Town of Brunswick, Maine

Transcription

1 Town of Brunswick, Maine PLANNING BOARD 85 UNION STREET, BRUNSWICK, ME PLANNING BOARD BRUNSWICK TOWN HALL 85 UNION STREET COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2017, 7:00 P.M. 1. Case # Basham & Scott Law Office: The Planning Board will host a Public Hearing and take action on a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Kimberly Scott of Scott Family Holdings, LLC and Basham and Scott, LLC, for office use which is allowed only with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will occupy a 2,800 square foot existing structure at 36 Cushing Street (Map U15, Lot 20A), within the GR6 Zoning District. 2. Case # Cooks Corner Self Storage: The Planning Board will take action on a Sketch Plan application submitted by Sitelines, PA for Earle P. MacGillivray III to develop eight (8) self-storage units. The proposed development is located at 0 Old Bath Road (Map 45, Lot 1A), within the GM4 Zoning District. 3. Case # Brunswick Landing Housing Subdivision: The Planning Board will host a Public Hearing and take action on a Final Subdivision Plan submitted by Sitelines, PA for Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC. The proposed development includes existing residential housing within areas of Brunswick Landing identified as Mariner Landing, Brunswick Gardens, Midway Terrace, and Woodland Village located on Brunswick Landing, so-called. The proposed development is located primarily between Admiral Fitch Avenue and Route 24 (Gurnet Road) (Map 40, Lots 12 and 34), within the GR1 Zoning District and Shoreland Protection Overlay District. 4. Case # Brunswick Landing Housing Common Development Plan: The Planning Board will take action on a Common Development Plan submitted by Sitelines, PA for Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC. The proposed development includes existing development and areas of new development in housing areas identified as Mariner Landing, Brunswick Gardens, Midway Terrace, and Woodland Village located on Brunswick Landing, so-called. The proposed development is located between Admiral Fitch Avenue and Route 24 (Gurnet Road) (Map 40, Lots 12 and 34), within the GR1 Zoning District and Shoreland Protection Overlay District. 5. Other Business 6. Approval of Minutes This agenda is mailed to owners of property within 200 feet of proposed development sites and 300 feet for Conditional Use or Special Use Permits. Please call the Brunswick Department of Planning and Development ( ) with questions or comments. Individuals needing auxiliary aids for effective communications please call or TDD This meeting will be televised.

2 Project Name: Address: Case Number: Tax Map: Zoning: Applicant: DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT Major Development Review Final Common Development Plan Meeting Date: October 3, 2017 Basham & Scott Law, LLC - Conditional Use Permit 36 Cushing Street Assessor s Map U15, Lot 20A GR6 Scott Family Holdings, LLC and Basham & Scott, LLC c/o Kimberly Scott 14 Maine Street Brunswick, ME Staff reviewed the application and has made a determination of completeness. DRAFT Motion 1: That the Conditional Use Permit application is deemed complete. PROJECT SUMMARY Staff review is based on the application revised most recently on September 29, In accordance with Section of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for office use in GR6. A project narrative and a site plan is included with the packet. Additionally, the applicant provided a draft lease agreement to demonstrate optional off-site parking upon the advice of the Staff Review Committee (SRC) However, as depicted on a revised site plan, the applicant may provide the required seven (7) parking spaces for a 2,800 square foot existing building that serves as an office. The SRC reviewed the Conditional Use Permit application on September 20, The SRC meeting notes have been included in the packet. The public was present at the SRC meeting and expressed concern for traffic safety, specifically, anticipated risk for school children that use an existing bus route; and negative impacts of fewer residential uses on neighborhood character. Regarding the impact on neighborhood character, the SRC finds the use acceptable with an approved conditional use permit. Regarding traffic safety and anticipated unsafe conditions for neighborhood children, the SRC noted the existence of an owner-occupied business at the subject parcel and no safety issues were known. Further, the proposed law office serves remote clients and is not proposed to have walkin traffic. As a result of neighborhood safety concerns, the Planner consulted with the Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BBPAC) during their meeting on September 21, The BBPAC found no cause for additional traffic safety review. 1

3 The following waivers from Table D.1 Summary of Application Requirements have been requested by the applicant: 1. Professional Survey The applicant provided a site plan that is based on field measurements and lot boundaries depicted on the Brunswick Assessor s tax map records. The site plan is depicted at a 1 = 20 scale which is acceptable to staff. The proposal is the reuse of an existing developed parcel. Based on the information provided, the requested waiver is acceptable. Review Standards from the Town of Brunswick Zoning Ordinance B. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit The following Criteria shall be applied, by the Planning Board when considering an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The burden of proof of compliance with these standards rests with the applicant. (1) The proposed structure and site design comply with all standards of this Ordinance applicable to the zoning district and any overlay district within which the property is located. The existing structure and site design are not proposed to be altered. The Board finds that the provisions of Section B.1. are satisfied. (2) The proposed use will not create significantly more vehicular traffic by patrons, residents, or suppliers than the uses and structure currently within 300 feet of the proposed use or structure that generates the most vehicular traffic. The site of the proposed use was formerly an owner-occupied pet grooming service. The proposed use is a law office with no walk-in patrons. Based on the available information, the proposed use is not anticipated to generate significantly more vehicular traffic within 300 feet of the subject parcel. The Board finds that the provisions of Section B.2. are satisfied. (3) The proposed use will not operate or require deliveries earlier in the morning, or later at night, than the uses and structures currently within 300 feet of the proposed use or structure that operate earliest in the morning and latest at night. The proposed use does not require deliveries which may be disruptive outside of normal business hours. The Board finds that the provisions of Section B.3. are satisfied. (4) The proposed use shall not create any more adverse impacts on any current use or structure within 300 feet of the lot on which the proposed use or structure would be located. The proposed use does not accommodate off-site patrons and only serves its employees during normal business hours. No adverse impacts on structures within 300 feet of the subject lot are anticipated. The Board finds that the provisions of Section B.4. are satisfied. 2

