01/24 -

FREEPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007
6:30p.m.

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

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

ITEM I: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson welcomed Larry Adlerstein as the newest member of the Planning Board. She announced that the Community Attitude Survey is ready and will be in the mail next week. People can call Town Hall if they do not get one or if they need another. The surveys are due November 30th, a self-addressed stamped envelope has been included. She encouraged people to complete the survey. Results of the survey are expected mid January.

ITEM II: Approval of the minutes from the October 3, 2007 Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Manning noted a correction on page 5: “3000” feet should be changed to “300” feet. Mr. Manning / Ms. Caisse moved to waive the reading on the minutes, and to accept them as printed, with the correction noted by Mr. Manning. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM III: Follow-up discussion on the proposed amendments to the Commercial I and Commercial II
Districts, including amendments to the Freeport Comprehensive Plan, Freeport Zoning Ordinance,
and the Freeport Zoning Map. The Board may make a decision.

The Board discussed the proposed language before hearing comments from the public. Ms. Caisse made the suggestion to add “Route One South” to the proposed amendment to Section VII.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Manning asked about the proposed district line near the YMCA property. Ms. Larson stated that the new district line would follow the YMCA property line and the entire parcel would now be included in the commercial district.

Mr. Deady asked about the Section 409.C (Space and Bulk Standards) of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to access points and the criteria which would allow increased density. The Board discussed this section, and agreed, that Item 1.b should be changed to clarify that this standard applies if the only access point off of US Route One is shared. A few minor grammatical corrections were also made to this section.

Ms. Caisse asked about the change made to the land per dwelling unit requirement. Mr. Deady noted that on the West side of Route One, the standard was changed to omit the previous land per dwelling unit requirement of one unit per 40,000 square feet.

Paul Kozell, representative for CPM Constructors, 281 South Associates, and 3 Bonney Street, asked about the standard in Section 409.D.9 pertaining to the uses of construction services and manufacturing, and the visibility from Route One. He stated that there would be occasions at their business where equipment would be visible from Route One such as when a crane is extended. He thought that the intent of the standard was to avoid the appearance of a junkyard.

Mr. Manning stated that he thought that the standard pertaining to storage and bulk materials was only suppose to apply within 300 feet of US Route One. Ms. Larson suggested that the sentence could be revised to begin with “Within 300 feet of US Route One…” She clarified that this section does not prohibit such activities, however they would need to either have a buffer or be screened.

Eldon Morrison, property owner, stated that not all of his construction equipment can be seen from Route One, however some of his booms can extend to 150 feet. These new standards make it hard for him to do his job and run his business.

Kenn Mann, asked Mr. Deady if this sentence (Section 409.D.9) had been added since the last hearing and if so, he feels that people should be given the opportunity to comment. Mr. Deady noted that this is not a public hearing.

Mr. Adlerstein noted that he thinks this Board does a good job and he is proud to be here tonight.

Mr. Mann asked if “pieces of equipment” would refer to a crane. Ms. Caisse stated that this is an aesthetic issue and it would allow construction services as an allowable use. A compromise this standard has been added so that there is not a graveyard of equipment within 300 feet of Route One. Ms. Larson noted that the bulk of the existing construction operation is beyone 300 feet of Route One, but the new standards would allow an accessory use such as an office. She does not see anything becoming non-conforming as a result of the new standards. Mr. Manning noted that the use would be okay if it were screened.

A resident asked if the standard for building height (Sec 409.D.7) should also apply to properties on Old South Freeport Road. Ms. Larson noted that there were not many properties on South Freeport Road and in the Commercial District. The Board agreed to add “Old South Freeport Road” to the standard which would allow building heights of up to 45 feet when certain conditions were met.

Ms. Caisse / Mr. Collins moved to order that the Freeport Planning Board recommend that the 1994 Comprehensive Plan, Section VI – Future Land Use Section VII – Goals and Implementation Strategies be amended as presented in the draft document for the October 3, 2007 public hearing, and as amended per discussion tonight. The amendments pertain to the zoning districts in the Route One South corridor. Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

Ms. Caisse / Mr. Collins further ordered that the Freeport Planning Board recommend that the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance be amended:
Section 410 – Commercial II District (repeal)
Section 409 – Commercial I District
Section 104 – Definitions
Section 514 – Off-street Parking and Loading
Section 201 – General Restrictions
Section 427 – Performance Standards for Commercial Districts
As presented in the draft document for the October 3, 2007 public hearing, and as amended per discussion tonight, as the amendments are consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan, Sections VI and VII. Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

Ms. Watson / Ms. Caisse further ordered that the Freeport Planning Board recommend that the Zoning Map be amended as presented in the draft document for the October 3, 2007 public hearing. Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM IV: Public Hearing
This will be a public hearing on whether or not to recommend that the proposed amendments
pertaining to the Commercial I and Commercial II Districts (as listed above) be retroactive as of
October 3, 2007.

Mr. Manning / Ms. Caisse moved to open the public hearing. Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Kozell stated that they are in opposition to these ordinance changes being retroactive. The Town Planner has prepared a timeline of their project (self-storage); some comments are not accurate and they do not like the tone. He gave a timeline of the operation and closing of the former Eagle Motel, and the development timeline for the idea for converting the property to the use of self storage units. The intent would be for the self-storage use to be temporary (five to ten years) until another use for the property is found. There would be some site changes and the addition of smaller buildings to the rear of the hotel building. The hotel building would retain the appearance on the front. The window would be covered from the inside so it will appear as though the curtains are drawn. The access doors for the self storage units are being added to the rear so that they would not be visible from Route One. The hotel building is about 120-200 feet from US Route One. They have always maintained their property and have been good neighbors. They did present their plans to the Project Review Board in October and the Board gave the nod that this was a good way to use the property. They are working on a final submission for the December Project Review Board meeting. They tried to incorporate the ideas for the preservation of the vision for the Route One Gateway.

He showed the Board an overview of their properties and how the 300 foot setback would relate to the use of their properties. Beyond 300 feet, the topography goes down and the land becomes wet and therefore the use of self storage could not be done on the rear portion of their property. He showed the Board images and plans of what their project would look like. They would love to have a better idea for the use of the property, but there is already a lot of property for sale/lease in the area and they cannot afford to build a building if it will not be occupied. If no better use presents itself in the future, they will keep this use. This is the best use of the property at this time and they have done all that they can to comply with the spirit of the ordinance changes. They are in opposition to the proposed amendments becoming retroactive because it targets them specifically.

Mr. Adlerstein suggested that the applicant consider talking with Maine College of Art about adding some art to the rooms such as to the windows. Mr. Kozell stated that they have not considered that and the windows will be covered from the rear to maintain the façade.

Eldon Morrison, property owner, stated that he did not come to some meetings that he should have come to, but he did participate in design discussions for Route One South years ago with Terrence DeWan and Associates. By proposing restrictions and retroactive measures, you are not helping him out with uses. He disagrees with the Commercial II Zones changes, the 300-foot setback for some uses, and the retroactivity. Ms. Watson asked why he cannot use his property as a motel anymore. Mr. Kozell stated that there are not enough units to make it profitable and they did explore this use. Mr. Morrison stated that he and his wife ran the motel but would just break even. They could use the property as rentals, but he chose not to be that type of neighbor. He is a good neighbor. The self storage use would also be a good neighbor and make sense for the short term.

Stephanie Slocum, Freeport Economic Development Corporation, stated that there is an excess of hotel rooms in Town and two hotels are currently for sale. The new hotels are experiencing significant vacancy rates and they would have a difficult time running this motel due to the number of rooms.

Andrew Arsenault, resident, stated that he lives next to Mr. Morrison’s business. He has been a good neighbor and there have not been issues with the use or the noise. He is dismayed by the move to have the amendments made retroactive. This is spot zoning and is because of Mr. Morrison’s proposal. He would be much happier with this use next to him instead of an empty building. He has been actively involved in Route One issues and Route One is not booming now. A 20 unit motel is not a viable use. He is in opposition to the retroactivity and the amendments other than this should move forward. He does not like the way some issues have been handled. The retroactivity should fail tonight and the applicant’s project should be able to go through the regular process since they submitted it on time.

Mr. Mann stated that he went to the Project Review Board meeting where the plans for the self storage facility were presented and the Board had a favorable reaction. The Board did know that these amendments were being discussed. The Board should drop the idea of making these amendments retroactive.

Mark Sangillo, US Route One, stated that when he looks at the proposed plans he sees a use that is low impact and not noise producing. He takes the position that there is a tax payer and a good citizen making a request for his property. These amendments will hinder someone from making an investment on their property and these people should have more credence since they have been here for a long time.

Mr. Manning / Ms. Caisse moved to close the public hearing. Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Manning asked Ms. Larson for some clarification on what would happen if a use became non-conforming from the adoption of these amendments. Ms. Larson stated that such a use would be limited to a one time expansion of up to 15% of the existing building.

Ms. Caisse asked if there are other properties with similar situations. Ms. Larson stated that there are no other properties in this area for which submissions have been made to the Project Review Board.

Mr. Deady stated that his view is to not make the standards retroactive; from a fundamental fairness issue and the fact that this would only relate to one project. Also, he is sensitive to the argument about other limitations on the property and efforts being made to maintain the appearance of the property. Mr. Adlerstein stated that he agrees with Mr. Deady’s comments.

Ms. Caisse stated that the request did come in late, but it seems like the retroactivity would be targeting the business. She does not think that it is the best thing for Route One to maintain the look of the Eagle Motel, and the self-storage is not a use that would be wanted long-term, but it is a re-use of the site. She feels that making the amendments retroactive is ethically not right.

Ms. Watson asked what would prevent the applicant from adding more units later and taking down the motel. Ms. Larson stated that the Codes Enforcement Officer would need to decide if someone could take down a non-conforming use and put up another. Ms. Watson stated that she was concerned that they could take down the Eagle Motel and put another type of unit in.

Mr. Collins stated that he is discouraged that this is the best use for a property like this. It is a dead use with nothing going on there. He agrees that this is a fairness issue, even if he does not agree with the use.

Mr. Manning stated that he finds it hard that this is the best use; however it is a use. It is a fairness issue but planning is not about maximizing a return for everyone. All of the Board members agree that self storage would not be an appropriate use within 300 feet of Route One, but there is a fairness aspect of making the proposal retroactive. Mr. Manning noted his concerns about the opportunity for a non-conforming use to expand.

Mr. Adlerstein stated that this is not an obnoxious use, but it is a reasonable compromise that the Board should go along with.

The Board agreed to not make a recommendation to the Council on the amendments being retroactive.

(The Board took a short break).

ITEM V: Discussion of required amendments to the Shoreland Zoning section of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance

Ms. Larson made a presentation to the Board about Shoreland Zoning regulations and the amendments required by July 1, 2008. There are some standards in the existing ordinance that are not in compliance with State regulations and there are some new standards that would need to be met. The proposal would be to meet the State regulations and to not exceed them. There are some choices that the Board will have to make, such as with timber harvesting regulations, piers, wharves, docks, the calculation of cleared openings and expansions in the shoreland setback. Mr. Manning noted that some resources are designated with Inland Fisheries and Wildlife designations and these areas would need to be field verified.

Changes will also need to be made to the Zoning Map. Better information is available and more accurate lines can be drawn. There are some areas designated as Resource Protection I and that are already developed and it appears that there is no apparent reason for this restrictive zoning in some locations. Such changes would be reviewed and approved by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The floods areas would also need to be addressed and some recommendations would need to be made. Mr. Aderlstein asked if these areas would affect people flood insurance. Ms. Larson stated that FEMA maps are used to determine flood areas, so these map amendments should not affect people’s insurance. Ms. Larson stated that coastal bluff areas would also be added to the map and setbacks would be from the tops of the bluff rather than the high water mark. The five eagles nest sites would also be added to the map.

Ms. Larson explained that the next steps will be to make recommendations for the areas where choices need to be made by the Board. The proposal will then be reviewed with the DEP before a public hearing. A public hearing will be held and all property owners within the Shoreland Zone will be contacted. A recommendation will then be made to the Town Council and the final documents will be reviewed and approved by the DEP before it becomes effective.

Mr. Adlerstein stated that the Board should look at the purpose of Shoreland Zoning and one of the biggest sources of pollution of coastal waters is sewage. Something is wrong with the way that this town regulates pollution. Shoreland Zone discussions should also include access to the water and the implications. We should consider allowing more public access to the shorefront. Ms. Caisse noted that these items and questions will be answered as part of the Community Attitude Survey. Ms. Larson stated that this is really an issue for the Town Council to deal with. Mr. Manning stated that this language would need to include something about public water access if that is what people want. The Board briefly discussed the issue of sewage in Freeport and determined that is it something that could be further discussed when discussing the density of the Commercial Districts.

Mr. Manning asked about wetlands. Ms. Larson stated that only certain wetlands would be protected under Shoreland Zoning and this could include high or moderate value wetlands identified by Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. There is an existing area on Litchfield Road that is covered by Shoreland Zoning. Shoreland wading habitat areas are not included.

Ms. Larson stated that she could proceed with the draft language and the choices made based upon staff recommendations. She will make a few changes and then bring it back to DEP for review. The Board could talk about this at the next meeting to make sure that the changes are okay, and then the Board could have a hearing on the 3rd Wednesday in January instead of the 1st Wednesday, as there is no meeting that day. Mr. Manning asked about map updates. Ms. Larson stated that at the same time the entire Zoning Map will be digitized. If issues come up with that process, then the Board can discuss them. The Board will also discuss Planning Board operating procedures and standards for contract zoning at the next meeting.

Mr. Deady reminded the Board that when the last elections were held, there was talk of allowing others to have the opportunity for the position of Chairperson. He is stepping down as Chairperson and is nominating Andrew Manning as Chairperson. The motion was approved unanimously.

ITEM VI: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier