Planning Board Meeting
Council Chambers of the Town Offices
290 Tuttle Road, Cumberland Center
Tuesday, January 15, 2002
7:00 PM
A. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Phil Hunt, Joseph Taylor, Terry Turner, Beth Howe, Stephen Sloan
Absent: Martha Porch, Tom Powers
Staff: Andy Fillmore, Town Planner, Pam Bosarge, Clerk
Mr. Hunt thanked the people in attendance for coming with the inclement weather.
C. Minutes of Prior Meetings - There were no minutes.
D. Consent Calendar There were no consent calendar items.
E. Hearings and Presentations
1. Pre-Application Conference To hear preliminary details of a proposed 3-lot commercial and/or residential subdivision at the southwest corner of Gray Road and Range Road, 4.04 acres, LB and RR1 districts, Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 7B; Scott Verrill and Susan Chase, owners.
Mr. Fillmore presented background information as follows:
REQUEST: The pre-applicants are Susan Chase and Scott Verrill, the owners of a portion of property at 45 Longwoods Road, Tax Assessor Map R03, Lot 15. The applicants have requested a pre-application conference with the Planning Board (pursuant to Section 206.5.1, page 60) as an indication of the Board's preliminary opinion of the proposal.
DESCRIPTION: The land in question is a portion of an existing orchard on Route 100 and currently has no structures on it. The applicant proposes to divide the land into four roughly equal lots of approximately 40,000 s.f. each. The applicant has expressed that at the moment the proposed use of the lots will be commercial as allowed in the Local Business zone. However the applicant would also like to leave the door open for residential development (via special exception) on some or all of the lots.
ZONING ISSUES: 1) The subject lot is located in the LB zone (Local Business) with a small portion at the rear of the lot (the eastern extremity) overlapping into the RR1 (Rural Residential 1) zone. The minimum lot size in the LB zone is 40,000 s.f. (Sec. 204.6.3, pg. 43).
2) A wedge of the lot along its eastern most boundary (approximately 28,700 s.f.) is located within the RR1 zone. In accordance with Sec. 202.1, page 24, "Development of a property which is in more than one zoning district shall be controlled by the classification of the area to be used. In the applicant"s proposal, the lot area within the RR1 Zone will only be used as rear yard setback area. Therefore the lot standards of LB apply.
3) At the time of formal Subdivision Application the Code Enforcement Officer shall classify the project as either Minor or Major subdivision. In general, subdivisions of 4 lots or fewer are classified as Minor. However, where new streets or private ways will be created the subdivision is classified as Major. These issues are discussed in Section 3.1(y), page 7 and 3.1(z), page 8 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
OTHER ISSUES:
1) There is currently disagreement between the applicants surveyor and the Towns surveyor on the exact location of the propertys Range Road boundary. The area of disputed land is approximately 2,000 s.f. to 4,000 s.f. If the applicants surveyor is correct then the applicant has enough net residential density (Sec. 3.1 (k), pg. 5) to develop four lots. However if the Towns surveyor is correct, then the applicant will only have enough acreage to develop three lots. Obviously the applicant would like to develop four lots. The boundary dispute has not been resolved as of the writing of this memo.
2) If the Towns surveyor should prove correct then the applicant can only develop 3 lots. In response to that eventuality, the applicant has proactively requested a waiver from the subdivision ordinance requirement to subtract 15% of gross lot area for roads and parking in the Net Residential Acreage calculation (Sec. 3.1 (k), pg. 5). If this waiver were granted the applicant would have enough net residential acreage to be able to develop 4 lots even if the boundary dispute is resolved in the Towns favor. Waivers from subdivision regulations are discussed in Sec. 15, pg. 50. A discussion between the planner and the Towns legal counsel, Ken Cole, regarding a waiver of this 15% requirement indicated that the Town couldnt legally waive this standard. Therefore, the only way the applicant will be able to develop four lots is if either the boundary dispute is resolved in the applicants favor, or if the applicant purchases additional land from the abutter.
3) The applicants current proposal is that the four lots would be accessed via individual driveways: one off of Range Road and two driveways (one shared) off Route 100. Please see the applicants site plan for details. This proposal will run into a snag because of the State DOTs new Access Management Program which strongly discourages multiple drives off a state road. A strict reading of these new rules applied to this development would appear to proscribe a single access road for all four lots with at least one end of it off of Range Road. The applicant should contact the DOT for more information on these new rules.
4) The Towns legal counsel has advised the planning department that the applicant may, if they so choose, proceed with this application for the three lots that are not affected by the boundary dispute. With regard to the fourth lot, the applicant has three options available to them:
a) Return with another application if/when the boundary dispute is resolved in their favor,
b) Seek approval of the fourth lot at the same time as the first three, where such approval for the fourth lot would be conditioned upon the ultimate resolution of the boundary dispute in their favor,
c) Seek to purchase a sliver of land from the abutter of the fourth lot, thereby obviating the boundary dispute and saving everyone involved a great deal of time, money and effort. If the applicants objective is to get an expeditious approval, this is the option the planning department strongly recommends.
5) As part of the Towns review of Treleaven Way, the applicant incurred peer review fees of $704.67. The applicant is disputing this fee and has informed the Town that they do not intend to pay it. A letter from them describing their dispute is attached. The Towns legal counsel has advised the Town that these peer review fees are legal and appropriate, but that the Planning Board/Department cannot legally impede the progress of the current application do to non-payment of those disputed fees. To recover the fees, the Town will have to make a claim against the applicant. A letter from Natalie Burns of Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry describing all of this is attached.
6) The applicants understand that this is only a pre-application conference and that the Board shall make no binding decisions at this time.
COMMENT:
The boundary dispute, which impacts the lot count, has been resolved, the applicant
will be applying for a 3-lot subdivision..
The 15% roadway waiver request is not entirely convincing in its rationale, and it
is unknown if the Town even has the authority to grant it. (Legal opinion is pending.)
The State DOT entrance rules appear to rule out separate driveways. (Adam Ogden is
researching this with the DOT, the result is pending.)
EXHIBITS:
1) Cover letter from Verrill/Chase.
2) Tax Assessor map showing location of property.
3) Memo from Adam Ogden reviewing project dated 9 January 2002.
4) Memo from Barbara McPheters, CEO, reviewing project, dated 7 January 2002.
5) Memo from Deputy Fire Chief Chris Copp reviewing project dated 7 January 2002.
6) Memo from Rescue Chief Chris Bolduc reviewing project, dated 7 January 2002.
7) Memo from Police Chief Joe Charron reviewing project, dated 4 January 2002.
8) Memo from Adam Ogden describing Towns position on the boundary dispute, dated 13 December 2001.
9) Letter from applicants surveyor, Titcomb Associates, describing applicants position on boundary dispute, dated 28 December 2001.
10) Letter from Verrill/Chase disputing peer review fee of $704.67 for Treleaven Way.
11) Letter from Natalie Burns of Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry supporting the validity of the peer review fee, dated 7 January 2002.
12) Copy of peer review invoice from Town to Verrill/Chase.
13) Applicants proposed site plan.
14) Towns boundary survey.
RECOMMENDATION: The pre-applicant should take steps to resolve all of the issues discussed. When these issues are resolved to the point that a complete subdivision review application can be submitted, the applicant should make the submission.
Mr. Verrill stated the lots would be configured to each have a minimum of 45,000 square feet. There may be multiple structures on each lot; it has not been determined if the use will be residential or commercial. He asked about the major or minor classification of the project.
Mr. Hunt stated the Code Enforcement Officer would make the determination of minor or major subdivision.
Mr. Verrill asked about the Boards preference on a driveway.
Mr. Fillmore stated there are new Department of Transportation guidelines.
Mr. Verrill stated he currently has one DOT entrance permit.
Mr. Hunt asked about water and septic.
Mr. Verrill stated they are proposing private septic and wells.
Mr. Fillmore stated single-family dwellings are a special exception in the Local Business district.
Mr. Sloan asked if Mr. Verrills existing entrance permit was for commercial or residential.
Mr. Verrill stated he was not sure, and the use had not been determined.
Mr. Taylor asked if the Route One-Design Guidelines could apply to other areas of Town.
Mr. Fillmore stated the use would be applicable to other areas, but not required.
Ms. Howe asked about the boundary issue.
Mr. Verrill stated the square footage would be the same on the three lots, he is choosing to use the Town survey.
Mr. Hunt stated it appeared the proposal could be accomplished, the biggest hurdle would be DOT permits and driveway configuration. The Board would prefer that the two lots on Route 100 share one entrance.
Ms. Howe moved to table pending a full application.
Mr. Taylor seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
2. Pre-Application Conference Minor Site Plan Amendment for an addition containing six bedrooms at Ledgeview Estates Senior facility located at 92 U.S. Route One, Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 13A, Fred Jensen owner, Bob Farthing applicant.
Mr. Fillmore presented background information as follows:
REQUEST: The pre-applicant is Fred Jensen, the owner of a Ledgeview Estates located at 92 U.S. Route One, Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 13A. The applicant has requested a pre-application conference with the Planning Board (pursuant to Section 206.5.1, page 60) as an indication of the Boards preliminary opinion of the proposal.
HISTORY: In 1988 the original Ledgeview Estates was built. It contains 12 bedrooms and comprised 4,712 s.f. This required a special exception approval by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
On March 4 1992 the Planning Board granted Site Plan Approval for an addition to the existing structure, which was constructed at that time. The addition contains 5 bedrooms and other function rooms, and is 59x38 comprising 2,260 s.f. This addition required a special exception approval by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a new single-story addition that will contain 6 bedrooms. The new addition will comprise 2,600 s.f. In total, then, the project is of the following size
Structure # bedrooms Square Feet
1988 Original Structure 12 4,712
1992 Addition 5 2,260
2002 Proposed Addition 6 2,600
TOTAL 23 9,572
ZONING ISSUES:
1) The property is located in the Low-Density Residential zone (LDR). The proposed use is classified as Residential Care Facility and is allowed in this zone only by Special Exception.
2) A special exception was granted in 1992 for the first addition, but lapsed 6 months after it was granted. A new special exception is required for this proposed use. The applicant should submit a special exception application the Code Enforcement Officer by January 30 2002 to have the application heard by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on February 14 2002.
3) The town has the property (R01, 13A) recorded as being 6.16 acres. However the applicant shows a primary lot of 2.6 acres and a proposed conveyance of abutting land of 0.15 acres (see applicants proposed site plan) for a total of 2.75 acres. Evidently Mr. Jensen owns the entire 6.16 acres but has divided it up. The Town has no boundary information on how the 2.6 acre sub-lot relates to the larger parcel, nor where the additional 0.15 acres is coming from. This information should be provided to the Town.
4) Section 432 (pg. 149) pertains to Residential Care Facilities and sets out the minimum requirements: The proposal meets the minimum lot size for this zone (2 acres required, 2.75 acres proposed). The proposal meets the minimum lot frontage for this zone (150 required, 317.63 proposed). The proposal meets the site coverage requirements (10% coverage allowed, 8% coverage proposed). The proposal meets the open space requirements (50% of gross acreage must be vegetated open space). Setbacks: see point #5 below.
5) The proposal meets the minimum front (100) and rear (75) setbacks, but does not meet the minimum side setbacks. The required side setbacks are 75, and the existing lot would only afford an 8 side setback on the northerly boundary. The applicant is proposing to convey land to himself (0.17 acres) along this boundary, but this conveyance would only afford a 30 setback (see applicants site plan). The conveyance will have to be increased in width to achieve the required 75.
6) No structures are allowed within the required setback areas, but driveways and parking areas are allowed within the setback areas to within 15 of the property line. The applicants site plan indicates a driveway and a parking area within this 15 absolute setback. This will have to be amended to respect the 15 setback.
OTHER ISSUES:
1) The applicants site plan shows a secondary driveway approximately 50 north of the existing main driveway. This secondary driveway is either proposed or it exists informally. Either way an MDOT driveway entrance permit is required for a new driveway, for a driveway whose use has changed, or for a driveway whose use has expanded. Under the MDOTs new Access Management Program rules, multiple driveways for a single use are strongly discouraged, as are driveways in close proximity to one another as this plan shows. The Planning Board may wish to recommend that the applicant consolidate the two driveways into the one existing main driveway. The MDOT may require this measure anyway, as part of its driveway entrance permit. This State permit will be required as part of any Site Plan Approval by the Town.
2) Also related to roads and parking, the applicant should show the parking calculation, including provisions for handicapped spaces. The Public Works Director has also requested details of the pavement structure.
3) Updated information regarding supply and demand for water and septic disposal will have to be provided with the Site Plan Review application. Also, there appears to be a history of septic-related nitrate problems on this site. An updated nitrate study will also be required. The proposed plan should be amended to show exact locations of existing septic equipment, as the proposed addition appears to be very close to, and possibly on top of, and existing tank/pump.
4) There appears to be a stream running through a portion of the property. According to the Public Works Director a Natural Resource Protection Act permit is required for any work within 100 of a stream.
5) The State Fire Marshall must review the proposed addition, and a copy of the review provided to the Town as part of Site Plan Review.
6) The applicant should inquire if the Sate Department of Human Services needs to be involved in the review of the project. Is there a license that needs to be up to date? The Town should be provided with any such information.
7) A detailed narrative description of the project should accompany the Site Plan application.
COMMENT: As this memo outlines, there are some issues associated with this proposal that must be addressed in the formal Site Plan Review:
A Special Exception is required for this use in this zone.
An accurate boundary survey showing the break down of the overall 6.16-acre lot into its component parcels should be provided to the Town.
The 75 side setbacks must be met.
There are several outstanding septic and water supply issues to be addressed.
A number of other agencies should be included in the review process and permits acquired.
All department head comments (attached) should be addressed as part of the formal Site Plan application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Application form.
2. Town Assessors map showing the location of the property.
3. Memo from Barbara McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer.
4. Memo from Adam Ogden, Public Works Director.
5. Memo from Chris Copp, Deputy Fire Chief.
6. Memo from Chris Bolduc, Rescue Chief.
7. Memo from Joe Charron, Chief of Police.
8. Applicants proposed site plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant should address all of the comments in this memo, as well as any comments made by the Planning Board during the course of its review. The applicant should submit a complete Site Plan application for formal review once these issues have been addressed.
Mr. Jensen stated it would be difficult to meet the seventy-five foot setback requirement by the right hand driveway. A new driveway would be expensive; he would like to use the existing driveway. Mr. Jensen reviewed his proposal with the Board.
Ms. Howe asked the reason to keep two separate parcels.
Mr. Turner asked the distance between the two driveways.
Mr. Jensen stated approximately fifty feet.
Mr. Turner stated the new Department of Transportation (DOT) laws are stricter, the driveway issue will be under the DOT jurisdiction.
Mr. Fillmore asked if the Board would be inclined to keep the reduced setback that was in force in 1988.
Mr. Hunt said his inclination was to allow the thirty-foot setback.
Mr. Sloan asked how the increased bedrooms would affect the septic system.
Mr. Jensen stated he had three septic fields with four plastic chambers to divide the flow equally between the septic fields.
The Board took no action. The item was tabled pending an application.
3. Public Hearing Major Site Plan Review of site improvements and a 382 square foot addition to the Museum of Chebeague History at 137 South Road, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I04, Lot 12, Chebeague Island Historical Society, applicant; Mitchell Rasor Land Design LLC, representing.
Mr. Fillmore presented background information as follows:
I. REQUEST: The applicant is the Chebeague Island Historical Society, represented by Mitchell Rasor of Mitchell Rasor Land Design, LLC. The property is located at 137 South Road (at intersection of North Road), Tax Assessor Map I-04, Lot 12, in the Island Business zone. The applicant is seeking to construct a 382 s.f. addition for exhibition space, a new building access ramp for pedestrians, and extensive landscaping improvements.
The Planning Board is asked to conduct a Minor Site Plan Review based on the materials provided by the applicant, and to make a ruling.
II. WAIVERS: This project was to have been before the Planning Board at the 18 December 2001 hearing as a Minor Site Plan Review. The proposed addition is less than 400 s.f. and extensive site improvements are planned by all accounts a minor project. However, as a result of the department head review of the application prior to the December hearing, it was determined that the project required classification as a Major Site Plan Review. This was due to a requirement in the ordinance that existing buildings involving a change of use and an enlargement of gross floor area must be classified as major. Because the size and impact of this project is really at the level of a Minor site plan review, the Planning Department encouraged the applicant to request a number of waivers from the more detailed submission requirements associated with a Major site plan application. These waiver requests are as follows:
1. 206.7.1.5(d) Topographic survey
2. 206.7.5.1(e) Natural features inventory
3. 206.7.1.5(i) Class 'D soil survey
4. 206.7.1.6 Traffic study / market study / utility study
5. 206.7.3.8 Inventory of natural and cultural features
6. 206.7.4.12 Stormwater calculations / Erosion and sedimentation control plan
7. 206.7.5.2 Grading plan with 2 contour intervals
8. 206.7.5.3 Stormwater drainage and erosion control plan
9. 206.7.5.4 Groundwater impact analysis
10. 206.7.5.7 Landscape plan
11. 206.7.5.8 Traffic analysis
12. 206.7.5.9 Letters from utility providers
III. DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS:
Andy Fillmore: See Section IV
Barbara McPheters: A variance for the ramp (which is located in the setback area) was granted by the BAA on 13 December 2001. There has been an outstanding water supply issue on this property, however the applicant has resolved this issue to the CEOs satisfaction in a memo dated 9 January 2002. For full comments please see CEOs attached memo, dated 8 January 2002.
Adam Ogden: The public works director conducted a review of this application prior to the 18 December 2001 hearing at which this application was to have been heard. That memo is attached, dated 13 December 2001. The applicant has addressed the public works directors comments in the current submission.
Dep. Fire Chief Copp: The deputy chief reviewed the current application and has reiterated Chief Smalls comments from his review of the December application. The applicant must comply with these comments. These memos are attached, dated 7 January 2002 and 12 December 2001 respectively.
Rescue Chief Bolduc: No comment. Please see attached memo, dated 8 January 2002.
Police Chief Charron: Suggests some exterior lighting to discourage criminal activities. The applicant might consider alarming the building. Please see attached memo, dated 4 January 2002.
IV. DISCUSSION:
The Chebeague Island Historical Society has acquired the old District 9 schoolhouse at the corner of North Road and South Road on Chebeague Island. This building has most recently been owned by the Towns Department of Public Works and utilized as a garage. The applicant proposes to refurbish and remodel the structure for use as exhibition and archival space, and will incorporate a new bathroom and a kitchenette. It will also reduce the amount of graveled surface area from over 19,000 s.f. to approximately 6,500 s.f. and reduce the number of curb cuts from three to one. This project will be of great cultural benefit to the Town and will serve to beautify and enrich the immediate community. However, several minor issues require the Planning Boards attention:
1. ELIMINATION OF TECHNICAL REVIEW FEE: In accordance with Section 206.6.3 (page 65) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board may &eliminate the fee if it determines that the scale or nature of the project will require little or no outside review.
Recommendation: Given the limited impact and small size of the addition (382 s.f.), the Towns familiarity with the site as its previous owner a thorough staff review of the proposal, the extensive site improvements proposed, and the limited financial means of the applicant, it is recommended that the technical review fee be waived.
2. PARKING REQUIREMENT: The Parking Requirements section of the Town of Cumberlands Zoning Ordinance makes no mention of museums. In discussing this with the applicant during the preparation of the application, we decided to look at the parking requirements of the nearest municipality whose ordinance did mention museums. This is Yarmouth, and their requirement is 1 space for each 250 s.f. of exhibition space. The most similar use mentioned in the Cumberland ordinance is professional offices and retail businesses in a commercial zone, the requirement for which is also 1 space for each 250 s.f. of gross leasable space. The proposed exhibition space is 1,395 s.f. /250 s.f. = 5.6 spaces, rounded up to 6 spaces. Five spaces have been proposed. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 0.6 spaces.
Recommendation: Given the projects location on Chebeague Island (a community with above average bicycle and pedestrian activity) and given the parking standard of an abutting town, it is recommended that the proposed parking is sufficient.
3. ENCROACHMENT OF 15 PARKING BUFFER: Section 206.8.5.2 (page 75) states as a review standard that &all parking spaces, access drives, and impervious services must be located at least 15 from any side or rear lot line& This project proposes to restore vast amounts of gravel and dirt to grass and planting, including significant areas of encroachment within the 15 parking buffer. However, the proposal seeks to maintain a small wedge (approx. 150 s.f.) of the existing encroaching gravel parking area, as shown on drawing L1.1.
Recommendation: The existing gravel parking area in the 15 buffer is grandfathered, therefore the applicants proposal to maintain 150 s.f. of it is allowable.
4. EXTERIOR LIGHTING: The applicant is proposing adequate yet unobtrusive lighting for the parking and entrance areas, to be turned off when not required.
Recommendation: Any exterior fixtures should be full cut-off fixtures casting no light above the horizontal plane. The lighting element of any fixture should not be visible to pedestrians or motorists. Leaving lights on outside of normal operating hours is discouraged, but if necessary they should be unobtrusive and shed no light beyond the property line.
Mr. Rasor gave an overview of the project. The building was the Towns public works garage. A public bathroom and information kiosk has been added to the property. The plan will increase green space by 66%. The applicant received a variance from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on December 13, 2001 for the handicapped entrance. There is no additional lighting proposed lights would be mounted on the building. There will be a lighted display window, with low impact interior lighting. The sign will be 18-sq. ft. granite in the building wall. The 1950s Old School house building will be restored to its original appearance. The building will be used seasonally to display historic items from Chebeague, and the Historic Society will hold its meetings at the facility.
Mr. Taylor asked about the water quality and the sink in the efficiency kitchen.
Mr. Mitchell stated there would be a sink in the kitchen for employees, but not for the public.
Mr. Sloan asked voiced concern regarding lighting and a key box for the fire department.
Mr. Mitchell stated the notes were added to the plan. There will be a key box at the entrance and the controlled storage area is less than 2400 square feet and will have a sprinkler system, and a fire alarm will be installed.
The public portion of the meeting was opened.
Mr. Ken Hamilton stated he was in favor of the proposal and thought that Mr. Mitchell had done a fine job.
The Board reviewed the following waiver requests:
206.7.1.5(d) Topographic survey
206.7.5.1(e) Natural features inventory
206.7.1.5(i) Class D soil survey
206.7.1.6 Traffic study / market study / utility study
206.7.3.8 Inventory of natural and cultural features
206.7.4.12 Stormwater calculations / Erosion and sedimentation control plan
206.7.5.2 Grading plan with 2 contour intervals
206.7.5.3 Stormwater drainage and erosion control plan
206.7.5.4 Groundwater impact analysis
206.7.5.7 Landscape plan
206.7.5.8 Traffic analysis
206.7.5.9 Letters from utility providers
Mr. Turner moved to grant the waiver requests as presented.
Ms. Howe seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
The Board reviewed the proposed findings of fact with the following findings:
1. Utilization of the Site
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.
The project proposes to significantly beautify the site, reduces the existing impervious area by 66%, entails a modest 382 s.f. addition, and will return the usage of the site to community.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
2. Traffic Access and Parking
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.
Uses generating less than 100 vehicle trips per day shall have no more than one two-way driveway no greater than 30 feet in width, a single 24-foot wide two-way drive is proposed.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
3. Access way Location and Spacing
Access must meet the specific ordinance requirements.
The ordinance requires that driveways be located at least 50 feet from the nearest unsignalized intersection; the proposed distance is in excess of 160 feet.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
4. Internal Vehicular Circulation
The layout of the site must provide for the safe movement of passenger, service, and emergency vehicles through the site.
The internal circulation as depicted on the proposed conditions plan is adequate and workable. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 0.6 spaces, reducing the provided spaces from 6.6 to 5.0. The planning department supports this reduction.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
5. Parking Layout and Design
Off street parking must conform to the specific standards.
The dimensions of the parking spaces meet the requirements of the ordinance, and the number of spaces meet the requirements as determined by the planning department.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
6. Pedestrian Circulation
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.
Pedestrian circulation will be improved by this proposal.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
7. Stormwater Management
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.
Existing impervious area will be reduced by 66%, existing drainage swales will remain in place, and significant revegetation of the site is proposed.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
8. Erosion Control
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 site is flat and the area of excavation is minimal. Siltration fencing will be installed as noted on plan L1.0.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
9. Water Supply Provisions
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.
The applicant has provided documentation showing adequate water supply.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
10. Sewage Disposal Provisions
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.
The applicant has provided documentation showing adequate sewage disposal provisions.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
11. Utilities
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 applicant proposes to remove the overhead power and telephones lines and bury them.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
12. Groundwater Protection
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.
The existing on-site sewage disposal system has a capacity of 462 gallons per day; therefore the standards of this section do not apply.
13. Water Quality Protection
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 hazardous materials will be present on site.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
14. Capacity of the Applicant
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 evidence of financial capacity.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
15. Historic and Archaeological Resources
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.
There does not appear to be any historic or archeological resources on the site, other than possibly the building itself, which the applicant is substantially restoring.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
16. Floodplain Management
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.
Based on Flood Insurance Rate Map #230162 0021 D, dated May 19, 1981, the project area is not in a flood zone.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
17. Exterior Lighting
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.
The applicant has stated that adequate yet unobtrusive lighting will be provided. The lighting should also comply with the comments made by the Planning Department.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
18. Buffering of Adjacent Uses
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.
Given the nature of the proposed use, the extensive proposed revegetation of the site, and the existing woods on the two adjacent sites, buffering is adequate.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
19. Noise
The development must control noise levels such that it will not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.
It is not anticipated that any noise will be generated by this use. The building features an indoor mechanical room.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
20. Storage of Materials
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.
No materials are expected to be stored within or near this use. Solid waste will be stored inside and removed on a regular basis.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
21. Landscaping
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.
Extensive surface restoration is proposed. Existing graveled areas will be reduced by 66% and be replaced by loam and seed.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
22. Building and Parking Placement
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.
The proposed parking is minimal, and it is located to the side of the building. It is out of sight and does not interfere with views of this historic building.
Based on the facts provided the standards of this section have been met.
SECTION 300 AQUIFER PROTECTION (if applicable)
The use is located in the Aquifer Protection district. Due to the small size of the project and its intended use, no positive finding by the board is required.
Mr. Turner moved to approve the proposed findings of fact as presented.
Ms. Howe seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
Ms. Howe moved to grant Major Site Plan Review with the standard and proposed conditions of approval to the Museum of Chebeague History for site improvements and a 382 square foot addition at 137 South Road, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I04, Lot 12.
Mr. Turner seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
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 that do not affect approval standards, is subject to review and approval of the Planning Board prior to implementation.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. That the applicant complies with the requirements of Fire Chief Small.
2. That sedimentation fencing be installed before any construction or earth disturbance is undertaken, and that it remain in place until the site has stabilized after construction. This condition is subject to the scrutiny of the Code Enforcement Officer.
3. That the applicant complies with any other direction given by the Planning Board in the course of its review.
4. Public Hearing Preliminary Major Subdivision Review of 67 units of senior housing on Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Cumberland Business Park, Route One, Tax Assessor Map R02D, Lot 1A, DST Realty owner, Scott Decker, SYTDesign applicant.
Mr. Fillmore presented background information as follows:
The applicant is seeking preliminary approval of a major subdivision located in the Cumberland Business Park, off Route One in Cumberland. The Planning Board is asked to:
1) Conduct a preliminary review of the application.
2) Review and make rulings on the proposed findings of fact.
II. BACKGROUND:
16 January 2001 - The Board tabled the request for Subdivision Review, and directed the applicant to make several modifications to the plan.
20 November 2001 - The applicant made several changes to the plan in accordance with the Planning Boards direction and appeared before the Board to request that the Subdivision Review be resumed and that the changes be reviewed.
18 December - The applicant appeared before the Board to discuss issues related to curbing materials and to the provision of amenities.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Applicant: DST Realty (Jim Guidi), Scott Decker of SYTDesign representing.
Location: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 of Cumberland Business Park, Route One, Cumberland Maine.
Zoning: Office Commercial
Project: 67 units of duplex and multiplex housing, restricted to persons 55 years of age and older.
Setbacks: Setbacks were established at the 1995 Cumberland Business Park Subdivision approval. The applicant is proposing to encroach upon the setback on Road C by approximately 200, as depicted on the site plan. The applicant has met with the abutters and they have agreed to his proposal. Their agreement was expressed in a letter written by Mr. Field Griffith, which is now in the permanent file.
Lot Frontage: Proposal meets the 100 minimum required in a dispersed subdivision.
Sidewalks: In response to the Planning Boards January 2001 request for sidewalks, the applicant is proposing a curb separated sidewalk system.
Roadway: The subdivision proposes two new roadways accessed off a turning circle at the end of Thomas Drive, and one new spur roadway accessed off Thomas Drive adjacent to the Toddle Inn Daycare site.
Water: Town water.
Sewer: Town sewer.
Electrical Utilities: Will be pole-mounted along Thomas Drive, thence underground along new roadways.
Fire Protection: See Fire Chief Smalls and Deputy Fire Chief Copps memos, attached.
Amenities: The applicant will provide the following amenities: one or two bus shelters, a reserved area for a gazebo or a clubhouse to built by the association at their discretion, a reserved area for gardening, a walking trail network, sidewalks, and open space.
IV. DEPARTMENT HEAD / PEER REVIEWS:
Andy Fillmore: See Section V, Discussion below.
Barbara McPheters: Significant concerns. See attached memo, dated 9 January 2002.
Adam Ogden: Please refer to comments of reviewing engineers, Al Palmer and Ralph Oulton.
Rescue Chief Bolduc: Significant concerns. Please see attached memo, dated 7 January 2002.
Police Chief Charron: Expressed concerns about job-site theft. Please see attached memo, dated 4 January 2002.
Fire Chief: Concerns expressed by both Chief Small and Deputy Chief Copp. Please see attached memos, dated 8 November 2001 and 7 January 2002, respectively.
Al Palmer: See attached memo, dated 11 January 2002.
Ralph Oulton: The Town has retained Ralph Oulton to review the sewer plans. Mr. Oultons comments are very detailed and pertain to construction documents and other than in broad terms are not necessarily applicable to preliminary subdivision review. They are attached, dated 7 January 2002.
Ken Cole: The Towns legal counsel has reviewed the condominium declarations. Primary concern is with regard to ensuring that future owner and associations maintain the age restriction. Please see attached comments, dated 8 January 2002.
V. DISCUSSION:
Since the 20 November 2001 hearing the applicant has made some positive changes toward addressing the concerns of both the Planning Board and the Planning Department. These include:
A reduction in the number of units from 76 to 67.
Designing the units structure to allow flexibility in placement of interior partitions.
The introduction of cupolas, false dormers, and the staggering of unit footprints to reduce the apparent mass of the roofs.
Staggering of units along the roadways, and the introduction of curves to straight roadways to break up long runs of uniform units (the barracks effect).
The provision of a closed urban drainage system of catch basins and closed pipe.
The provision of granite curbing on all radii, with asphalt curbing in between. This will have a positive effect on the durability and maintenance costs of the curbing.
The redesign of Road D and Road E to improve the subdivision gateway, and to provide a common green adjacent to Thomas Drive.
There are, however, still a number of issues that the staff would like the Preliminary application to address:
A DEP Project Modification Approval should be in-hand prior to the Final application submission. Will this allow future wetland work, or was that restricted by the current approval?
The turnarounds at the ends of the roadways appear in some cases to be grass or gravel. Is this acceptable to the Fire Chief and to those who will be plowing? Are there maintenance considerations?
As currently drawn, several units appear to violate the buffer areas. Many units also back directly against the buffer how will porches/terraces be accommodated here? Also, there appears to be a detention basin partially within the buffer. Is this allowed?
In some areas the site plan appears to be showing what looks like backyard delineation. Is this intentional? Are not all yards held in common by the association?
All road names will have to be approved by the Town Assessor, Bill Healey. The Town has already accepted the road name Thomas Drive , and the street sign has been ordered. If the applicant wishes to change this to Rockwood Drive they would have to petition to Council.
There appear to be some missing links in the pedestrian trail network. In some cases it appears that the new sidewalks will be used to patch various pieces together. It appears that in several cases it would be possible to make these connections in the natural environment instead. Could we do that?
There is a Portland Water District utility easement in the vicinity of Road B. The Subdivision Plan should show this easement.
The road type shown appears to be private residential. What was the calculation that led to this type? According to the ordinance, 8 trips per day per unit are attributed to condominiums. Even if this number was reduced by 50% to take into account senior housing, the roadway classification would still be the next level higher, residential access. Also, the roadway widths are shown as 24. The standard for private residential is 24, and for residential access is 28. The Final application should clarify the road types and widths, and their rationale.
VI. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
Peer Reviews:
At this stage in a subdivision approval the process tends to have less to do with the softer issues such as layout and design, and more to do with legal and technical review, and engineering considerations. As such the Town looks increasingly to its peer reviewers for direction in its review. The reviews of Ken Cole, Al Palmer and Ralph Oulton should be carefully considered.
Project Amenities:
At the moment it appears that the applicant will provide the amenities described in Section III of this memo. Beyond those, the applicant proposes to let the market and the residents dictate the need for additional amenities. In this scenario the applicant reserves some land for a structure (clubhouse, gazebo, etc.) but the residents association will be responsible for funding its construction and maintaining it.
Lighting Plan
The applicant has provided a detailed lighting plan. The planning department applauds the work but is somewhat concerned about the choice of an acorn type fixture, as this type of fixture generally casts a great deal of light beyond the subject area, and the lens itself creates a hot spot for pedestrians and motorists. It would be helpful if the applicant could describe the light distribution characteristics in clearer lay terms than those in the lighting study. The ideal that the Town should be striving toward in any development is a lens that is flat in the horizontal plane, and that is not visible to any appreciable degree from the sides.
Performance Bond/Letter of Credit:
In this submission the applicant has stated that the project no longer includes a phasing plan. Does this mean the project will be built in a single phase? If so the performance bond or letter of credit must be sufficient to cover all public improvements in this single phase.
However if the applicant is proposing development of the project in multiple phases, as indicated in past submissions, it is appropriate for the Planning Board to require correspondingly phased performance bonds or letters of credit. These phased guarantees must be sufficient to ensure the completion of each phase such that each phase could stand alone should, the subsequent phases not be realized for any reason. Additionally, each phase must have the capacity (i.e., sewer and water pipes) to support full build-out of the subsequent phases.
Revision of Lot Line between Lots 10 and 11
The applicant is requesting a minor revision to the lot
