A.      Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

B.      Roll Call

Present: Phil Hunt, Chair, Martha Porch, Beth Howe, Terry Turner, Joe Taylor, Stephen Sloan, Tom Powers

Staff:  Carla Nixon, Assistant Town Manager / Interim Town Planner, Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk

C.      Minutes of Prior Meetings
Ms. Howe moved to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2002 meeting as presented.

Ms. Porch seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

D.      Consent Calendar / Deminimus Change Approvals

Longwoods Meadow sidewalk material change  The sidewalk will be reclaim rather than stonedust.

MSAD # 51 Middle School HVAC noise barrier - To address concerns regarding noise generated by the air-conditioning chiller unit, an acoustical barrier will be added around the unit.  The chiller unit is in the location shown on the approved site plans.  The wall will be 10-feett high, constructed of concrete masonry units and will surround three sides of the chiller.  The sides of the walls, which will be located ten (10) feet away from the chiller unit, will measure 40 feet long by 30+- feet wide.  The open side will face the athletic fields to the northwest of the new school and will be secured with a black vinyl chain link fence and gate.

The Board accepted the Consent Calendar items as presented.  No action was taken.

E.      Hearings and Presentations

1.      Public Hearing - Minor Site Plan Review - 26' x 14' Fitness Room Addition to the Chebeague Island Recreation Hall, 382 North Road; Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 31A, Beth Dyer, Administrative Director, representative.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The applicant is the Chebeague Island Recreation Center.  The representative is Beth Dyer, Administrative Director.  Bruce Bowman prepared the site plan.  They are seeking to construct a 26' x 14' (364-sq. ft.) addition to the existing building to provide for safer and more comfortable use of the current exercise equipment. The Recreation Center is located at 382 North Road, Map I06, Lot 31A.  This property is contract zoned and this proposal does not require a review of the contract zoning agreement. The Planning Board was asked to conduct a minor site plan review.

DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS:
Barbara McPheters:      See memo, dated 11/8/02.
Fire Chief Small:       See memo, dated 11/5/02.
Adam Ogden:     Reviewed, no comment.
Rescue Chief Bolduc:    Reviewed, no comment.
Police Chief Charron:   Reviewed, no comment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is the Chebeague Recreation Center.  The proposal is to add a 16' x 24' addition to more safely accommodate existing exercise equipment.  The addition fills in a rectangular gap at the corner of the existing building, so only two new walls are to be constructed.  The addition will add no new plumbing or heating and will not increase the demand on the water or septic systems.
This plan is classified as minor since it involves an addition of less than 5,000-sq. ft. (364-sq. ft. proposed).

DISCUSSION:
The Fire Chief and CEO requested that the Fire Marshals Office grant any necessary permit(s) before applying for a local building permit.  The applicant proposes to expand the existing sprinkler system and this needs to be reviewed and approved. Also the fire alarm system needs to be expanded into the addition. A key box shall be installed as per the Fire Chief's memo.  Ms. Nixon determined through consultation with the Town Attorney that there was no need to consider the contract zoning agreement for this expansion.  

Ms. Dyer stated the Chebeague Fire Department already has a key to the building.

Mr. Hunt stated the Board previously approved the project.  The request is a modification to the existing site plan.  The use is governed by a contract zone agreement.  The Town is familiar with the project.

The Board reviewed the proposed findings of fact with the following findings:
Utilization of the Site - The plan for the development, including buildings, lots, and support facilities, must reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development. Environmentally sensitive areas, including but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, significant wildlife habitats, fisheries, scenic areas, habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals, unique natural communities and natural areas, and sand and gravel aquifers must be maintained and preserved to the maximum extent. The development must include appropriate measures for protecting these resources, including but not limited to, modification of the proposed design of the site, timing of construction, and limiting the extent of excavation.
Given the small size of the proposed addition, "infill design, and the lack of need for any additional water or septic capacity, the site can support this use.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
Vehicular access to and from the development must be safe and convenient. Driveways must be designed to provide the minimum site distance according to MDOT standards. Access and egress must be located to avoid hazardous conflicts.
There are no proposed changes to the access and parking. A waiver has been requested.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
Access must meet the specific ordinance requirements.
The location of the site access is in conformance with the contract zoning agreement.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The layout of the site must provide for the safe movement of passenger, service, and emergency vehicles through the site.
        There is no proposed change to the layout of the site.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
Off street parking must conform to the specific standards.
There is no anticipated demand for additional parking and no changes have been proposed.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The site plan must provide for a system of pedestrian ways within the development appropriate to the type and scale of development. This system must connect the major building entrances/ exits with parking areas and with existing sidewalks, if they exist or are planned in the vicinity of the project. The pedestrian network may be located either in the street right-of-way or outside of the right-of-way in open space or recreation areas. The system must be designed to link the project with residential, recreational, and commercial facilities, schools, bus stops, and existing sidewalks in the neighborhood or, when appropriate, to connect the amenities such as parks or open space on or adjacent to the site.
As there will be no external access to this addition, there will be no impact on pedestrian circulation.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
Adequate provisions must be made for the collection and disposal of all stormwater that runs off proposed streets, parking areas, roofs, and other surfaces, through a stormwater drainage system and maintenance plan, which must not have adverse impacts on abutting or downstream properties.
Based on the limited square footage increase, there will be very minimal impact on the drainage.  A waiver has been requested.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
.1      All building, site, and roadway designs and layouts must harmonize with existing topography and conserve desirable natural surroundings to the fullest extent possible, such that filling, excavation and earth moving activity must be kept to a minimum. Parking lots on sloped sites must be terraced to avoid undue cut and fill, and / or the need for retaining walls. Natural vegetation must be preserved and protected wherever possible.
.2      Soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies must be minimized by an active program meeting the requirements of the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction:  Best Management Practices, dated March 1991, and as amended from time to time.
The applicant must submit an erosion control plan for review by the CEO. This is a condition of the approval.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The development must be provided with a system of water supply that provides each use with an adequate supply of water. If the project is to be served by a public water supply, the applicant must secure and submit a written statement from the supplier that the proposed water supply system conforms with its design and construction standards, will not result in an undue burden on the source of distribution system, and will be installed in a manner adequate to provide needed domestic and fire protection flows.
There is no new plumbing proposed and no increase in demand for water.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The development must be provided with a method of disposing of sewage which compliance with the State Plumbing Code. If provisions are proposed for on-site waste disposal, all such systems must conform to the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules.
There is no new plumbing proposed and no increase in the demand for sewage disposal.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The development must be provided with electrical, telephone, and telecommunication service adequate to meet the anticipated use of the project. New utility lines and facilities must be screened from view to the extent feasible. If the service in the street or on adjoining lots is underground, the new service must be placed underground.
The current electrical service is sufficient for the expanded use.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The proposed site development and use must not adversely impact either the quality or quantity of groundwater available to abutting properties or to the public water supply systems. Applicants whose projects involve on-site water supply or sewage disposal systems with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater must demonstrate that the groundwater at the property line will comply, following development, with the standards for safe drinking water as established by the State of Maine.
There are no changes to the existing septic and well systems.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
All aspects of the project must be designed so that:
.1      No person shall locate, store, discharge, or permit the discharge of any treated, untreated, or inadequately treated liquid, gaseous, or solid materials of such nature, quantity, obnoxious, toxicity, or temperature that may run off, seep, percolate, or wash into surface or groundwaters so as to contaminate, pollute, or harm such waters or cause nuisances, such as objectionable shore deposits, floating or submerged debris, oil or scum, color, odor, taste, or unsightliness or be harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
.2      All storage facilities for fuel, chemicals, chemical or industrial wastes, and biodegradable raw materials, must meet the standards of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the State Fire Marshall's Office.
No toxic materials will be stored in this additiononly exercise equipment.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The applicant must demonstrate that he / she has the financial and technical capacity to carry out the project in accordance with this ordinance and the approved plan.
The applicant has provided proof of technical and financial capacity.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
If any portion of the site has been identified as containing historic or archaeological resources, the development must include appropriate measures for protecting these resources, including but not limited to, modification of the proposed design of the site, timing of construction, and limiting the extent of excavation.
No portion of the site has been identified as containing such resources.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
If any portion of the site is located within a special flood hazard area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, all use and development of that portion of the site must be consistent with the Town's Floodplain management provisions.
The property is located in the Floodplain Overlay Zone Careas of minimal flooding (Community-Panel Number 230162 0023 E) No special precautions are necessary in Zone C.
 Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The proposed development must have adequate exterior lighting to provide for its safe use during nighttime hours, if such use is contemplated. All exterior lighting must be designed and shielded to avoid undue glare, adverse impact on neighboring properties and rights - of way, and the unnecessary lighting of the night sky.
No new exterior lighting is proposed.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The development must provide for the buffering of adjacent uses where there is a transition from one type of use to another use and for the screening of mechanical equipment and service and storage areas. The buffer may be provided by distance, landscaping, fencing, changes in grade, and / or a combination of these or other techniques.
Based on its small size and location, the addition will not necessitate any additional buffering of adjacent uses.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
The development must control noise levels such that it will not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.
The proposal will not generate any noise that would be audible to neighboring properties.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
.1      Exposed nonresidential storage areas, exposed machinery, and areas used for the storage or collection of discarded automobiles, auto parts, metals or other articles of salvage or refuse must have sufficient setbacks and screening (such as a stockade fence or a dense evergreen hedge) to provide a visual buffer sufficient to minimize their impact on abutting residential uses and users of public streets.
.2      All dumpsters or similar large collection receptacles for trash or other wastes must be located on level surfaces which are paved or graveled. Where the dumpster or receptacle is located in a yard which abuts a residential or institutional use or a public street, it must be screened by fencing or landscaping.
.3      Where a potential safety hazard to children is likely to arise, physical screening sufficient to deter small children from entering the premises must be provided and maintained in good condition.
This proposal does not generate any additional storage of materials outside. It will not increase solid waste disposal.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.
Landscaping must be provided as part of site design. The landscape plan for the entire site must use landscape materials to integrate the various elements on site, preserve and enhance the particular identity of the site, and create a pleasing site character. The landscaping should define street edges, break up parking areas, soften the appearance of the development, and protect abutting properties.
The proposed landscaping for the addition will match the area around the rest of the building, which is a 2 margin of crushed stone around the building, and grass beyond that.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.

.1      The site design should avoid creating a building surrounded by a parking lot. Parking should be to the side and preferably in the back. In rural, uncongested areas buildings should be set well back from the road so as to conform with the rural character of the area. If the parking is in front, a generous, landscaped buffer between road and parking lot is to be provided. Unused areas should be kept natural, as field, forest, wetland, etc.
.2      Where two or more buildings are proposed, the buildings should be grouped and linked with sidewalks; tree planting should be used to provide shade and break up the scale of the site. Parking areas should be separated from the building by a minimum of five (5) to ten (10) feet. Plantings should be provided along the building edge, particularly where building facades consist of long or unbroken walls.
There is no increase or change in location of the existing parking.
Based on these facts the standards of this section have been met.

SECTION 300 - AQUIFER PROTECTION (if applicable)
The use is located in the Aquifer Protection district. However due to there being no increase in demand for septic treatment or storage, no positive finding by the board is required.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.  There were no public comments.  The public portion was closed.

Ms. Porch moved to approve the findings of fact as presented.

Mr. Powers seconded.                                       VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Powers asked if it was clear that the Fire Department would have a key, and a key box was not necessary.

Ms. Nixon stated that according to Beth Dyer, the Fire Department has a key.  This will be confirmed with the Fire Department.

Mr. Powers moved to approve the standard and proposed conditions of approval.

Ms. Porch seconded.                                        VOTE:  Unanimous
This approval is dependent upon and limited to the proposals and plans contained in the application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed to by the applicant. Any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents, except deminimus changes as so determined by the Town Planner which do not affect approval standards, is subject to review and approval of the Planning Board prior to implementation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1.      That Fire Chief Smalls requirements be met, as listed in his memo, dated
November 5, 2002.
2.      That an erosion control plan be submitted and approved by the Code Enforcement Officer prior to issuance of building permit.
3.      Implementation of the proposal shall comply with any additional requirements of the planning board.

Ms. Porch moved to grant the following waiver requests; 206.7.2.2.5; 206.7.3.2; 206.7.3.9; 206.7.3.10; 206.7.2; 206.7.11; 206.7.12

Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Powers moved to grant Minor Site Plan Approval with the standard and recommended conditions of approval for a 26' x 14' fitness room addition to the Chebeague Island Recreation Hall at 382 North Road; Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 31A, Beth Dyer, Administrative Director, representative.

