that a skirt could be an option.

Mr. Marstaller commented that wooden skirting should not cost much more, having the wood skirting starting at the slab foundation reaching to the bottom of the silo cylinder.

Mr. Donahue agreed that the addition of skirting would improve the structure. He felt that a metal skirt closer to the frame of the silo (legs) would be preferable, allowing wind to pass through. He would not like to see 2’x2’, or perhaps attach fabricated panels.

Mr. Goodall stated that he was not sold on wood, and that it needed to match the character of the silo. He asked the applicant what their time schedule was for the completion of the project. The applicant responded as soon as possible.

Mr. Goodall asked if the Board were to approve the silo with a condition to come back in the spring with the proper skirting to cover the bottom area, could the applicant do that. The applicant stated that he could do that.
Mr. Gorman asked what type of material for the skirting. Mr. Goodall stated anything that would screen the bottom.

Mr. Marstaller asked for public comment.

Jon Soule, Co Applicant asked if the skirting could best be solved with shrubbery. Mr. Marstaller asked if they had the space to do that. Mr. Soule said they did.

Buell Hemingway, architect, stated that he was the architect for the original Gritty’s, and that the location of the silo is going to block the view of the building. He suggested an alternative location for the silo, behind the building.

Mr. Donahue asked if there was a full basement. Mr. Heminway stated that there was a full basement. There was discussion regarding a service building on the property and truck access.
The applicant stated that they did not consider the location behind the building because of existing ac units and drainage. Mr. Marstaller asked if the AC units would have to be moved. The applicant stated yes. Mr. Marstaller asked what kind of drainage system was there. Applicant stated that it was a stromwater catch basin. Mr. Marstaller stated that it would be aesthetically preferable in the alternative location if feasible and that location might need more investigation.

Mr. Gorman stated that it defeats the purpose of the silo.

Mr. Donahue asked about the type of foundation for the silo. The applicant stated that the foundation was going to be a 15 ft pad. Mr. Donahue stated that they did not know enough about the alternative location. He asked about the length of the service building, the applicant stated that it was 25 feet long.

Mr. Goodall stated that the proposed silo identifies Gritty’s as a local brewery.

There was discussion regarding the parking area, and the possibility of putting the silo there to retain public views. Mr. Whitmore had concerns regarding truck deliveries. Mr. Marstaller asked the applicant how often grain would be delivered. The applicant stated that there would be 4 deliveries a year.

Mr. Marstaller stated that given the unknowns and the property problems, the Board should go on with the location as proposed.

Mr. Heminway stated that the Board seems to be confused with the site and asked if the Board had done a site walk. Mr. Marstaller replied that the Board had not been on a site walk.

Andy Arsenault, resident, stated that the Board seems to think they should be allowed to have a silo. He suggested that the Board approve it and schedule a site walk for a later date so that the applicant can at least order the silo and get started.

Mr. Marstaller asked what the Board thought about a site walk. Mr. Gorman stated that he was comfortable leaving it as is with a screening condition. Mr. Goodall stated that there could be a problem with the Board getting into engineering suggestion if the Board went on a site walk. He was also comfortable leaving the silo as is with a screening condition. Mr. Donahue stated that it was likely that there would not be an alternative location for silo even after a site walk

Mr. Marstaller stated that it appears that the sentiment of the Board is to approve the proposal and that the applicant bring back a plan with skirting.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The silo will be 12’ w x 24’ high. The bottom will be open and there will not be any openings on the structure.

2. Height.
The silo will be 24 feet in height and be about 5 feet taller than the existing structure.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The silo will be use to store grain which will be used with for making beer which is an industrial use. The silo will comply with the height requirements of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
There are no voids in the front façade.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
There will be no openings in the silo.

6. Roof Shapes.
The silo will have a standard design and will go along with the industrial use of the property. The
roof shape is similar to the rounded corner of the building that it will be located near.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The structure will be a traditional metal silo and painted white.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The silo will be located near the corner of the existing building and hear the parking lot. This portion
of the site is already developed.

9. Site Features.
The site is already developed and the silo will be located in the corner of the parking lot and near the
existing building.

10. Signs.
There will be a “Gritty’s” sign on the silo to replace an existing building sign which will be blocked
by the silo. The sign will be an oval decal and 30 s.f. in size. The sign will be illuminated from above
from gooseneck fixtures.

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

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Gritty McDuff’s for a the addition of a silo at their property on Lower Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 11/11/07, 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 construction, the applicant obtain a building permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
3) The applicant returns to the Board by May 2008 for approval of proposed screening at the base of the silo, and to be installed in the spring of 2008.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays


American Eagle Self Storage – 215 US Route One
The applicant is presenting final plans to renovate the existing motel into 40 self storage units and to add 2 new buildings with 40 units. Part of the existing structure will be used for retail/office space and the applicant would also retain an existing apartment on the second level. Tax Assessor Map 25, Lot 3. Two Eighty One South Associates, owner and applicant; Tom Farmer, Terrence DeWan and Associates, representative.

The applicant will retain the existing features of the site such as the driveway and to entrances. In addition, the driveway will be extended around the building to provide access to the units. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the width of the new driveway to be 21 feet (the narrowest portion) as opposed to the 26 feet required by the ordinance. Due to the nature and use of the site, this width gravel driveway should provide adequate access. The ordinance requires a total of 24 parking spaces: 2 for the apartment, 5.5 for the retail, and 16.5 for the self storage. There is plenty of room for parking on the site.

