01/30 -
MINUTES
FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007
6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: David Marstaller (Chairperson) Jane Benson, Jason Donahue, Erik Anderson and Donna Larson (Town Planner). Dale Whitmore and James Gorman were excused. Cliff Goodall arrived at 6:35 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the April 11, 2007 Project Review Board meetings. Mr. Donahue/ Mr.
Anderson moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the April 11, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to
accept them as printed. VOTE: 3 Ayes/1 Abstention—Benson / 3 Excused—Goodall, Whitmore and Gorman
ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson noted that she has received requests for new signs and the first one is Auto Works on Route One South; the Hunt/Fish Store; Pet Pantry (formerly Christmas Magic); Dimillo’s Yacht Sales on Route One South; Mexicalli Blues in the J. Crew Building. There was also a site plan on the Econo Lodge, which is at the corner of Pine Street and U.S. Route One that is being converted into retail and office space. One of the uses going in is a day care with a fenced-in area, which she approved. There is also a minor amendment to a subdivision on the Baker Road. Lot #3 was originally intended to be held open but now it is shifting and Lot #5 will be kept open. She approved this request as well since there were no changes to any lines.
Ms. Larson noted that the Board received a letter from the Town of Brunswick regarding the subdivision that is partly in Brunswick and partly in Freeport. The Board sent a letter to the Brunswick Planning Board asking them to consider having one access to the subdivision but they responded and said “no”. They think it should have two access points, which are both in Freeport. It will come back for final approval once it goes through the DEP.
At the Staff Review Board meeting held yesterday, Ms. Larson advised that there was a daycare on Curtis Road that was approved. It was a change in use from residential to a daycare.
Elections should take place in June and Ms. Larson will put them on the June agenda.
Mr. Donahue asked about an inflatable giant beer bottle at Pedro O’Hara’s that came and went. He asked if it is considered signage. Mr. Larson advised that it would be considered signage and offered to look into it.
Mr. Marstaller asked about Norway Savings Bank’s sign and Ms. Larson indicated it was handled by a staff approval.
Mr. Goodall indicated he purchased a baby card and was circulating it for Caroline. Pelletier. After it is signed, he will mail it.
ITEM III: Design Review
Pet Pantry – 177 Lower Main Street
The applicant is seeking approval to remove three windows from an existing building and to add a new building sign. No other changes are proposed. Class C Property. Tax Assessor Map 8, Lot 21. Pet Pantry, applicant and owner; Christopher Parker, representative.
Ms. Larson pointed out that two windows will be removed from the south side of the building and one window will be removed from the north side. The proposed sign will be made of wood and will be installed on the north side of the building. Gooseneck lighting fixtures will be installed to match the other fixtures on the building. The fixtures will be painted to match the color of the building. The Historical Society suggests that the two windows on the south side be covered on the interior but allowed to stay on the exterior since it would alter this Class C building.
Mr. Parker does not believe this is a historical building and he doesn’t like blacked out windows. The windows he is planning to remove will make the building look symmetrical. He needs to use one of the windows to replace a double one and then they will match. He can’t get a similar window inexpensively. They were available 20 years ago. He personally believes the building will look fine with the other two windows removed. He needs shelving space on the interior. It is a retail building. Ms. Benson explained alternatives to black plastic.
Chair Marstaller agrees the building would look better if the front windows were left in place since it is a Class C building. Mr. Donahue doesn’t mind having the windows removed on the south side. It seems okay since the entrance is on the front. Chair Marstaller can go either way. Mr. Goodall doesn’t believe it detracts anything from the building and it is not in our historic area. Mr. Parker indicated that his sign would be placed where the Christmas Magic sign was located.
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 Façade.
The proportions of the front façade will not be altered as multiple windows will remain on both facades and continue to break up the expanse of the facades.
4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The rhythm of solids to voids in the front facades will be altered, however, will maintain a symmetric appearance in the building’s façade.
5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
Three windows will be removed and the remaining windows will remain unchanged.
6. Roof Shapes
The roof shape will not be altered.
7. Relationship of Façade Materials.
The relationship of façade materials will not be altered.
8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The rhythm of spaces to building on the streets will not be significantly altered.
9. Site Features.
There will be no changes to the site features.
10. Signs.
The new sign will be on the north side of the building and will be made of wood and about 4’x12’ in size. The applicant will install gooseneck lighting fixtures to match the other fixtures on the building. The fixtures will be painted to match the color of the building.
Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.
Mr. Anderson/ Mr. Donahue moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and a Design Review Certificate for Chris Parker, for the removal of 3 windows with the newly modified window on the north side of the building to be centered over the first floor window and a new building sign at the Pet Pantry at 177 Lower Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 04/17/07, finding that it meets the standards of the 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 hearing 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 sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Department. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Whitmore and Gorman)
Wilbur’s of Maine – Independence Drive
The applicant is seeking approval for exterior alterations to add a 7’x 10’ deck and two new doors on the second floor. No other changes are proposed. Class C Property. Tax Assessor Map 8, Lot 11. Tom Wilbur, owner and applicant.
Ms. Larson noted that the proposed deck is small and is minimally visible from the road.
Mr. Wilbur advised that it would balance a stairway on the other side. Mr. Goodall asked Mr. Wilbur that when he was here for the factory addition, there was discussion about a ramp. He asked when Mr. Wilbur plans to finish the ramp. Mr. Wilbur pointed out that nobody liked the railing and spindles in front of the walkway. He understood that everyone was more than happy to see the railing go away. Mr. Goodall advised that the Board approved the project and one of the conditions of approval is that the project would be built as it was designed. This is a technical violation. He noted that it would be very easy to add to the motion that we drop the requirement for a ramp. Mr. Wilbur added that the incline is flat and there is no need for a ramp. He has added small plantings and is confident that they will grow. He is perfectly legal without the ADA ramp. Everything else is done and the parking is working out well. The issue with the abutter’s parking has been resolved. Mr. Donahue noted that the pressure treated material does not appear to be of high quality but Mr. Wilbur advised that his lumberyard recommended the material and it mirrors the porch and stairs on the other side. The proposed doors are six-panel steel doors. Mr. Wilbur stated that his father’s apartment would now become storage space. He asked the Board to drop the requirement for a ramp in the motion.
There were no public comments provided.
Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The small 8’x10’ porch will be added to the corner of the building and will be similar in style to the porch on the other side.
2. Height
The height of the overall building will not be altered and the height of the deck will be level with the second story.
3. Proportion of Building’s Front Façade.
An existing window on the second story will be replaced with a steel door and a second steel door will be added.
4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
One of the new doors will replace an existing window and the other door will be a new opening in the façade.
5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The two doors will be rectangular and standard door size.
6. Roof Shapes
The roof shape will not be altered.
7. Relationship of Façade Materials.
The porch will be made of wood and will not be painted. The doors will be steel.
8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The rhythm of spaces to building on the streets will be significantly altered as the porch will only be 8’x10’ and will be located in the corner.
9. Site Features.
The porch will be tucked into the corner of the building and not that visible from the public right-of-way and is not located in a high traffic pedestrian area.
10. Signs.
No new signs are proposed.
Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.
Ms. Benson/ Mr. Anderson moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and a Design Review Certificate for Tom Wilbur, for addition of an 8’x10’ deck and two new doors at Wilbur’s of Maine on Independence Drive, to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 04/05/07, finding that it meets the standards of the 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 installation, the applicant obtain a building permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Department.
3) The final approval of 11/10/04 is amended to eliminate the requirement for the ramp as shown on the plan because it is not necessary for ADA purposes and for Design Review purposes. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Whitmore & Gorman)
Lovell Design – Sign Alterations
The applicant is seeking approval to add a shadow box to two existing signs and to relocate an existing ground sign. No other changes are proposed. Class A property. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 26A. Lovell Designs, applicant; Freeport Historical Society, owner.
Ms. Larson explained that these shadow boxes would allow the applicant to put product in a secure place. This will provide a little more presence on Main Street. The property is owned by the Historical Society and they have approved this request.
The applicant explained that they sell jewelry and these boxes will enable them to slide in their product in the morning and slide it out in the evening. It is strictly to show product. The frame will be painted. They are also planning to remove the Rugosa Rose Bush that is in the way. The second part of the application is relocating the signpost on Main Street. Presently it is 6’ from Main Street and 7’ from the walkway. She is hoping to move it 2’ forward and over 2’ to make it more visible. The Historical Society has approved this. Ms. Larson indicated that she had planned to approve this as a Staff Approval but the Board can approve it if it wishes.