Ms. Porch seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Public Hearing - Jordan Farms Major Subdivision Re-Affirmation of Final Plan, Seven (7) lot residential subdivision at 130 Tuttle Road, 69l8 acres, RR2 zone.  Tax Assessor Map R03, Lot 43A.  Calvin and Julie Vashon, owners, John Mitchell, Mitchell and Associates, representative.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: This project was granted final approval on August 20, 2002 with a condition of approval that it needed to obtain DEP and Army Corp approvals prior to the plan being released for recording.  Section 4.4 E3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that Approval of any subdivision plan not filed for recording within 90 days after Final Plan approval shall become null and void.  Consequently, the Board needs to re-affirm this plan so that the approval does not lapse prior to the receipt of the necessary DEP and Army Corp approvals.

Mr. Mitchell stated he was hopeful that the DEP and Army Corp permits would be received shortly.

Mr. Taylor asked the status of the permits.

Mr. Mitchell stated the DEP permit has been approved and the applicant is waiting for the Army Corp.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.  There were no public comments.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Ms. Porch moved to re-affirm the Planning Boards final approval of Jordan Farm subdivision and to extend the Boards time for compliance by ninety days.  The approval is in accordance with the standard and proposed conditions and findings of fact of the August 20, 2002 approval.

Mr. Powers seconded.                                       VOTE:  Unanimous

3.      Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Approval Major Subdivision: Ridge Road Subdivision, five (5) lot residential subdivision on Bruce Hill Road; Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 5B, RR1 zone, Jerome and Carol Watts, owners and applicants.

Mr. Hunt explained that the subdivision was classified major because it exceeded four lots.  He stated approval is a two-phase process and the applicant was seeking preliminary approval this evening.  The Board must first find the application complete for review.

Ms. Nixon reviewed the request as follows: The applicants are Jerome and Carol Watts, and they representing themselves. The property is located at 253 Bruce Hill Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 5.  This review is for Application Completeness and Preliminary Plan Approval of a 5 lot major subdivision.  The plan has been through Sketch Plan Review and the current design reflects changes recommended during that process, specifically; a clustered subdivision configuration featuring one individual and two shared driveways; a voluntary 100' no-cut buffer along Bruce Hill Road; the designation of a 10' wide pedestrian easement; and a 25% open space provision.  Town staff and the Town's consulting engineer, Tom Saucier, of SYTDesign Consultants, have reviewed the plan.  The Board needs to first determine if the application is complete, and if so, it may then continue on with its preliminary plan review.

Mr. Turner moved to find the application for Ridge Road Subdivision a major five (5) lot residential subdivision on Bruce Hill Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 5B, RR1 zone to be complete.

Ms. Howe seconded.                                         VOTE:  Unanimous

20 August 2002: The Planning Board conducted a Sketch Plan Review of the two sketches provided by the applicant, and also reviewed a conceptual sketch of a loop road scheme prepared by the Planning Department. The Board voted to table Sketch Plan Review of the plans until a site walk could be conducted.
3 September 2002: The Planning Board conducted a site walk. The applicant and the planner also attended.
17 September 2002: The applicant appeared before the Board for the continuation of the Sketch Plan review.

DESCRIPTION:
        
Parcel size:    The applicant owned 33.5 acres in a contiguous parcel. However the northerly 12 acres which had been under contract, has been sold to the abutting property owner. This leaves a parcel of 21.68 acres upon which the subdivision is planned.

Zoning: RR1

Min. Lot size:  4 acres minimum for a clustered subdivision on private water.

Lot frontage:   100 for clustered subdivision.

Setbacks:       Front = 50, Rear = 75', Side 30' (combined = 75).

Water:         The applicant is proposing individual wells.  Sevee and Maher Engineers have indicated that an adequate water supply exists.

Wetlands:       Eugenie F. Moore conducted Wetland delineation.  Wetland area is 1.38 acres in size.  Potential wetlands impact is minimal based on shared driveways for lots 2 and 3 utilizing an existing logging road and the fact that there is no access road.  No permits are required.

Open Space:     25% open space will be deeded in common to the 5 lot owners with each one owning a 1/5 share.

Sewer:         Individual private septic systems.  Soils analysis complete.

Utilities:      Letters from CMP and Time Warner Cable indicate service can be provided.

DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS:

Barbara McPheters:      Refer to memo dated 11/13/02, which specifies the way in which septic system ties are to be done.
Adam Ogden:     Recommended that the 10 width of the pedestrian easement at the rear of the property is increased to 30 and that it be cleared and mulched for easier accesses and use.
Rescue Chief Bolduc:    Reviewed, no comment.
Police Chief Charron:   Reviewed, no comment.
Fire Chief Small:       Refer to memo dated 11/5/02 which lists details for the following requirements: sprinkler systems required; monitored fire alarm system required; private roadways or driveways to be approved by PWD Director for emergency apparatus access.
DISCUSSION:
1.      Relocation of the existing trail network.
2.      25% open space will be deeded in common to the 5 lot owners with each one owning a 1/5 share.
3.      Prior to leaving, Mr. Fillmore received a call from Will Cook of DEP in which it was explained that the plan did not require Site Location of Development (SLODA) review as only 22.5 acres were being developed.  The acreage threshold for review is 25+ acres.
4.      No waivers are being requested.
5.      Review of SYTDesign comments contained in letter dated 11/14/02, including the following key points: Net residential density calculations and extent of subdivision parcel clarified.

Mr. Watts, applicant reviewed the proposed plan as follows: The lot is a 22.05-acre parcel.  Ms. McPheters requested swing ties for the septic systems these have been addressed.  The driveways will be controlled by the subdivision covenants.  Lots 2 & 3 and 3 & 4 will have shared driveways.   The proposal is for a clustered subdivision.  The building envelopes have been adjusted to a smaller size.  Language has been added to the covenants to reflect a fifty- percent maximum build out of any of the lots.  The open space has been increased to more than the required twenty-five percent.  The open space will be for the five-lots in common, each lot to receive a 1/5 or twenty- percent total share in the open space that will be limited to pedestrian-passive use only, so that the area remain as pristine as possible.  The covenants provide for equal shares in maintenance, taxes, and general use.  There is proposed additional language in the covenants that states that motorized vehicles are not allowed.  Snowmobile use only, could be allowed through vote of all the lot owners.  There is an additional ten- (10) foot wide access easement to the south side of the subdivision in Lot number one.  This is intended to be in common with the five lots.  This will enable a complete circular motion of free access to and from the open space to Bruce Hill Road in two locations including the homeowners lots.
The open space also reflects a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement intended for the inhabitants of Cumberland.  The easement is located along the entire westerly border of the 5.5-acre open space area and a westerly portion of lot one.
The engineer peer review comments are being addressed as follows:
1.  The acreage is 22.05 acres.  
2.  The lot shown under contract has been sold to an abutter.
3.  Density calculations have been submitted for review.
Items 4 through 12 will be addressed by the applicants design engineers and incorporated into the final approval submission.

The Towns peer review agreed with the conclusions of items 13 and 14.
 
The Fire Chiefs comments will be addressed as follows: Items 1 and 2 will be addressed within the covenants.  Item 3 will be addressed in the road design process.
The Greenbelt Trails have been addressed with the ten (10)-foot wide pedestrian easement along the westerly border of the property.  Mr. Ogden, Public Works Director is requesting a thirty-foot wide easement.
Sevee & Maher Engineering have studied the groundwater removal.
This development is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood with minimal impact.

Ms. Howe asked if the pedestrian easement would allow people to walk all the way around the property.

Mr. Watts stated yes, that would be added for final approval.

Ms. Howe asked about Mr. Ogden's comment that the pedestrian easement being increased to thirty feet and that it be cleared and mulched for easier access and use.

Mr. Watts asked if Mr. Ogden was requesting he build the pedestrian easement.

Mr. Sloan asked if the applicant agreed to items 1 and 2 of the Fire Chief's letter, and if item 3 would be addressed at the design process.

Mr. Watts stated the proposed driveways exceed the Town's requirements. The driveways will be eighteen feet wide.  

Mr. Sloan asked if there were presently snowmobile trails through the property.

Mr. Watts stated yes there are snowmobile trail signs on the property.  The covenants will allow the homeowners to change the use to snowmobiles.  If the homeowners' voted to change the use of the trail, the Town easement could also be changed to allow snowmobiles.

Ms. Porch stated the Greenbelt map was originally all snowmobile trails.  The trails have been used by bicyclists for fairground access.  She cannot vote a positive finding if snowmobile use is prohibited.  The time frame for snowmobile use is very limited.  The local snowmobile club may have a remedy to remove the trail to another property.

