01/30 -

MINUTES
FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, June 13, 2007
6:30 p.m.

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

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. He pointed out that the Board was initially scheduled to elect officers this evening but it didn’t make it onto the agenda. Elections will take place in July.


ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the May 9, 2007 Project Review Board meetings.
Ms. Benson/ Mr. Anderson moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the May 9, 2007 Project
Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. VOTE: 5 Ayes/2 Abstentions— Whitmore and
Gorman

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson noted that Caroline gave birth to a daughter on May 12. Sarah Devlin is here tonight and is doing a fabulous job.

The only Staff approval has been for an additional bridge at the Leon Gorman Park. Originally there was just one planned for but now there are two. She approved it as a Staff Approval. She hasn’t been to the site but hears they are making great progress. Chair Marstaller noted that it is impressive and appears to be exactly what the Board approved.

Ms. Larson advised that the Town Council adopted contract zoning but it won’t become effective until they adopt criteria for reviewing applications. The Council and the Planning Board have a joint workshop scheduled at 6 p.m. on June 19 to talk about the criteria and what they might be like. She provided examples of what other towns use to give them a sense of what they are looking for.


ITEM III: Design Review

Center Studio and Spa—194 Main Street-Class B Building
The applicant is seeking approval for a 13.3 square foot sign on the right side façade of the building. The applicant is also proposing a gooseneck lighting fixture to illuminate the sign. No other changes have been proposed.

Aaron Pastor offered to answer questions for Board members. He explained that he is located in the carriage house.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.10

1. Signs.
The applicant is proposing to add a 32” x 60” carved PVC sign on the right side façade of the building. The applicant is proposing a gooseneck light fixture to be placed above the sign.

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

Mr. Donahue / Mr. Whitmore moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Center Studio and Spa, to add an illuminated building sign to the right side façade at 194 Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 05/24/07, 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 applicants obtain a sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Department. VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Lobster Cooker – 39 Main Street – Class A Building
The applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for
• Converting landscaping area to granite patio
• Construction of a 9’3” brick wall
• Iron lamp post
• Four walkway lights
Ms. Larson noted that this is an after-the fact application, as with all applications, the Board is under no obligation to approve the application in part or in whole. The Codes Enforcement Officer advised them that they needed to get approval. They put their application in and continued to work. They have been told that the Board is under no obligation to approve what has been done. They took out a landscaped area and put in a granite patio. They extended the brick wall in front of the building down to the corner. They want to put in an iron lamppost and add a sign to the post whereas now, the sign is on two posts. They want to add four walkway lights. There is a granite post that has been installed with a wire in it. The mortar is still wet on the granite. The Historical Society provided a letter taking opposition to it. One of their complaints is that there should not be any tables placed along the site lines of the front corner of the building. There has been some history involved in that the Jameson Tavern wanted to put some seating in front of their building a few years ago and were denied. They were advised that their porch couldn’t extend beyond the front of the house. The seating does come out to the brick wall. Another issue is that the mortar is red rather than gray in the brick wall that has been extended along Main Street. The Historical Society’s preference would be the iron fence that is along Howard Place rather than the brick fence since it would allow landscaping to be seen through it. The lamppost in the application does not match the lamppost that is there. There are some differences but she would like to see them get a signpost that matches. They are also proposing a sign which Ms. Larson approved since she has the authority to approve signs. She had photos to share with the Board.

Diane Rollins noted that the project is very nearly complete. They were aware that they are in the Design Review District but didn’t think they needed approval. Mr. Reeder did not tell them to stop but asked them to contact the Town Planner. She submitted a drawing of the patio. The only thing not done is at the corner of Main Street and Howard Place. The light post replicates what is in front of the Banana Republic. They replaced the wooden menu sign with granite one. They plan to light it at some point.

Ms. Benson asked if the Board has to work with the applicant on a new plan or reject the application. She is confident the Board would not have approved this plan. Ms. Larson suggested that the Board look at what has been done and if there are things the Board wants to approve, it might or it can deny some of it. It will be up to the applicant to return with what they want to do.

Ms. Larson approved the sign but not the post. She had a picture of the sign that has been approved. Ms. Rollins pointed out that their plan is to open up the patio to capture a more open feel from Main Street. They are not adding seating. There will be lots of potted plants along the front. The tables are on the 2’x2’ granite pavers. Chair Marstaller noted that the tables are out there now with umbrellas. Ms. Rollins advised that they are but they can be moved. No additional tables will be added.

Ms. Larson advised that the Lobster Cooker and the Jameson Tavern are both Class A buildings. The Azure is not a Class A building which is why their patio was approved. Ms. Benson noted that the Azure is not located on a
corner. Chair Marstaller pointed out that all of the buildings on Main Street have landscape plantings out to the sidewalk with various walls. This is a much different look right in the middle of it. When the Jameson requested a deck off of the main house, it was rejected. He mentioned that if the Board allows this type of thing to happen in front of the extended line of the building, it would have to allow it for everybody else in the Historic District. He agrees that providing seating right out the sidewalk and doing all the embellishments that the applicant is doing, doesn’t fit the area.

Mr. Goodall noted that this project is construction of materials for occupancy and is a structure. It comes right out to the sidewalk and there is a 10’ setback from the interior edge of the sidewalk. The roof pitches towards the sidwalk and there is a setback of 5’ for other types of roof arrangements. He does not see how this passes the minimum construction standards. It is a prohibited structure within the front setbacks. He would be making a motion with the finding that it not be approved. Ms. Larson explained that the Board has never treated patios as structures because they are at grade.

Mr. Goodall pointed out that starting at the Reebok building, all of the buildings along Main Street have green space in front of them. There is an existing rhythm and then we have this patio that bumps out and if there are granite pavers, people will be standing there in a public space where other buildings do not have public spaces.
He asked if the owner of the building has changed and Ms. Rollins replied that this is not the case.

Mr. Goodall is not concerned about the post and the sign. Since this permit is not granted, the CEO has no choice but to order it removed and restored. Chair Marstaller suggested starting with the sidewalk and the wall. Ms. Benson would like it to be uniform with the rest of the existing low brick wall in front of Banana Republic. The mortar needs to be gray and the height should be consistent with what exists. She mentioned that a walkway is not a patio. Mr. Donahue advised that the caps should be consistent as well as the height.

Mr. Goodall explained what would happen if the application is denied. Ms. Larson advised that the granite is in and it appears to be nicely done. The Board could request that it not be used for seating and plantings could be placed where there was once a hedge. Where the granite and brick meet, perhaps one width could come out and some landscaping could go in. Mr. Goodall advised that he is reluctant to do design work. Ms. Larson suggested that the Board provide some guidance to help the applicant out. It is easy for the Board to say that it does not want any seating there and have the applicant return next month with a proposal.

Ms. Benson indicated that no reconstruction should take place without approval. Mr. Donahue noted that seating should be moved back beyond the façade of the building and it would be fine for the granite pavers to be the path from the sidewalk to that seating area. The balance should be landscaping and it doesn’t have to replicate what was there previously. Perhaps the iron fence goes around the edge of the existing seating area. There is no need to bring the high fence up against this low brick wall. Landscaping can be the mediator between those two heights.

Mr. Reeder explained how patios have been dealt with in the past 20 years.

There was consensus that the lamppost with the new sign would be acceptable. Mr. Anderson requested that the menu sign on a 6’ granite post be included in the new proposal. As of tomorrow morning, there shall be no seating in that area and the applicants must come back to the Board with a revised proposal. Mr. Goodall suggested leaving this up to enforcement. Mr. Reeder explained that the applicants should come back because of a Design Review issue as well as a use issue. The applicant should understand that until the modification is made and they use that area, they will be in violation and an enforcement action will be forthcoming. Ms. Rollins indicated that it is not a problem.

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.
A portion of the front façade has been altered from a landscape area to 305 square foot granite patio. There was also the addition of a 9’ 3” long brick wall, with a height of 22 ¾” and a width of 11 3/8” along the Main Street side of the property. On each of the two pillars of the brick wall there will be two low voltage walkway lights.

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 the façade materials is consistent and compatible with the existing material of the building and neighboring buildings.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The rhythm of spaces to building on streets should not be altered.

9. Site Features.
The 305 square foot granite patio is compatible with the existing patio. The brick wall is consistent with the pre existing brick wall design along the Main Street side of the property. The proposed lamppost is 125” tall with a 42” tall light fixture atop. The 10.5 square foot sign will hang off the 48” long steel-projecting arm.

10. Signs.
The proposed lamppost is 125” tall with a 42” tall light fixture atop. The 10.5 square foot sign will hang off the 48” long steel-projecting arm. The lamppost is proposed to be in the exact location of the previous sign.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project does not meet the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Goodall / Mr. Whitmore moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board does not approve the after-the-fact Design Review Certificate for Lobster Cooker replacing the landscaped area with a granite patio to be built substantially as proposed in their submission dated May 23, 2007, finding that it does not meet the standards of the Design Review Ordinance concerning the rhythm of spaces to buildings on streets in that it will be the only projection of a use of a building into the front on this side of Main Street and the requirement concerning site fixtures for the same reason except that a Design Review Certificate is issued for the brick wall as proposed along the sidewalk provided it matches in design, height, texture and color the existing brick wall that fronts Banana Republic and also approves the lamppost as proposed for the sign. The applicant is responsible for obtaining after-the-fact permits and paying for all applicable fees association with such permits from the Codes Enforcement Officer. The Permit Review Board further finds that because this is an after-the-fact permit that has been denied in part, the parts that have been denied and are in existence constitute a violation and must not be used or occupied except for access walkway. The applicant can resubmit a new plan for the area. The work that has been done can remain until there is a final plan.

VOTE: 7 Ayes

The Board wants to see a design for either side of the walkway. Ms. Benson suggested waiting to see plans for the granite menu board. Ms. Rollins asked if they could restore the menu board on the wooden post. Mr. Goodall has no problem with the wooden one going back up. Chair Marstaller agreed that they could leave the granite post in the ground temporarily or put the wooden one back up. Ms. Rollins noted that she would restore the wooden one.
As for walkway lights, Mr. Goodall suggested denying them. The Board is denying everything except what the Board says can stay there.

ITEM IV: Final Approvals

Exit 20 LLC – Commercial Office Building – Desert Road – PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is presenting final plans for a new 31,750 square foot office building and approximately 80 parking spaces on the property on the corner of Desert and Hunter Roads. There will be two driveways to the site; one connecting to Hunter Road and the other connecting to Desert Road. The entrance on Hunter Road will be for emergency use only. There is an existing house with outbuildings on the site, with the remainder of the side being wooded. The existing structures will be removed.

The applicant has submitted elevation drawings of the building. The building will be three stories with a footprint of about 10,000 square feet and has been designed to meet the LEED Certification requirements. The design shows two wings of the building connected by a transparent center. The exterior of the building will be sided in primarily stucco with a curved metal roof. There will be an entrance on both sides of the building as well as a parking lot on each side.

The Ordinance requires 106 parking spaces for a building of this size and use (1 space per 300 square feet). The applicant is proposing to construct only 80 spaces at this time but has submitted a plan showing that all of the parking can fit on site should the Town determine that there is a parking problem The intent is to encourage car pooling and alternative modes of transportation to the property.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 512.D.10 to allow the driveway/fire lane to the service area to have a width of 18 feet, instead of the 26 feet required by the Ordinance, as well as an aisle width reduction to 22 feet instead of the 24 feet required.

Ms. Larson has no outstanding issues with this project. Ms. Howe noted that she has no additional things to tell the Board. Peter Taggart is also here to answer questions.

Mr. Goodall mentioned that there had been discussion about providing a shuttle to areas such as Shaw’s. Mr. Taggart explained that they plan to purchase two electric vehicles and make them available for their tenants to run errands. They will encourage tenants to bicycle to work or carpool. Mr. Taggart explained that there would be no retail or medical tenants. Ms. Benson asked about crosswalks and whether any discussion was held with the Highway Department. Mr. Taggart noted that he has not done that because the bridge is the issue. It is dangerous. He plans to look into attaching a pedestrian walkway on the side of the bridge so that people can walk into town.

Ms. Howe explained that there would be two ways out on Desert Road and one way out onto Hunter Road. She noted that most of the maple, oak, ash and pine trees along Desert and Hunter Road would remain with some additional trees interplanted. They do plan to cut down the existing brush. They will use the wood from the trees that will be cut to make space for the building. They are not planning to mow lawns. Ms. Howe explained the design for the spillway.

Mr. Donahue had questions about the lighting fixtures. Ms. Howe noted that the fixture submitted is the one that they will use.

Mr. Anderson / Mr. Whitmore moved to open the Public Hearing. VOTE: (7 Ayes) There were no comments and no correspondence provided.

Mr. Anderson/ Mr. Whitmore moved to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Proposed Findings of Fact (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)

a. Preservation of Landscape
This proposal includes a new 31,750 square foot three-story LEEDS Certified office building. There is an existing house with outbuildings on site, which will be removed. Most of the existing vegetation will be maintained in the front setback on Desert Road. Some additional plantings of black birch and ferns will be added. The site could have a pedestrian connection with the abutting lot if developed.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment
This parcel is not within the Design Review District. The proposal includes a new 31,750 square foot office building. The building will be three stories with a footprint of approximately 10,000 square feet and has been designed to meet LEEDS Certification requirements. The design shows two wings of the building connected by a transparent center. The exterior of the building will be sided primarily with stucco with a curved metal roof. There will be entrances on both sides of the building as well as a parking lot on each side. There is an existing house with outbuildings on site, which will be removed.
c. Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to the site will remain at one of the existing entrances from Desert Road. An exit only one-way drive is provided from the south parking lot, onto Hunter Road. This is the location of an existing access to the property. The driveway is eighteen feet wide with two-foot grass shoulders. The site plan has been reviewed by the Fire Chief for access and egress to and from the south parking area for access to the building. The drives are more than 50 feet from the intersection of Desert and Hunter Roads. The main entrance is more than ten feet from the property line. The exit drive needs a waiver for its existing location less than ten feet from the property line.

d. Parking and Circulation
The applicant is proposing 80 parking spaces; the Ordinance requires 106 parking spaces for a building this size. The applicant has presented a plan showing that they can fit all of the required parking on site if necessary. The applicant feels that 80 spaces are adequate for the type of business that will be in the building. Some of the spaces will be set aside for vanpools and alternative transportation. Bicycle storage is provided on the north side of the building. There is room in this design for connectivity with adjacent parcels.

e. Surface Water Drainage
Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer (see memo dated 03-07-07). It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Freeport, to be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds prior to any site work.
f. Utilities
The project will be on public water and sewer. Two geothermal wells for a system of heating and cooling of the building will be located on the north side of the building. There is a shallow depth to bedrock in the vicinity of the building.

g. Advertising Features
One 30 square foot granite ground sign is proposed at the Desert Road entrance.




h. Special Features
The building design does not include a loading bay, but the north side of the building does include a storage and a recycling room accessible to the exterior by a garage type door. Some small existing outbuildings will be removed from the site.

i. I. Exterior Lighting
The applicant has submitted a photometrics plan and full descriptions of the lighting fixtures. All lighting fixtures are full cut-off and the photometrics plan meets the standards for illumination levels as set forth in the Freeport Zoning Ordinance.

j. Emergency Vehicle Access
All public safety department heads have reviewed the plans. The Fire Chief has reviewed the site plan for access and egress to and from the south parking area for access to the building.

k. Landscaping
Existing vegetation will be preserved where possible. Landscaping plans for the entire property have been submitted. The applicant is proposing a series of native woodland seed mix and native ground cover.

l. Environmental Consideration
This project is not within the Marine Waterfront District of the Shoreland Zone. The Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation control plan have been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. This property is not within the Shoreland Zone or Marine Waterfront District.

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

Mr. Taggart stated for the record, his opposition to the $30,000 fee for road maintenance and improvements but understands that the Board has no power to make changes. He pointed out where the State roads exist and how little impact the project will have on a Town road. He suggested that the Board look at it in the future.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Anderson moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve a waiver of Section 512.D.10 to allow the driveway/fire lane to the service area to have a width of 18 feet, instead of the 26 feet required by the Ordinance, as well as an aisle width reduction to 22 feet instead of the 24 feet required, in that the Fire Chief has approved the width and based upon the nature and use of the driveway, the driveway should adequately provide access to the rear of the facility.

Further Be It Ordered: that the Freeport Project Review Board approve a waiver of Section 512.D.7 to allow the exit drive to be within ten feet of the property line, as the adjacent property has been purchased for commercial use. If there is an existing use or structure, the Project Review Board may waive the ten foot requirement provided that the criteria and standards of Section 602, Site Plan Review are satisfied. VOTE: (7 Ayes)


Hemlock Ridge Subdivision—PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is seeking final approval for a 4-lot open space subdivision on Pownal Road. A 3-lot subdivision was previously approved on this lot, using the old subdivision standards that did not require open space, but was never built. The applicant is now returning with a new plan, which is consistent with the new Subdivision Ordinance. A new road off Pownal Road is proposed. Approximately 12.95 acres will be preserved as open space; 12.88 acres are required.

The lots are situated closer to Pownal Road with all of the open space towards the rear of the property. The steep portions of the lot have been incorporated into the open space. The NRA calculation indicates wetlands and/or steep slopes; and distinguishes the amount of these two areas being deducted. Wetland boundaries and steep slopes are shown on the plan. All four lots show test borings, septic disposal areas and potential well inclusion areas.

The open space will be retained by the Homeowner’s Association. The applicant has submitted the preliminary Homeowner’s Association Documents and Road Maintenance Documents, which were reviewed by the Town Attorney. Additional review was not requested.

The applicant has also submitted a Stormwater Management Plan and an Erosion Control Plan, which have been reviewed by the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer has conducted his final review and has suggested that the applicant and the Town enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the Stormwater Management System; is requested as a condition of approval.

The applicant has requested a waiver of article 5.6 of the Freeport Subdivision Ordinance. A waiver of Article 5.6 to allow a land surveyor to permit the plan. It would be my recommendation that due to the size and the layout of the subdivision, that the Board approves the designs as produced by a Land Surveyor rather than a Landscape Architect or Professional Engineer.

Ms. Larson explained that she has no issues with this application. Mr. Lewis advised that the only change is that the owner has decided to not retain ownership of the open space. It will go with the lots. The road has been shortened about 50 feet from the original road.

Mr. Anderson / Mr. Whitmore moved to open the Public Hearing. VOTE: (7 Ayes) There were no comments and no correspondence provided.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Mr. Goodall asked if there is a mature forest in the open space. Mr. Lewis advised that it was cut off about 20 years ago. There are only deer trails in the open space at this time.

Proposed Findings of Fact:
11.1 Pollution
The subdivision is shown as Zone C (areas of minimal flooding) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). All lots will have an individual septic system and wells. The location of passing test borings is shown on the plan.

11.2 Sufficient Water
All lots will have an individual well. In accordance with State Law, within (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
All lots will have private wells and will not be connected to the public water supply.

11.4 Soil Erosion
Four lots are proposed. The submitted stormwater management system design and the Erosion Control Plan have been reviewed by Albert Presgraves, Town Engineer.

11.5 Traffic Conditions
The subdivision will have a private way off Valley Brook Drive. There is a sign distance 650’ +-northwest and of 1,000+- southeast from Valley Brook Drive on Pownal Road.

11.6 Sewage Disposal
This project will not utilize the public wastewater disposal system. Each lot will have an individual sewer system. Test borings conducted by Sweet Associates have been identified on the plan.

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, approximately 12.95 acres will be preserved as open space: 12.88 acres are required.

11.10 Financial and Technical Capacity
Prior to any site work, the applicant will need to submit a letter from a financial institution indicating that they have the funds available to complete the project as proposed. In addition, prior to any site work, the applicant will need to post a performance guarantee to cover the cost of all site work.

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
Each lot will have an individual well and septic system. The development meets the density standards of the ordinance, thereby protecting the groundwater.

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
There are no rivers, streams, or brooks identified on the plan.

11.16 Storm Water Management
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan recorded in registry of deeds. The plan has been reviewed by Albert Presgraves, Town Engineer.

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 borders Pownal but it does not cross the boundary.


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


Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Donahue moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board move to approve a waiver of Article 5.6 of the Freeport Subdivision Ordinance to allow a subdivision plan to be prepared by a Land Surveyor, in that based upon the size and nature of the development and the information provided the plan is sufficient. VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Mr. Anderson/ Ms. Benson moved: Be it ordered, that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and subdivision plan for Hemlock Ridge Subdivision, recording plan dated 05-10-06, last revised 05-24-07, 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 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 to cover the cost of all sitework, in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer.
B. Pay to the Town of Freeport, a non-refundable administrative fee of 2% of the performance guarantee.
C. Set up an escrow account ($1, 200.00) to cover the cost of inspection of site improvements by the Town Engineer and legal fees associated with the project.
D. Pay an impact fee of $3,000.00 for the road construction.
E. Submit documentation from a financial institution indicating that the applicant has the financial capacity to complete the project.
3) The applicant submits a final amended copy of the recorded Road Maintenance Agreement and the Homeowners Association Documents to the Town Planner.
A. Submit detailed driveway plans to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer.
VOTE: (7 Ayes)



Casco Bay YMCA – Old South Freeport Road—PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is presenting information regarding surface water drainage as an outstanding item for the final plans for a Site Plan Amendment at the YMCA. The proposal includes enclosing the airnasium, adding 7,500 square feet of new building space, adding a new 104-car parking lot, and adding a service area with a driveway and a small parking area. The DEP has approved the project.

Ms. Larson explained that the balance of the project was approved in February or March and the only outstanding item is the surface water drainage. A meeting with the DEP and the adjoining property owner was held and there were some minor changes made to the plan. The DEP concluded that the water was being directed into the most
appropriate places. The Town Engineer has reviewed the most recent revisions and agrees they are consistent with our Ordinance.

Mr. Anderson / Mr. Whitmore moved to open the Public Hearing. VOTE: (7 Ayes) There were no comments and no correspondence provided.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Ms. Benson is happy that everything has been resolved with the neighbors.

Proposed Findings of Fact (Section 602.F of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)

e. Surface Water Drainage.
Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer (see memo dated 03-07-07). It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Freeport, to be recorded in the Cumberland Country Registry of Deeds prior to any site work. The applicant has received approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for their NRPA Tier 2 Permit. The applicant has received the DEP Site Location permit. The Town Engineer has reviewed the site for stormwater flows (see memo dated 05-23-07).

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

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved: Be it ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact for the Casco Bay YMCA, to be built substantially as proposed, finding that it meets the standards of the Section 602.F.e 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.
VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Mr. Goodall noted that the plans demonstrate that the control of the runoff has been maximized.


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


ITEM VII: Adjournment.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. VOTE: (7 Ayes)


Recorded by Sharon Coffin