The plan does show an area for a possible future right-of-way. The plan also shows access and parking to one of the units in this area. If the applicant wishes to use this right-of-way in the future, the site plan may need to be amended to comply with the standards of the ordinance. For the time being though, it is not an issue.

The applicant will retain the existing vegetation where possible. The applicant is proposing to add some landscaping near the building and does comply with the buffering requirements of the ordinance.

The applicant is proposing one sign. The sign will be 10 feet high and a total of 60 square feet. The sign will be made of wood and illuminated with gooseneck lighting fixtures. The location of the sign is shown on the plan.

There is an existing well and septic system on site. The Town Engineer has reviewed and approved the stormwater management and erosion control plans. It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a maintenance agreement for a stormwater management system with the Town of Freeport.


Ms. Pelletier stated that the applicant has already started the process and regardless of what happens to Route One South in regards to zoning, the applicant will be able to proceed with project if approved. However there are time limits with any approval s that the applicant with need to adhere to. It is possible that as a result of the amendments the use could become nonconforming.

The applicant stated that they have been involved in looking at different options for the site, they had lots of ideas, but none were feasible at this time. A self-storage operation was ideally a short term fix. The changes to this property in the front of the property would be minor: pavement resealed, doors replaced, painting, and the addition of a wooden walls to the interior of the building behind all windows. Changes to the back of the building will include: removing windows, adding pedestrian doors, adding large metal doors, the addition of a gate system open during the day and closed at night.

Mr. Marstaller asked Mr. Paul Kozell, representative, about the additional buildings in the rear, and the visibility from Route One. The applicant stated that there would be very little visibility, if any, from Route One.

Mr. Goodall asked if the applicant had considered any buffering for abutters. The applicant stated that the current pine trees were pretty dense.

Mr. Arsenault, an abutter, stated that he did not see it being a problem, but was concerned about people wondering onto his property, and if the applicant could possibly put a fence up in the future.

Mr. Goodall asked about the lighting in the rear of the building. The applicant stated that the lighting was full cut off. Tom Farmer, representative, stated that the Police Department suggested some low level lighting behind the building at night, very dim.

Mr. Whitmore had some questions regarding an island, the drainage around that island, and fire protection; he also asked if the project would be hooked up to town sewer and water. The applicant stated that the island would be sunken to help with drainage and the water is currently hooked up to town water. Ms. Pelletier stated that in regards to the fire protection, the Fire Chief stated there did not need to be a sprinkler system installed, but fire walls needed to be installed in each wing of the building. The applicant will coordinate with the Fire Chief.

The applicant stated that they were looking for a final approval; however they had a problem with the performance guarantee. They asked if this requirement could be waived. She explained the reason for requiring a Performance Guarantee.

Ms. Pelletier stated that a Performance Guarantee was standards with all projects and has never been waived during her time with the town.

There was further discussion regarding the Performance Guarantee and how the applicant could produce such a guarantee. Mr. Marstaller stated that the Board was bound to the Performance Guarantee.



Proposed Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
The site is already developed and existing vegetation will be retained where possible. The two new buildings will be added to the rear of the motel and will not be visible from the road.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
The applicant will be reusing the existing motel building as self storage and will retain the appearance of the motel. Two additional storage building will be added to the rear of the motel building. The existing vegetation on the site will be retained where possible. This parcel is not within the Design Review District.

c. Vehicular Access.
Vehicular access to the site will remain the same with two curb-cuts off Route One leading to a loop driveway.

d. Parking and Circulation.
The ordinance requires a total of 24 parking spaces: 2 for the apartment, 5.5 for the retail, and 16.5 for the self storage. There is plenty of room for parking on the site. The applicant is
proposing to retain the existing loop driveway in the front and add a driveway around the rear of the building and connecting to the two new buildings. At the narrowest point, the width of the new driveway will be 21 feet.

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 11/29/07). It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town of Freeport.

f. Utilities.
There is an existing well and septic system on-site.

g. Advertising Features.
The applicant is proposing a 60 s.f. ground sign. The sign will be located on the front of the property near Route One. It will be made of wood with either painted or vinyl letters. The sign will be externally illuminated with gooseneck lighting fixtures.

h. Special Features.
There are no special features associated with this project.

i. Exterior Lighting.
The applicant is proposing full cut-off building mounted fixtures.

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

k. Landscaping.
The applicant will retain existing vegetation where possible. Additional landscaping is proposed near the buildings and in the front setback.

l. Environmental Consideration. A site plan shall not be approved unless it meets the following criteria:
a. The project will not result in water pollution, erosion or sedimentation to surface waters.
b. The project will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat;
c. The project will conserve shoreland vegetation;
d. The project will conserve points of public access to waters;
e. The project will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater;
f. The project will protect archaeological and historic resources;
g. The project will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in the Marine Waterfront District.

This project is not within the Shoreland Zone or the Marine Waterfront District. There is an existing well and septic system on-site. No historic or archeological resources will be negatively impacted.

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

Mr. Whitmore / 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 21.5 feet in width, in that due to the size and nature of the development, the driveway will provide safe access to the site. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and site plan amendment, for 281 South Associates for a self storage facility on Route One South, to be built substantially as proposed, site plan dated 12/04/07, 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 sizes of 3,000 s.f. and current impact fee effective when the building permit is issued. This fee is calculated on a per building basis.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays



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


ITEM V: Adjournment.

Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Recorded by Sara Devlin