Mr. Powers stated he was concerned with an enforcement mechanism with respect to common responsibilities in the event that someone chooses to not participate financially in maintenance, who would have the authority to take action.

Mr. Watts stated his attorney was looking into the Association covenants and declarations.

Mr. Powers asked if there was going to be public easement to open space.

Mr. Watts stated public use would be the trail along the back, the easements on the sides were only for the five-lot owners.

Mr. Powers stated since each of the five-lots are adjacent to the open space what was the purpose of easements useful to only the property owners.

Mr. Watts stated it was to achieve a loop trail system to the lots.  This was a result of discussion with Mr. Fillmore, Former Planner to have a perimeter motion.

Ms. Howe asked if the legal status of the Greenbelt Map gave the ability to require snowmobiles.

Ms. Porch stated the trails could be re-located but must maintain a continuous access trail.  Section 7.5.E of the Subdivision Ordinance states The Planning Board may require the developer to dedicate easements not less than ten (10) feet wide to the Town over those areas of the subdivision that are shown on the Town's Greenbelt Map enacted as part of the Towns ordinances.  Such easements shall be for the benefit of the public and the Town shall have the right, but not the obligation to maintain such easements.  Any such dedication must be made through appropriate legal instruments approved by the Town attorney.

Ms. Howe asked if the easement was deeded to the Town, would the Town determine the use.

Mr. Hunt stated it would be defined by the scope of the easement.

Ms. Porch stated previous developers have been willing to continue existing trails.

Mr. Turner asked if abutters were concerned with the snowmobile paths.

Mr. Watts stated he had talked with neighbors and they had some complaints about night rides.

Ms. Porch stated Mr. Watts should speak with the snowmobile club.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.
There were no public comments.

Mr. Sloan asked if Mr. Watts had talked with the snowmobile club.

Mr. Watts stated he had talked with Joanne Jordan, President of the snowmobile club.  She stated the trail could be re-located.

The Board reviewed the proposed findings of fact with the following findings:


Mr. Hunt stated the application appeared to be substantially complete.  The covenant issue and the terms of the homeowners' association were under review by the Town attorney.

Ms. Nixon stated they haven't been sent to the Town's attorney as Mr. Watts attorney was still working on the language.

Mr. Hunt stated it is permissible for the open space to be held in common.  If that is the case there needs to be an association to address items such as maintenance costs, taxes etc. with the property.  That is a technical item that the attorney's will work out.  He stated he thought there still needed to be some consideration given as to the best design for a woodland trail.  There may need to be a more creative layout in the corners, to change the sharp 90-degree turns.  It is good to preserve a portion of the existing trail, but it would be unfortunate to have the trail with no access from the front.    There is a second branch to the trail that goes about half way across the back of the property.  He stated the Board is quite sympathetic to restricting wheeled motorized vehicles. And agreed with Ms. Porch that communication with the snowmobile club could achieve a cooperative solution, night driving may be able to be limited.  The plan is very good and at the next meeting the applicant should have the results of the Cumberland County Soils and Conservation review.

Ms. Howe agreed with Mr. Hunt.

Mr. Turner stated he was sympathetic to those who didn't want snow machines across their property and they shouldnt be obligated to allow snowmobile use.

Mr. Taylor voiced concern about mandating snowmobile use.

Mr. Powers complimented the developer on his willingness and ability to listen to the Boards direction.  He has made a number of adjustments from the original proposal.  The adjustments have been consistent and appropriate with the Board's direction.  There is a double edge sword as far as public benefit for trails, and would be in everyone's best interest to proceed in a cooperative manner.  

Mr. Powers moved to table Preliminary Major Subdivision Approval pending reports for the three outstanding items; at Ridge Road Subdivision, a five (5) lot residential subdivision on Bruce Hill Road; Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 5B in the Rural Residential 1 district, Jerome and Carol Watts, owners and applicants.

Ms. Porch seconded.                                        VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Powers was excused from the Planning Board meeting.

4.      Public Hearing - Route One Design Guidelines, To review and approve the proposed advisory guidelines for Route One.

Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows:
The major changes that have been made since the last review in March 2002 are as follows:
1.      The plan now contains language that is consistent with its advisory nature; (i.e., shalls are now shoulds.
2.      There is a proposed alternative to the 75' no-clear setback buffer.  Applicants now have the option of creating a manicured, park-like entry to the site, which still gives the impression as one drives along the road of a rural, tree-filled landscape, while at the same time providing an indication that there is a development on the site.  With appropriate signage and lighting, the Planning Department feels that this alternative would be acceptable.  There are photos in the plan of the Portland Country Club on Route 88, which shows this type of entrance.
3.      The concerns of the Code Enforcement Officer as to the consistency with existing ordinances have been resolved.
4.      The Guidelines more clearly describe the type of architecture that is encouraged.  More photos have been added.
5.      Redundant language and sections have been removed to make the document more condensed and approachable; i.e. the lighting standards and design are located in one section.
Ms. Nixon thanked Ms. Howe for her considerable time working on the Guidelines and Ms. Lisa Brown for her assistance with the word processing and text/photo layout.  The item has been advertised as a public hearing so that the Board could get input from property owners and other interested residents; and if possible, take action to adopt it.  Ms. Nixon suggested that the Route One Design Guidelines be adopted as part of the Town of Cumberland's Comprehensive Plan, similar to how the Chebeague Long Range Plan was adopted by the Town Council.

Ms. Howe stated she was in favor of the document, and noted there were still some minor typographical corrections.

Ms. Porch asked why drive-throughs were removed, a drive-through does not necessarily indicate a McDonalds or a Burger King, a drive-through could be a bank or pharmacy.

Ms. Nixon explained the use was not allowed in the Ordinance for Office Commercial district, and they were only allowed in the Highway Commercial district (Route 100 and a small portion of Route 9 (by the railroad tracks).

Ms. Howe stated there was no mention of a drive through in the guidelines, and asked what would be the mechanism to allow one if it was requested.

Mr. Hunt stated an Ordinance Change would be required to allow a drive-through.

Mr. Powers stated the Route One-Design Guidelines would be used as advisory guidelines for a developer.  The guidelines would be an indication of what the Town would like to see for development.

Ms. Howe, Mr. Powers and Ms. Porch agreed it would be beneficial to have guidelines for the development of Route One.

The public portion of the meeting was opened.

Ms. Betty Long, of 224 Foreside Road asked if there was a proposal for building height, and buffering between commercial and residential properties.

Mr. Nixon stated the maximum height allowed by the Ordinance is thirty-five feet.  

Ms. Howe stated there is no specific language for buffering, stating the size and type of trees.

Mr. Hunt stated to the extent that buffering would be required, it would be reviewed in the site plan review.

Ms. Long complimented and thanked the Town on its foresight to guide development along Route One.

Mr. Jim Guidi, owner of part of the Cumberland Business Park stated he didn't disagree with the terms architecturally appropriate, however he was concerned about adding further restrictions to the Business Park which was already approved.
Mr. Hunt stated the Route One Guidelines would be used as an advisory tool, and site plan approval would be required for development on the remaining lots.

Ms. Pat Bouton, of 16 Ravine Drive stated she owned the only open field on Route One, and asked about trees and landscaping.

Ms. Howe stated page 3 states For areas of Route One that are not forested, the 75' buffer is still recommended.  Again, the existing vegetation could remain, or the area could be landscaped.

Ms. Bouton voiced concern of not being allowed to have a long brick building.

Mr. Hunt stated the Design Guidelines would be advisory, if an applicant presented an ugly building and was not deterred by the comments of the neighbors.  The applicant could proceed.

Ms. Howe stated the Board had a strong feeling that Route One should not be developed with strip malls.  The Guidelines were developed to encourage developers when considering design.

Ms. Bouton asked about the setbacks.

Mr. Hunt stated the setbacks would be governed by the Ordinance.

Mr. Peter Kennedy, owner of land in the southern OC district of Route One, stated he is not usually in favor of government control.  However, the Guidelines were a terrific job, and he was not opposed to them.

Mr. Hunt stated procedurally the Route One-Design guidelines should be recommended to the Town Council for adoption as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Porch moved to recommend the Town Council adopt the Route One-Design Guidelines as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Howe seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous

Administrative Matters

1.      Sign Mylar for subdivision revision to the Young-Maher subdivision.

2.      The Board was reminded of the workshop on November 20, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. with the Town Council.  The workshop will discuss sidewalks and byways.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.


A TRUE COPY ATTEST:


________________________________               _____________________________
Philip C. Hunt, Board Chair                          Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk