December 11, 2002

The meeting was called to order by Bob Crink, Chairman at 5:35 p.m. Board members present were Erin Cooperrider, Bob Crink, Lisa McSwain, and Amanda Russell and Alternate Brian Slade. Erin Cooperrider was the facilitator for the meeting.

A document prepared by Bob Faunce entitled “Lots Abutting Route 27” was the basis for the discussion.

Paragraph A was discussed and there was disagreement over the wording, i.e. whether the phrase “While recognizing the public’s right to develop property” was too controversial and whether the language used in the Route 1 ordinance should be repeated in this ordinance. It was decided to return to the wording at a later time, although the concept was agreed upon.

Paragraph A reads as follows:

“It is the objective of these provisions to preserve the historic character and rural appearance of Route 27. While recognizing the public’s right to develop property, it is also in the public’s interest to maintain the historic pattern of villages, rural fields and wooded areas that characterize much of Route 27. The following provisions shall be administered by the Planning Board and are designed to permit land abutting Route 27 to be developed in accordance with applicable provisions while minimizing the visibility of new structures.”

Paragraph B reads as follows;

“Any lot that abuts Route 27 shall be developed in the following manner:

Section 1 was changed to read, “The lot shall be limited to one curbcut (‘driveway’ was eliminated because it could be circular requiring two curbcuts) on Route 27. If an adjacent lot on Route 27 is vacant, the curbcut (delete ‘driveway shall intersect’) shall be on Route 27 at the common lot boundary. This provision is designed to allow two adjacent lots to create separate driveways but share a single point of access onto Route 27.”

Erin Cooperrider recommended that Bob Faunce be asked what will happen if a driveway cannot be located as described above. Bob Crink suggested that MDOT requirements be mentioned. The board agreed on the concept of section 1.

Section 2 – The minimum setback of structures from Route 27 shall be as follows:

Subsection a was amended to read as follows: “Undeveloped lots, lots created after May 2003, or new or replacement principal structures on existing developed lots: 100 feet from road edge. The first 50 feet of this setback shall be maintained as a visual buffer (“to limit the view of such structures from Route 27” was deleted as being too negative). The rest of this section was left unchanged; however, the definition of “Buffer” was changed – see below.

Subsection b was unchanged and reads, “Accessory structures on existing developed lots; same setback as closest existing structure to Route 27.

Subsection c was changed to read, “On Route 27 from McKay Road to Middle Road the average setback of existing principal structures located within 500 feet and which front on Route 27. New structures in such area shall further conform to the requirements of Section ___ (architectural standards).” The architectural standards (roof pitch and surface materials) will be discussed with the Edgecomb residents to determine whether or not these should be included.

The village area was discussed and it was decided that it extend from McKay Road to Middle Road an area that includes many small lots; and that it not be designated as “Village Area” but merely as Route 27 from McKay Road to Middle Road.

Section 3. reads, “All driveways shall be laid out in a curvilinear manner.” The concept was agreed upon but Bob Faunce will be asked for wording to insure that the curve is sufficient and does not allow a straight sight line.

Section 4 was unchanged but as there is only one property this applies to, it will be discussed with Edgecomb residents. It reads, “Structures on lots that consist primarily of fields shall be sited to maintain the continuity of the fields to the greatest extent possible. This may be accomplished by siting the structures on the fringe of the field or within an adjacent wooded area.”

Section 5 was changed to read “The minimum lot size and frontage for any lot created after May 2003 which abuts Route 27 but which is not located between Middle and McKay Roads (the term ‘village area’ was deleted) shall be as follows:

Subsection a was not changed and reads “3-acre minimum lot size and 300 feet of frontage on Route 27 except as provided for in Section.5.b and c.”

Subsection b was not changed and reads “2-acre minimum lot size and 200 feet of frontage on Route 27 if the lot served by a single access that is shared with an adjacent lot.”

Subsection c was not changed and reads “1.5-acre minimum lot size and 50 feet of frontage on Route 27 if the lot is served by a single access that is shared with an adjacent lot and all structures are set back at least 200 feet from Route 27.”

Section 6 was changed to read, “The minimum lot size and frontage for any lot created after May 2003 which abuts Route 27 and is located between Middle and McKay Roads shall be one acre and _____________feet of frontage on Route 27.” According to the soils map, this is where the buildable soils are and is an acceptable area for development. This will allow more dense development in an area where it is desirable. This will also be submitted to the voters for their opinions. Discussion of the amount of frontage was postponed to a later date. In the meantime Erin Cooperrider will research the zoning of other towns with respect to frontage.

Section C was unchanged except to correct the section reference and to make it compulsory for an applicant to substitute a plan for adding new vegetation. In its changed form it reads “In addition to meeting the requirements for a building permit and any other applicable ordinance, a person proposing to locate a structure on a lot abutting Route 27 shall submit a plan to Planning Board demonstrating conformance with the provisions of Section B.1-4. In order to approve the plan, the Board must find that the plan meets these provisions to the greatest extent possible given the size and orientation of the lot, topography, existing vegetation, presence of wetlands or ledge, available sight distance and road frontage. If the Board determines that existing vegetation is insufficient to satisfy Section B.2.a, the application shall substitute a plan for adding new vegetation. In order to approve such plan, the Board must find that the new vegetation will provide effective buffering within two years of planting.”

Definitions

Buffer. A portion of a lot along a property boundary or street lot line reserved for the purpose of mitigating the impacts of the use of the lot on adjacent lots or reducing the visibility of structures from adjacent roads. Existing natural vegetation shall be preserved as far as practical and appropriate and shall be consistent with the area in both appearance and density of vegetative growth. All landscaping materials used in the buffer areas shall be maintained. The buffer may include the installation of landscaping, fencing, earth mounding and similar devices.

The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.