Mr. Goodall explained that he is recusing himself because he was president of the Historical Society and negotiated the original lease with the applicant. He planted an elm tree behind the sign about six years ago.
Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
Signs
The applicant is proposing to add a 28” x 16” shadow box to the existing ground sign and blade sign. The frame of the shadow boxes will be painted black to match the sign. The ground sign will be moved two feet closer to Maine Street and remain on the applicant’s property.
Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.
Mr. Donahue and Ms. Benson moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Lovell Designs, to add a shadow box to the existing ground sign and blade sign, and to relocate the existing ground sign to be built substantially as proposed in a submission dated 04/05/07, finding that it meets the standards of the 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 installation, the applicant obtain a sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Department. VOTE: (4 Ayes) (1 Recused—Goodall) (2 Excused—Whitmore & Gorman)
Freeport Village Station – Depot Street
The applicant is seeking approval for exterior building modifications on the Mill Street façade of the building, adjacent to the Mallett Building. No other changes are proposed. Class A & C properties. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lots 112-ETC, and 114. Berenson Associates, applicant; Sean Selby, Arrowstreet, representative.
Ms. Larson explained that in the course of the DEP approval, the Maine Historic Preservation Commission looked at it and thought the scale of the building was too much for the Mallett Building. They worked with the architect and developer and came up with this proposal. It exposes an additional 12” of granite foundation and takes out a 5’ x 10’ corner of the building so that there is more of an open space around the building. It takes some of the bulk away from the Mallett Building and significantly improves the building.
Mr. Goodall brought up the cast iron arches. Ms. Larson noted that they will come back with more of a complete package for signage, lighting and the arches sometime in June or July.
Ms. Benson noted that the plan looks terrific. Chair Marstaller requested the rendering of the original design so that the Board could compare them. Chair Marstaller noted that it is great to expose 12” more of the granite foundation.
Mr. Donahue indicated that he would prefer to see a little more glass installed on the corner to mimic the southwest corner if possible. He noted that the scale of the element is well done. Mr. Donahue cautioned about protecting the granite during construction. Chair Marstaller asked about matching the bricks on the Mallett Building. The representative pointed out that they hope to match the granite but the brick sidewalks may not match the bricks on the Mallett Building exactly. Will Conway explained that the clay bricks will have a chamfered edge and they come in a range of red to black. They received their DEP permit today.
There were no public comments.
Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The amount of granite exposure on the foundation of the Mallett Building will be increased from 6” to 18” and closer to its existing appearance. To reduce the scale of the new structure, there will be a 5’ x 10’ cut back on both sides of the Mallett Building.
2. Height
The overall height of both buildings will not be altered.
3. Proportion of Building’s Front Façade.
The proposed changes will reduce the scale of the new structure around the Mallett Building.
4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The rhythm of solids to voids in the front facades will blend with the remainder of the structure.
5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The proportions of opening within the facility will blend with the remainder of the structure.
6. Roof Shapes
The only change to the roof shape will be the section of the new structure to right of the Mallett Building. The roof on this corner will incorporate a peaked skylight to reduce the scale of this corner.
7. Relationship of Façade Materials.
The relationship of façade materials will remain consistent with the remaining structure.
8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The cutbacks in the façade of the new structure will create more open space around the Mallett Building.
9. Site Features.
The cutbacks in the façade of the new structure will create more open space around the Mallett Building. No other site changes are proposed.
10. Signs.
No new 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. Donahue moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Berensen Associates, for exterior alterations to the Mill Street façade of the Freeport Village Station to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 04/26/07, finding that it meets the standards of the 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) The conditions from the original approval for this project still apply.
3) The design of the tower entrance south of the Mallett Building may be as shown or may mimic the design of the tower on the southeast corner of the building. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman & Whitmore).
Petrillo’s – Depot Street
The applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for outdoor seating in front of Petrillo’s Restaurant on Depot Street. No other changes are proposed. Class C property. Tax Assessor Map 10, Lot 24. Dominic Petrillo, applicant; TIMM Holding LLC, owner.
Ms. Larson pointed out that it is on private property and they do have ample parking to accommodate additional seating. She noted that it is unusual to have it all or mostly on private property. The tables and chairs are already there. The Town is working with the landowner to upgrade the sidewalks when the street is realigned. She feels the seating is fine where it is. Chair Marstaller noted it is nice to have outdoor seating for restaurants.
Sara Sprogell, representative, explained that the three existing picnic tables are not part of Petrillo’s. They are on the overall piece of property and are a completely separate thing. Ms. Larson noted that the most recent approval was for an awning. She was unsure of the status of the picnic tables. Mr. Anderson clarified that the Board is considering the bistro-type tables in front of Petrillo’s.
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 Façade.
The proportions 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 facades will not be altered.
5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The proportions of openings within the facility will not be altered.
6. Roof Shapes
The roof shape will not be altered.
7. Relationship of Façade Materials.
The relationship of façade materials will not be altered.
8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The seats and tables are located in front of the existing building and are located entirely on private property.
9. Site Features.
The seats and tables will be located in the front of the existing building and the area will be roped off from pedestrian traffic.
10. Signs.
No new 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. Anderson/ Mr. Donahue moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and an after-the-fact Design Review Certificate for Dominic Petrillo, for outdoor seating at Petrillo’s on Depot Street, to be built substantially as proposed in a 10’ x 20’ area in front of Petrillo’s on the Depot Street side, submission dated 05/03/07, finding that it meets the standards of the 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. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore).
ITEM IV: Final Approvals
LL Bean – Parking Lot Expansion – PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is seeking approval for a new 48-space parking lot on Justin’s Way. Four existing houses will be removed. Both Design Review and Site Plan Review are required. Class C properties. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lots 77, 78, 78A, & 79. LL Bean, applicant and owner; Kylie Mason, Sebago Technics, representative.
Ms. Larson pointed out that they were here last month but have revised their plans and have included all the details. One of the things discussed was a community garden with an edible buffer. They responded in a great way and they now have blueberry bushes and apple trees incorporated into their plan. They also have Rugosa Roses, which will deter people from walking through. There is a small section of stockade fence added along the Dunham’s property. There is also some split rail fencing. The lighting is consistent with fixtures used in other lots. There is a new crosswalk shown. The storm water management plan has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer.
They are in the process of getting a modification for their site location permit and will need to do that before any more work is done.
Kylie Mason from Sebago Technics mentioned that with the closure of the lower lot on Depot Street and the Hunt/Fish store, there is a great loss of parking in the Freeport area. This proposal will provide a real solution to parking near the core. She noted the edible fence with apple trees and blueberry shrubs, the fencing and lighting that is consistent with what exists on the campus. Chair Marstaller asked if four houses and a shed would be removed and Ms. Mason indicated that this is so. Mr. Goodall asked about the detention pond and Ms. Mason advised that it would infiltrate water. She suspects the MacIntosh and Honey Crisp apple trees will bear fruit in 2-3 years.
Chair Marstaller asked about the condition of the houses and if they could be relocated. Dan Daigle from L.L.Bean noted that people have looked at moving some of the sheds but not the houses.
Mr. Anderson/ Mr. Donahue moved to open the public hearing. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore) There were no public comments or correspondence provided.
Mr. Anderson/ Mr. Donahue closed the public hearing. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore)
Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
No new buildings are proposed.
2. Height
No new buildings are proposed.
3. Proportion of Building’s Front Façade.
No new buildings are proposed.
4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
No new buildings are proposed.
5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
No new buildings are proposed.
6. Roof Shapes
No new buildings are proposed.
7. Relationship of Façade Materials.
No new buildings are proposed.
8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
No new buildings are proposed and the lot will be a paved parking lot for 48 parking spaces.
9. Site Features.
The four existing Class C houses and associated structures will be removed and a Design Review Certificate is not required. The lot will be developed into a 48-space parking lot with two curb cuts on to Justin’s Way. A sidewalk and crosswalk will be installed on Justin’s Way and will provide a pedestrian connection with the remainder of the campus. A buffer will be installed along the read property line abutting nearby residential properties and the community garden.
10. Signs.
The parking lot will be signed with the standard parking lot signage used in the remainder of the Campus.
Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.
Proposed Findings of Fact (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape
Four existing dwellings and the accessory buildings on the property will be removed. The lot will be developed into a 48- car parking lot similar in design to the nearby parking lots. A landscaped buffer will be installed along the rear property line and will incorporate plantings and a fence.
b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment
No new buildings are proposed. The parcels are located within the Design Review District.
c. Vehicular Access
There will be two curb cuts onto Justin’s Way. There are no directly abutting parking lots where connections could be provided. The applicant will be required to get a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Freeport Department of Public Works, prior to the start of construction.
d. Parking and Circulation
The parking lot will provide an additional 48 parking spaces, which will be credited towards the applicant’s parking deficit. There will be a crosswalk across Justin’s Way, which will provide a pedestrian connection with the remainder of the campus. A new sidewalk is also proposed.
e. Surface Water Drainage
The applicant has submitted detailed Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plans, which have been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer (memo dated 05/04/07). It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town of Freeport. The applicant has applied to the DEP for a Modification to the Site Location of Development Permit. Obtaining written approval from the DEP prior to any site work has been added as a condition of approval.
f. Utilities
There will be underground electric connected to the site. The site will not be connected to the public water or public sewer system.
g. Advertising Features
The sign will be marked with the standard parking lot signage system indicating the name of the lot. The sign will be similar to the signs used in the other parking lot on the L.L.Bean campus.
h. Special Features
The applicant is proposing a vegetative buffer with fence along a portion of the rear property line. The buffer incorporates planting that will discourage pedestrians cutting through the parking lot and abutting residential properties.
i. I. Exterior Lighting
The applicant is proposing the same lighting scheme and full cut-off fixtures are used on the remainder of the campus.
j. Emergency Vehicle Access
All Public Safety Department Heads have reviewed the plans.
k. Landscaping
The applicant has added landscaping along the edges of the parking lot and the road. In addition, the applicant has added a landscaped buffer along the rear property line. There is an area of existing vegetation (lilacs) towards the rear of the property that will be retained.
l. Environmental Consideration
This property is not within the Marine Waterfront District or the Shoreland Zone. The Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plans have been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. This parcel is in the Design Review District. The applicant has applied to the DEP for a Modification to the Site Location of Development Permit. Obtaining written approval from the DEP prior to any site work has been added as a condition of approval.
Conclusion: Based on these facts, the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of Section 602 Site Plan Review.
Mr. Donahue/ Ms. Benson moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact, A Design Review Certificate, and Site Plan for the new L.L.Bean parking lot on Justin’s Way, to be built substantially as proposed, site plan dated 03/21/07, revised 05/02/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Section 602 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance and 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 do the following:
A. Establish a performance guarantee in an amount of $198,301.00 to cover the cost of all site improvements, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.
B. Pay to the Town of Freeport, a non-refundable administrative fee of 2% of the performance guarantee in the amount of $3,966.00.
C. Set up an escrow account in the amount of $1,600.00 to cover the cost of inspection of site improvements by the Town Engineer.
D. Enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town of Freeport, to be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds.
E. Obtain written approval from the DEP for an amendment to the Site Location Permit.
F. Obtain a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Freeport Department of Public Works.
VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore)
ITEM V: Subdivision
Baker Road Subdivision – Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is seeking approval for an amendment to the previously approved Baker Road Subdivision on Baker Road. One new lot is proposed. No open space is required. Tax Assessor Map 18, Lot 12-2. Jamie and Kimberly Roach, owner and applicant; Charlie Brown, Sebago Technics, Land Surveyor.
Ms. Larson explained that the original subdivision approval had excess lots when the net residential acreage was done. Her only issue is that the driveway is going to go over a patch of wetlands. She would like to see the design of it reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer before it gets built to make sure it adequately transfers the water and doesn’t create problems for this lot or other lot owners. This subdivision is on Baker Road and has private wells and septic systems. All of the original information is on file. There is no new road being proposed so no legal documents are being submitted. All of the lots were delineated and this is the only one that is more than 5 acres. She has no outstanding issues with this application. The Board has not approved this lot; it is an additional lot.
Ms. Benson asked about additional lots and Ms. Larson noted that the net residential density allowed for additional lots. The original subdivision goes back quite a few years. The other owners have been notified of this proposal but they have not consented. Baker Road is a public road. Mr. Goodall explained that there has been a recent Maine Supreme Court Case that addressed the issue of buying into a common scheme and it can’t be amended unless everyone consents to an amendment. He suggested that at some point, the Board should ask the Town Attorney for an opinion on this. He noted that he would not raise this issue now.
Kimberly Roach explained that when she bought her lot, she had no idea it is in a subdivision. It has no road association membership or covenants. She has no problem with having the Town Engineer look at the wetland. Ms. Larson advised that she is concerned that if it isn’t done correctly, the water could back up into their house or wash away.
Mr. Anderson/ Mr. Donahue moved to open the Public Hearing. VOTE: (5 Ayes) 2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore) There were no public comments and no correspondence.
Mr. Anderson/ Mr. Donahue closed the Public Hearing. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore)
Mr. Goodall advised that the test pits are 250’ away from the well.
Proposed Findings of Fact:
11.1 Pollution
The parcel is shown as Zone C (areas of minimal flooding) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The lot will have a septic system. The location of passing test pits is shown on the Plan.
11.2 Sufficient Water
The new lot will have an individual well. In accordance with State Law, within one (1) year of purchase, each lot owner shall be guaranteed access to a water supply of at least three hundred fifty (350) gallons per day.
11.3 Impact on Existing Water Supplies
The lot will have a private well and will not be connected to the public water supply.
11.4 Soil Erosion
One lot is proposed. Due to the size and nature of the development, a Stormwater Management Plan and an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan were not submitted.
11.5 Traffic Conditions
The new lot will have driveway access off Baker Road. The proposed driveway location will go through an area of wetlands on the property. The applicant will need to submit detailed driveway plans, prior to the start of construction, to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. In addition, the applicant will need to get approval for a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Freeport Department of Public Works.
11.6 Sewage Disposal
This project will not utilize the public wastewater disposal system.
11.7 Solid Waste
Each individual lot owner will be required to contract with a Solid Waste Hauler in accordance with the Freeport Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance.
11.8 Impact on Natural Beauty, Aesthetics, Historic Sites, Wildlife Habitat, Rare Natural Areas, or Public Access to the Shoreline
This project is not within a shoreland zone. No rare wildlife habitats have been identified on site.
11.9 Conformance with Zoning Ordinance and Other Land Use Ordinances.
This subdivision complies with the space standards of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance and the Open Space standards of the Freeport Subdivision Ordinance. The building envelope is shown on the plan. This is a one-lot amendment to a previously approved subdivision and therefore no open space is required.
11.10 Financial and Technical Capacity
Due to the size and nature of the development and the fact that no community improvements are proposed, information on financial capacity was not submitted. The plan was prepared by Charles Brown, P.L.S. with Sebago Technics, Incorporated.
11.11 Impact on Water Quality or Shoreline
This parcel is not located within the Shoreland Zone
11.12 Impact on Ground Water Quality or Quantity
The new lot will have an individual wastewater disposal system. The location of passing test pits is shown on the plan. The lot will have a private well.
11.13 Floodplain Management
The area of the new lot has been identified as Zone C (areas of minimal flooding) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
11.14 Identification of Freshwater Wetlands
Wetland locations have been shown on the plan. The building envelope avoids wetland areas.
11.15 Rivers, Streams, and Brooks
The location of a stream has been identified on the plan.
11.16 Storm Water Management
Due to the size and nature of the development, a Stormwater Management Plan was not submitted.
11.17 Spaghetti Lots
No spaghetti lots are proposed.
11.18 Phosphorus Impacts on Great Ponds
The development is not within a watershed of a great pond.
11.19 Impacts on Adjoining Municipalities
This development is not within or does not border an adjoining municipality.
Ms. Benson/ Mr. Anderson moved: Be it ordered, that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and one-lot amendment to the Baker Road Subdivision, recording plan dated 11/15/06, most recently revised 04/30/07, to be built substantially as proposed, as it meets the standards of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance and the Freeport Subdivision 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 hearing 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 do the following:
a) Apply for a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Freeport Department of Public Works.
b) Submit details driveway plans to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer for drainage compliance. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore)
ITEM VI: Persons wishing to address the Board on non-agenda items.
Don Arnold and Jean Coffin from Pownal expressed their appreciation for the Board’s honesty and fairness. He is impressed with the way things are handled at this Board. Mr. Arnold is on a Housing Committee and an Ordinance Review Committee in Pownal. He has found Ms. Larson and other Freeport leaders very helpful in sharing their knowledge.
ITEM VII: Adjournment.
Mr. Anderson/Ms. Benson moved to adjourn at 8:17 p.m. VOTE: (5 Ayes) (2 Excused—Gorman and Whitmore)
Recorded by Sharon Coffin
|