4 (5) The application shall further the planning goals of the adopted Town of Brunswick 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, including but not limited to the planning goals for the Planning Area (Appendix A Planning Areas) in which the property is located. The subject parcel is within the Town Core. The proposed reuse of an existing building maintains the overall character of the Core. Although not anticipated, the proposed reuse would further the development standards envisioned for the Core if the use is intensified with the removal of an owner-occupied business. The Board finds that the provisions of Section B.5. are satisfied. DRAFT MOTIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASHAM AND SCOTT LAW OFFICE CASE NUMBER: Motion 1: Motion 2: Motion 3: Completeness (above Project Summary ) That the Board waives the requirement for a professional survey That the Conditional Use Permit is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, its representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification shall require a review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. * Please note that Common Development Plan approvals by the Planning Board shall expire at the end of two years after the date of final approval unless all construction has been completed by that date (Section B of the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance). 3

5 09/20/2017 STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEE NOTES Staff present: John Foster, PWD Director/Town Engineer Foster Public Works Director/Town Engineer;; Jeff Hutchinson, Codes Enforcement Officer; Jared Woolston, Town Planner; Nolan Robbins, Brunswick Sewer District; Chief Richard Rizzo, Police Chief; Jeff Emerson, Fire Department; Lenny Blanchette Applicants Present: Kimberly Scott and Thomas Scott. 1. Case # Basham & Scott Law Office: The Staff Review Committee (SRC) will provide a recommendation to the Planning Board on a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Kimberly Scott of Scott Holdings, LLC and Basham and Scott, LLC, for Office use which is allowed only with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will occupy a 3,200 square foot existing structure located at 36 Cushing Street (Map U15, Lot 20A), within the GR6 Zoning District. Jared: Error on the agenda from previous plan. The building is 2,800 square foot building which means it needs seven (7) parking spots. Kim (applicant): We currently rent space in Fort Andross we have been in business since 2005 in Maine previously in Texas. We have been in Fort Andross for 5 years we are a law firm we do not have any local clients we essentially service larger corporate clients, they may come here once or twice a year since we have been in Fort Andross so we don t have any client foot traffic. Currently we have 4 full time staff 2 Part time staff. The 4 attorneys include us, 2 staff walk or get dropped off to work. The part time staff comes in 2 days a week and the other comes in a limited schedule. We have approached the property across Cumberland from us, the strip mall, and they are willing to lease us as many parking spaces as we need. We are required to have 7 parking spaces unless we were under the exception since it is an existing property. I think we have a solution to the parking, practically speaking we would like to lease parking since the driveway it is an in and out around the building in theory there is enough area to park cars one behind the others. People may need to come and go at any time. There are lots of on street parking, there s the park and ride between pleasant and cedar so I think we have plenty of parking options but our preferred option is to lease parking from the strip mall. Kim: Our operating hours are 8-6 Kim: We don t plan to make any changes to the exterior or parking areas. Jared: Thank you for revising the site plan to scale. I got your request to waive the survey requirement. Lenny (sewer): We don t have any questions.

6 John: I got the printed packet but the one on line that you original sent to us mentioned adding parking around the building. Jared: I want to clarify; for lot overage they are limited to what they already have. The original plan was to take a piece of grass to create parking spaces. Since I advised they can t do that, we have a new plan that has no request for new parking spaces. John: I had questions if they were trying to add new spaces but if they are not I am all set. Anna: We will need a copy of the lease agreement for Planning Board. FYI the park and ride has not been reinstituted yet but we have made the request to DOT. When available, that would be a viable option for you because it is close enough (to the proposed use). Kim: Does that require waiting for DOT to reinstitute? Anna: I don t think you will need it. Jeff (CEO) usually determines how many spaces (are required). Jeff: I would request to add to the copy of the lease, that the agreement shows how many spaces are required for the strip mall. To make sure they have 7 spaces available. It is a mixed use property and you will need to look at our parking standards and compare that to the use and then make sure they have the number of spaces your need available. Kim: What category is that? Anna: I think Jeff you should do that. Jeff: I don t know what the square footage of each use, that s the concern that I have. I know there is a tanning facility a printing facility and the recycling is gone. But I don t know the individual square footages for each is. I can look at it though. Kim: What is the category? Is that retail for parking purpose? Jeff: The tanning is service business. Kim: Class 1 and 2? Jeff: That is a class 1and the printing will be a service to. We would want to look at the empty space we will catalog it as retail. Anna: There is a couple of other places as well, the building on Cumberland Street on the railroad tracks, and don t they have parking? That s where Wildflowers is Jeff: I think they could use additional parking Kim: I don t know what the perception of on street parking is but there is quite a bit of on street parking as well I know that s probably not as desirable. Anna: With your hours what they would probably be ok, because el Camino takes over from Tuesdays to Saturdays.

7 Jeff: The GIS map has the painted stalls that they have. Behind the building Kim: I know that people do park behind there. Jeff I know that people do park there but they need access to the dumpsters. That s gravel so there could be an opportunity. Jared: Are there any regulations to prevent parking in the back of the building? Jeff: I don t believe so, it s all gravel, as long as you don t impede the ability to get to the dumpster. Jeff: That would be very convenient if that was available across the road. Jared: 7 spots available if it s a new use but there is some latitude in the zoning ordinance if it s an existing structure. Kim: I would say on any given day we would need 6 spaces, I would say on any given day at Fort Andross we rent 6 spaces and we have never had an issue with not having enough spaces. I work from home and he works from home 2 days a week and our other 2 days attorneys work opposite days a week from home. Jeff: You can mention that you have been at Fort Andross for 5 years and 6 spaces seem to work for you. Anna: Another comment on parking, but I don t know if any of you are from south of Brunswick along the Freeport corridor but the Metro Breeze. It is 14 trips a day and its $3.00 a one way. Jeff: If you don t mind stacked parking you can probably do parking on sight. You can probably get 3-4 spaces on sight Kim: I think we have plenty of room for 6 or 7. Jeff: So you don t need 6 off site spaces Kim: No, maybe 2 or 3 Jared: Jeff Emerson If they use some of the driveway for parking is there a code for that? Jeff Emerson: The driveway that goes to the property? Jared: There is a driveway that comes off of Cushing and Cumberland; can they stack parking in the driveway with no code issue? Jeff Emerson: That s all theirs Jared: Yes, so no code issue? Jeff Emerson: That s all driveways. (Yes.) Jared: As long as you can squeeze a car through there you re all set. Kim: I have an expedition and I can freely move through there

8 Jared: With someone parked in the driveway? Kim: On the Cumberland side you could; on the other side it would be tighter. On that side you would have to move some vegetation. Jared: If you can stripe it in you may be all set so if you can look at that before the planning board. If you can get the 7 spots on-site we don t have to condition getting the lease agreement across the street. Kim: Do the 7-spots require having to pass by the other vehicles? Jeff: the advantage you have is that it is going to be all employees not the general public. If the general public then we have a concern with that because they are going to be coming and going. If it s all employees you can work that out amongst yourselves. It would be nice for you folks if you have a few off-sites. You re right Jared if you can provide the 7 spots on-site it wouldn t be conditional. Kim: Are you just asking me to add those to that map? Jared: If you can fit them, yes. Kim: Ok Jeff: With a note that it is all employees Kim I can do that. Would that fall under the standard parking size? Jeff: 9 x 18 Jared: It would be the parallel parking size Kim: the parallel parking was 8 by 22 Jeff: It's not really parallel parking it s stacking; you might want to mention that you will be leasing a few spaces to ease the mind of the planning board that you have other options. Kim: That is in there already but should we put it in the contract that we have that Jeff: I don t think you need the contract if you can provide your own parking. Just a general comment that 2-3 spaces may be available if needed. Kim: Do we still need to go through the exercise of the square footage and how many leased spaces they have available. Jeff: Let me look at that. I will give that info to Jared to bring to the planning board since you are not requesting to provide off-site parking if you are providing your own parking. I will try to provide numbers to Jared so he can speak to it. Jared: Anything from the public?

9 Courtney 19 High Street : Just a point of interest if it falls into the purview of the SRC, the fact that this gross residential neighborhood already has a shortage of single family homes that this neighborhood would be losing one to an office. Is that a concern to anyone on the committee? Anna: It is an allowed as a conditional use. As long as the conditions are met then there is no problem. Have we received any other public comments? Jared No. Kathleen 18 High Street I have a similar concern because we have a diverse balanced neighborhood. So every time you switch something into something into a different purpose other than the diversity it tips the pendulum and it changes the community. The reason I actually came is in regards to the parking. That is the busiest corner in our neighborhood and there is a bus stop right down the street that is doesn t have enough space as it is. Anna: There is no bus stop, are you talking school bus? Kathleen: I am talking about the children; they are on the corner of Cushing and High. That is a bus stop that doesn t accommodate the number kids that are there right now. I know previously they brought the kids over in the parking lot. My concern is bring more commercial to the area because we are already having issues with the bus stop because there are not enough crosswalks there are no crosswalks over by that corner where kids are coming and going. There are plenty of kids coming from the corner of Cumberland around the property in question. If they want to do parking on the opposite side everyone needs to be aware of a lot of foot traffic. Cumberland on the corner right by the property in question the side abuts their property there is no marking as to whether you can park there or not park there. My recommendation as a local is that you shouldn t be able to park there in the front it is a very busy street front. It s a through way in all directions and that corner is extremely dangerous already and if we add 7 people coming and going every day its more people in and out of driveways with kids running around and not a lot of green space for the kids so they are in the streets. : Can I ask for some clarification on this? I was under the understanding that this was reducing commercial use. Isn t this a business right now? Anna: Yes, it is currently a home occupation. Jeff: Yes a dog grooming business, owner-occupied so there could be a fair amount of clients that come and go to begin with. Kathleen: I haven t seen a lot of action there. And maybe there won t be much going forward. Kimberly: Its basically arrive at 8 and leave at 6 sometimes 5. Jeff: There are no customer s only employees Kathleen: The bus comes at 825 so there are kids all around that area from 8:00 to 8:25 and there aren t a lot of adults watching the kids and it can be kind of frightening sometimes. There isn t really room for the kids to fit on the sidewalks. The kids are trickling into the streets. With the extra traffic and them coming

10 at that time specifically and the kids drop off is about 345 and there is another bus stop around Dunning and Cushing as well that is a little less of a concern. Jared: Does the school bus in the morning head north on Cushing or does it head south? Kathleen: It goes south. Jared: Okay. Jared: We will look for that on parking. End Time 25:26 Applicants Present: Joseph Marden (agent) 2. Case # Cooks Corner Self Storage: The Staff Review Committee (SRC) will provide a recommendation to the planning board on a Sketch Plan application submitted by Sitelines, PA for Earle P. MacGillivray III to develop eight (8) storage units. The proposed development is located at 0 Old Bath Road (Map 45 Lot 1A), within the GM4 Zoning District. Joe Marden: The property is located off Old Bath Road just as you cross Route 1 right now there is just a cleared field and some trees around the perimeter of the property. We are proposing about 55,000 square feet of self-storage about 15,000 is climate controlled and the rest is regular cold storage the building along old bath road will have an office space in the front and the discussions with the town before we went forward with the sketch plan we discussed meeting the cooks corner design standards and based on those conversations we had looked at orienting one building along old bath road and asking for a waiver for the rest of the buildings there is a pretty good buffer along old bath road that as you come down the over pass and we will propose to maintain a good buffer there. There is a water main in old bath road that will be extending to the site and there is service to the site already that will be servicing the office building we will need a small septic system for a toilet and a sink. There will also be some buried propane tanks we haven t located were yet but we think they will be along this property line here and there will be some electric service for the climate controlled ones. For storm water, we are still trying to conceptualize that but it will probably be infiltration system or under drain filter there are a couple of areas where we can drain the site to there is a culvert that crosses under old bath road where is comes up for the overpass there is also a drainage that leads to Maplewood Manor and then there is the option of getting something across old bath road to an existing stream on the north side. Lenny... My original concern was connecting to public sewer but there isn t (public sewer). There is sewer on the old bath road but it is private. We have no facilities there so other than that we are fine with it and have no concerns. The mobile home park is connected to the system and the own the system on old bath road. Anna: Have there been situations like that where private (sewer) have become public? Because of an additional user. Is that a possibility?

11 Lenny... We sent them (mobile home park) a letter and asked them if they wanted us to take over that forced main that is in a public way, and we have not received an answer. My board would just as soon own it. Anna: Maybe now with the pending development they would see it as a benefit? Lenny I don t know why they are choosing to hold on to it. Joe It only services that one trailer park. Lenny... it serves that Maple Wood mobile home park, they own it Anna I would suggest another contact be made with them between the land owner Joe we have had some conversations with them with some of their projects we can pass the word along. Lenny if it did work out you would have to have some sort of ejector system or pressurized system because that is a forced main not a gravity line. Anna... I know it s not a big user but it would be worth it to get it hooked up now. John I m all set. Anna we will need building elevations for final. In addition you may want to take a look at depending on visibility, like right now as long as you maintain the tree growth in the front. I know a lot of times as buildings grow trees disappear taking a look at following architectural standards for the fronts of buildings of 7 and 8 that which may be viewed. And I think this is a good compromise from the preapplication meeting. I may have one other comment. Jared the treatment for storm water, you don t have to show that now for sketch plan but thank you for pointing it out. If you are asking for a waiver for architectural standards and the buildings are just going to be boxes is there a chance to do green roofs for storm water treatment? Joe I don t think it s really practical for these buildings. The manufacturer can make changes for false dormers and stuff like that but a green roof is outside of the realm. The method we want to use here is infiltration; put what is falling on the ground back in the ground so we need to do some testing of the soils we might have to amend the soils to slow down the water a little bit so it filters in a little better through the soil. In that case we would have subsurface chambers in between the buildings that would let the water sit there and filter through. That would be the greenest treatment method you can have. Jared. I asked about the green roof for two (2) reasons: it might help with climate control and energy bills for the buildings; and you don t have to worry about winter salt. They are going to have to salt the roads and I don t know where you are going to have infiltration but once you get salt in the ground water you are in trouble. Obviously they aren t going to be putting salt on the roofs so something to think about. I don t know what the cost benefits are if it s just a nonstarter then forget it but I would like it added to your alternatives analysis. Anna may I add one more thing in the table of growth mixed use 4. One thing with this ordinance is to always check the footnotes because in the footnotes are additional standards and in this one I knew there

12 was a footnote for this area of GM4. The maximum footprint isn t 50 it is square feet it s not going to affect anything just so it s accurate. Jeff Do you know roughly where this septic system is going to be? Joe We are looking at a couple different areas, possibly under where the parking spaces are. Jeff so it s going to be a concrete you do have set backs to the property lines Joe the building has to be so close to the road it is hard to fit or possibly the south end of that building Jeff is there city water? Joe there is I think it is a 12-inch main and a 2-inch stub to our property Jeff I have a minor concern to the parking spaces, with the first 2 or 3 spaces being so close to the access. Has there been any thought given to moving the lot back 15, 20, 30 feet to get it away but still be close enough to the office building Joe... one of the reasons we located it so close is because there is a fence that is going to go around the property there is a fence along the route 1 corridor that is going to tie into that fence. The parking spaces are to be located outside that fence and they want to have access to building number 2 from both sides. The further we slide up the parking spaces the more access overhead doors we loose on building number 2. Jeff where is the access to the office building Joe it will be from the north side of building 1 Jeff something to think about it seems to be awfully close to the access people coming and going out of those 2 or 3 spots. Jared is that a curb in the driveway? Joe yes Jared if you extended that curb up (past the office) and put some parking spots there (in front of the office) and did a landscape island, do you have enough travel way? Joe I don t think so but I can take a look at it, but I think you want to maintain enough room for turning traffic and a box truck. Jared Jeff your recommendation is to move the parking farther into the site? Jeff Just to get it a little bit further removed from the access, you are going to have conflicts with people coming and going. Have you checked site distance? Especially towards route 1? Joe I haven t looked at it yet, but I haven t measured it myself. Jeff the tree growth down the corner of the property towards old bath I have 2 tree lines.

13 Joe...The more bold one is the proposed. Jeff so you are looking to remove trees in that corner? For what reason? Joe That is one alternative if we have to do some under drain soil filter. If we can do it all by infiltration then we wouldn t have to clear that amount of area. If we have to put in some under drain pond that is the area we would put it in. There are some wetlands in this area. We had a survey crew look at them yesterday. It s not that big of an area but since there are some wetlands we would try to avoid this area even more. Jeff so this area is all going to be paved? Joe Yes Jeff maybe a pervious pavement? Joe that would be an alternative with structures with chambers we are looking at those possibilities Jeff Emerson Secured access? Joe yes Jeff E is it going to be an electronic gate? Or pad lock? Joe I don t know that answer yet Jeff E It s a little early yet but we will need to work with you on getting access. And the chain link fence goes all the way around; you said it ties into the one on route 1? Joe...I haven t walked all the way to route one yet. Jeff E The plan is for a continuous fence though? Joe The plan is also for a gate on the back of the property so he can access the rest of his property too. Richard...The access is that just during the day like other places? Unless you have a pass key. Joe I don t know that. Richard... Do you know if there is going to be lighting there? People don t usually break in to these things but sometimes there are valuables. Lighting might. Joe...there may be some amount of building lights, I can check on that. Richard...Not that an officer is going to see that but sometimes light keeps bad guys away. Lenny Joe do you know that there is a storm drain that goes on the corner of the site? You can t touch it, it s not ours. It was installed by the predecessor of Lowes. Joe the red line is just different sizes?

14 Lenny different size pipe Joe I know there is a pretty large culvert across old bath road, it s not continuous Lenny it daylights, you can see it daylights over here then it goes under Grover, Joe that plan shows the line comes across route 1 Lenny it does it s there Joe I think there is a seperation between the pipes across route one and the ones underneath old bath road Lenny I don t know but there is a pipe under the old bath road and its up high on the ramp so why would we have a drain there, anyway this exists it s not town owned facility it was put in years ago as part of that project they paid for it put it in and they are the only ones connected. Jeff so it s on their property but they can t use it? Lenny.I don t know it was like the overflown for the detention pond that whole drainage system it is supposed to drain into the pond and then the pond gets full it comes out the other way. Anna you may wind up having an easement. Lenny Crooker might know. Curtis Neufeld I met with the client and my understanding is that there will be a key pad controlled gate I don t think he allows afterhours access and he doesn t have wall security lighting on the building, whether they are motion activated I am not sure. He has operated a facility in Conway New Hampshire. It is a good size one he is very new to it he is well versed and the questions we have had for him. Jared For traffic and access, there is a gate through here, no one is allowed through here (adjacent to office building) right? It opens there (opposite side of fence from office)? Joe Yes, we will show the fence action on the final plans. Anna On the deed, what parcel would this be? -1A 3. Case # Brunswick Landing Housing Subdivision: The Staff Review Committee (SRC) will provide a recommendation to the Planning Board on a Final Subdivision Plan submitted by Sitelines, PA for Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC and Priority Real Estate Group, LLC. The Proposed development includes existing residential housing and no new housing units within areas of Brunswick Landing identified as Mariner Landing, Brunswick Gardens, Midway Terrace, and Woodland Village located on Brunswick Landing, so-called. The proposed development is located primarily between Admiral Fitch Avenue and Route 24 (Gurnet Road) (Map 40, Lots 12 and 34), within the GR1 Zoning District and Shoreline Protection Overlay District.

15 4. Case # Brunswick Landing Housing Common Development Plan: The Staff Review Committee (SRC) will provide a recommendation to the Planning Board on a Common Development Plan submitted by Sitelines, PA for Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC and Priority Real Estate Group, LLC. The proposed development includes existing development and areas of new development in housing areas identified as Mariner Landing, Brunswick Gardens, Midway Terrace, and Woodland Village located on Brunswick Landing, so-called. The proposed development is located between Admiral Fitch Avenue and Route 24 (Gurnet Road) (Map 40, Lots 12 and 34). Within the GR1 Zoning District and Shoreline Protection Overlay District. Applicants Present: Curtis Nuefeld, Chris Rhoades Jared - The common development plan anticipates new development and the Final Subdivision Plan does not. The subdivision is only to subdivide existing neighborhoods. Curt Priority Real Estate group is no longer part of anything we are proposing. Chris Rhoades Ownership Team, we bought 332 units in Brunswick and another 73 units in Topsham so we have 407 units total and we also have another purchase option for another 190 units formally known as BEQ s. We are rebranding them as Pegasus Landing and renting those out to civilians and the Navy will be using them as part of housing for the destroyers that are in the water for BIW. We do offer housing discounts for Police and firefighters so if there are housing needs there is a 20% discount. Curt In terms of background the property is acquired from Midcoast affordable housing includes Topsham Affordable Housing there is some land up there which had including housing and was demolitioned years ago. It abuts MSAD 75 properties of the middle school. Something else that is being looked at he has large soccer housing and land to be developed. The purpose of this subdivision is to take a large piece of land and which was conveyed in its entirety and divide it up into developable pieces and identify neighborhoods around the existing housing. Moving forward from a management stand point it makes sense that some of these will be converted to a condo style ownership some will remain rentals some will need housing association to maintain private roads in the developments and an overall umbrella association to take care of landscaped areas Chris as our overall plan, this 120 acre land being divided into parcels where there are units and areas where there s land that can be developed. We are doing this concurrently with land in Topsham. We are working with the local real estate firm Remax with Sue Spann and her team to assess what style and what price point where there is a short for sale inventory and for rent inventory so we are trying to address those for both the Brunswick and Topsham markets to help determine where we build in first. That s the long term plan maybe 150 units here and with the acreage we have in Topsham maybe a 100 units there. Over the next 4 years a number of new units in the $300,000 price point for condos. Jared But for the purposes of this subdivision, none of that is proposed. -Curt, need for homeowner s docs was a question that I had. This is basically no sketch plan you already went straight to final because this is already existing. It is already built but there are no homeowners docs.

16 You said there may be overall management for landscaping and sub-groups that would be in charge of each neighborhood. Is that something that would be for review after or now? Curt That would depend on what point the town feels that I need to review it. Right now they are all leased units. Brunswick Landing Ventures is managing the whole thing and underneath them they have a management group they have hired that would help with the grounds and facilities. Anyone s lease as it was with George Shot. They included within the lease amount monies that go towards maintaining everything. As condominium-style ownership developed at that time you would have a declaration of bylaws and homeowners documents that would be established for those. Again not every style works well for that so Chris is unfortunately has to obtain a team of lawyers to help him through the process. And we would help along the way, None of that is being proposed at this time. What we are trying to do is establish the areas that can be developed it s important that the financial structure and the loans that go into this and develop the framework for the project. The ultimate vision is that the newer style housing out there will be continued with four-plex type units the newer style housing out there will be continued with gable ends cladding landscaping would be an extension of the newer stuff. Jared Again I am trying to get into the logistics of the town approving this as a stand-alone subdivision, so do we need to be reviewing homeowner s association docs or condo associate doc now? Chris We haven t started that yet, right now we are looking to break these into parcels and understand from the cdp what we can build, and then once we know that we will know footprints and put a whole plan together. Then we will have condo docs when we get the approvals for the vacant land that s to be developed there maybe condo docs if we transition some of the for-rent to for-sale product. Jared As proposed, your management company is responsible for everything? Chris My company will do it. Anna Maybe to make note that in the findings as a condition that the future developed areas we would need to see those condo docs. And at any given point if those areas say lot 10 that doesn t look like there would be there would be additional development, woodland village area, but if it does go to condominium we be provided the documents. Jared. For new development? Not if transferred to someone else. Anna... that would be for new. Curtis I have a question about that too? As a change in ownership style does that require planning board review? Anna Condominium would require we should say that it is understood. Lenny I have a lot of questions but I don t know if they are for today or once the development plans are submitted. I see you want a letter to determine capacity but don t know what s going to get built. Jared This is just for capacity for existing. They are not asking for new stuff yet.

17 Lenny if it s already there it s already coming to us. Jared so no change. Lenny Why would you need a letter? Jared we usually ask for a letter to determine that you are still able to serve this development, can you still serve this development? Lenny Everything that is existing comes to the Brunswick Sewer District, through MRRA. MRRA owns the system or George Shot owns the system or even you (Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC) owns the system now. We don t but it all does come to us so we have capacity and we are taking care of it so I am confused why you need a second letter. Any new construction would go through the planning process. Anna You may want to put in your letter that this is only for existing and anything new would have to come back. Lenny within all this development, is all the sewer system to remain private? Curt It s MRRA. Lenny there is a demarcation line between what MRRA owned and what George Shot owned. In terms of the sewer system, it is my understanding that MRRA doesn t own all of the sewer system in Brunswick Landing it s been a fuzzy cloud I ask because MRRA is asking us to taking over the system. Potentially by the end of this year we could own the sewer system they own. It s going to be who owns what where and when. And that will be critical as time goes on. Anna was Tom (Brubaker) asked of ownership, he may have assumed that you knew that. Chris we only own the housing and the land, we don t have any ownership in the sewer system. Lenny we will find out for sure MRRA needs to inventory everything they own. Curt everything I have seen in the deeds and the way it is all written up, the original grantor: navy to MRRA, MRRA to George Shot, granted perpetual rights, easements for access for roads and to go in and do things to the sewer but doesn t say you own it. Chris we do own the roads Curt ok you own the roads and they have easements over them. We will firm that up I don t have that answer today unless I make a call. Lenny you us and MRRA should get together and try to figure all this out. Anna probably the same thing with water? Curt I would assume; we have met with them we have talked about where it is and what it is but nothing about ownership changes at this intersection. We have been operating under the assumption that it is all MRRA's infrastructure

18 Linda on the border side there is no plan for MRRA to convey the water district so it is different from the conversation. Anna I was getting at the ownership Jon I am curious that you are showing existing 60 ft. right of way but they own the road so who is the right of way in favor of? Curt the right of way is in the favor of MRRA and the general public. As described in the documents some of them are more descriptive and some say they can use all the roads. So where Neptune has a description to it we have shown it the internal ones don t so we were defining a right of way on the first part of intrepid and trying to define it to line up with the connecter road. But trying to define leaps and bounds over everything seemed pointless because it never was..does MMRA maintain all the roads? Chris no I do Anna All including, except those for Neptune and I plow and maintain everything. Chris this doesn t show the new connector road but I am also giving the town the 2 pieces of land to connect into that new road. Anna mine is more housekeeping, you may get hit with this at planning board so that is why I am bringing it up. It s kind of difficult at this scale and even at the larger scale what are lots and what are just the lines and units themselves. Curt you would like full scale for the board? Anna Maybe making the line maybe a little bit more pronounced on the plan. You may also want to do for clarity and later on is to have a table that gives how many units and how many acres for each lot because they are already developed so give the specifics. Chris so what you have here Curt you 9.13 acres and the number of units Anna and also impervious would be something and that would be the base we start with Jeff is you going to require that they meet the density requirements with these new lots Curtis they do, they are well within them Jeff that was my concern because you have one large property and you are subdividing that you are also further development so everything needs to meet the density requirements both existing Curt I can t swear impervious coverage Jeff so you will provide that? Curt yes I am happy to provide that table.

19 Jeff Getting back to the 60 foot right of way, that is an existing right of way. Does it need to be that wide? Because if you look at it the parking spaces or the lots in front of all those units are nearly 2/3 within their right of way, the occupants of those units don t have control of their own parking due to the right of way. If there isn t a need for the right of way to be that wide couldn t they be reduced to 50 or 40? Curt I would like to say yes but I would have to talk to the original guarantor and guarantee to agree to it. And revise that and as long as that is a possibility I don t see why not. Jeff are any of these going to be condos? Chris the existing housing stock? Potentially. Jeff It s kind of odd to have parking areas in right of ways to the road. If you look up on Guadal Canal with a 40 ft. right of way most of the parking spaces are outside of the right of way. Curt we are defining that one... Jeff you could redefine Forestall and Neptune. If you don t need the full 60 ft. Anna as long as you are talking about that in Appendix B there is private street standards just for Brunswick landing. You may want to take a look at that Jeff...I do believe those can be reduced in width. Curt what section again? Anna Appendix B, page B-2. They have always been included in the zoning ordinance we didn t make changes on this but it s just where it is located. Curt We will take a look, if that is doable, I am not always the smartest on changing previously declared rights of way. If it s easier than I am aware than we will be happy to do that on behalf of the client and tidy that up. Jeff the thing going for you is that you are not proposing individual owned lots, so the owner of the condos don t own the parking area. Are you going to be maintaining the parking area? Chris We do now and if we turned it over to an HOA then the HOA would do it. Jeff...that 60 ft. right of way is odd for 6 structures, Curt there is going to be a new public road Jeff that is going to further alleviate Chris what is the benefit of reducing the right of way? Curt basically where they are parking it would become a limited common element in a condominium scheme, it would not be public. A right of way would be defined as a public access. But if you make it a limited common element it limits access.

20 Jeff I don t know if there is any liability risk or not. Curt It makes it neater Jeff If you were coming forth for development review to build these condos we probably wouldn t approve the parking spaces in the right of way. Curt and that is why we are going with a narrower one on Guadal canal Jeff...I don t know how difficult it would be to redefine that right of way; another issue, are lots 3 and 6 back lots? Chris what do you mean by back lots? Jeff Especially lot 6 you are not defining a right of way down, the right of way you are defining ends on lot 6 at Gurnet so it s almost a back lot as well as lot 3. It doesn t have frontage on a public or private road unless you are going to continue the easements to those lots. Curt if you continue the easement of the lot who is the easement of the lot to the benefit of? Jeff What I am getting to is both lots are being accesses in two different areas and I would say that it does meet the back lit criteria because the right of ways end to those lots. Chris so we extend the right of way? Jeff... just FYI that someone at the planning board will see that as a back lot. And you respond that I understand that those do meet the back lot criteria. Curt...I will look into that. Anna But also based on that this is labeled going back to lot 6 Midway Terrace that is labeled as an easement not a right of way. You may want to reconsider that? Jeff It can be either. Anna you may want to reconsider that as an easement that s quite a bit of units that need access. I think it would be more consistent with what you have done with the other streets. Jeff the back lot cr5iteria the back lot can be serviced with an easement or a right of way, and for back lot with 1 dwelling its 20 ft. in width 2 dwellings 30 and any more than 2 is 50 and you have that in both cases so it works just in case it comes up in planning. Curt.if we are going to put a table on there we can identify it as a rear lot Anna... So we are calling them rear lots? Jeff Rear lots yes. Anna Its page 4-5 in the ordinance

21 Jared Jeff? Jeff E It s there we are servicing it now so we have no concerns Curt There are no know deficiencies Jeff E There are no know deficiencies *****Jared Ok let s move onto the Common Development Plan Please. Curt Jared had some good input and based on that I have some new information to share the first difference is that Chris and I met with Jim Howard early on, and there was a misunderstanding on my part that Jim s parcel to the North that would be on the other side of the Future Road that I thought would have benefit from the Common Development Plan because I had the zoning mixed up. He has better zoning for what he wants to do. Which is residential uses but he has bigger lot coverage and higher densities. It really is not in his interest and there is no benefit to adding him in. I revised the cover letter to remove Jim Howard he is not part of this and I have added some additional information a narrative and some pictures and plans to explain what is going on in architecture and landscaping. The vision of future housing is to extend the better stuff with stock that s already out there, think Signature Pines, and I throw that out there because the footprints that you are seeing on that plan are Signature Pines footprints and that is just a convenient size that we use that is conservative in nature to start figuring out how units will lay out, I want to emphasize that those are not going to be what comes back for final design. It is a highly marketable likeable buildable style. We worked with Remax this would be a good fit with the neighborhood and it will blend in nicely. Each unit will have 2 car garages 2 car width driveways and driveways will be long enough to get at least one if not 2 cars in. The units will be a mix of 2 story and 1 story type buildings. We would like to have duplex units that are all ranch and to do that those buildings would not be up to 24 feet tall and for a few unit locations we are seeking to reduce the overall height requirement to less than 24 feet and a I suggested and I was agreeable to making that an average height so we could look at it and not come back as all ranch. This is a very marketable layout, what we are looking at right now is that most of them would have 2 story units in the middle with ranches on the end but the building itself would meet the minimum height requirement. As we are laying this out it just may be that not every unit may be a 4plex, that s what we are looking for I don t think it s a dramatic variation from the intent of the height minimum and we are asking for an increase of 10% on impervious surface coverage. I don t know that we are needing all of that but it would certainly be helpful when you are trying to go for maximum density when you want to add patios and sidewalks that aren t shown on the plan I would like to have a little extra wiggle room. Jared and I have had some discussions about the landscaping and based on that I have added some narrative and schematic master landscape plan. The intent would be to have street trees on the street and smaller trees within the development both either as added elements within the open spaces and I think it would make sense to have some evergreen trees to prevent one unit from looking into another unit. They will be fairly close together. If you drive the Forestall area you will see that type of theme so we are looking to extend the theme. If these new ones coming out would be owner occupied, I would like to give a palette that the owners can chose from and they can sort of do their own thing. We have had some good discussions and I think I have a good list of native select varieties here. If anyone has any strong opinions here or has a good idea about another option. We are not proposing any new signage or new roads or lighting. The only reason I had my caveat there is the intersection and Forestall and stub that goes out to the new road I think is going to change up

22 as you can see on the plan. The existing road forestall comes in and peels off into Intreped and this intersection is not where it is located now, but you may want a new light there. We are not proposing a total redo of all the lighting in the development. With the new ordinance I don t know if all the waivers apply but I think they do. We are asking for the 4 there from not having signs not having new lightings and the schematic landscape plans. Jared... to follow up the narrative you should follow up on that because you still have some of the old nonnatives, I had also asked you about lighting and architecture mostly for new things and you had said there were no new roads and that is where I am confused. I think if I am looking at this correctly there would be new connector roads. Curt they are not proposing it the town is but I see your point Jared I am looking at Neptune there are little loops and then there are is a connector on intrepid to Guadal Canal then an extra stub of Guadal Canal, so I don t know if you need a lighting plan there that was my point when we talked and as far as architecture goes I appreciate the narrative it is very helpful. I wondered about the places that are going to be smaller the ranch style if the architecture was going to cater to the Living in place stuff that is a little more assessable Curt no, it is not intended to be an aging place sort of community. It would be same thing on a ranch Jarred...just smaller places Curt we haven t discussed and ADA type facilities yet. That is not the intent they are market right condominiums. I know from talking to Scott Howard about Botany Place that he had more luck selling some of those as duplex vs 4plexes and I wanted to have that option but everyone is on board about maximizing the density out there and as these thing s lay out I think there would be an opportunity as a duplex. Your comment about those I didn t think about those loops as streets, as so much as long driveways and I guess they are going to be named. Jared that s a question I guess, I thought that they were roads Jeff...They certainly will be named Anna what about internal pedestrian sidewalks? Jared most of the roads out there have sidewalks would you extend those? Curt We would keep yup the same scheme I just haven t drawn them all in Anna you should put that into the common development plan for circulation Chris you are correct Jared, intrepid would connect with Guadal it is dirt now Anna if you could throw in some types of lighting fixtures that you are thinking about, it is a common scheme of development that they are looking for Chris wouldn t we just match what s there

23 Curt...no, nothing there they are all the older shoebox style you would want to go with LED fixtures they are slightly more but they are so much less in the long run. They only questions I had was that we typically use in the parking lot they would be the same style just slightly smaller. You have sent hem they are just a little flat nothing on a pole they are real small. I can get you some cut sheets. Jared...the planning board is going to want light temp and cut off on the street rather than shining into people s houses. If the intention is to replace the old lights with something new then you can provide a cut sheet. Chris I don t think there was that intention but I think that if tree was new lighting that we need too.or areas that were not lit. Curt My main stop was that intersection because you need to light the intersection; I am with you as to the extent that we need Chris.Do you know if in building that road and that connector on my land there do you know if they are planning on putting lighting there? Anna we will know better later this week, Chris was that meeting for this Friday? Or next Friday? Anna this Friday Chris 10:30? Or 9:30? Anna.yes Curt what are you doing on the road Anna...this is a stake holder meeting were we are going to be talking through all of the specifics Curt I am thinking that it would probably make sense for any lighting in here would be similar or the same as the connector road Anna it s at 10:30, here and that s going to be the final look at the preliminary design so it may not get to those specifics. If you want you can say either this or whatever is determined to be appropriate by all the stake holders. Chris...they may be planning to already to be putting lighting and we can just match whatever they put in Curt I will come up with whatever I think will look in your development and like she said we will do this or whatever matches what you put in, it won t be installed until the connector road is built Chris which will be this winter right? Anna possibly we still have to do finals on it Jared Lenny do you have anything to add?

24 Lenny what exactly are they looking for today? Jared they are looking for a recommendation to the planning board for the 2 projects are to get the existing development approved as a subdivision broken into lots by neighborhoods and the second part is a common development plan and the common development plan includes new development but it s not as rigorous as a final subdivision plan where we look at traffic circulation Lenny If the goal is to get these subdivision plan approved why is all this issue about stars of housing how many stories streetlights, wouldn t all this come up again when each individual project comes back? Are they not coming back if they don t come back we won t have a say. Jared they will come back Anna this kind of controls what development they do bring forward in one shot. That everything from this point on if planning board approves it then from that point on that is what s going to basically be the plan for the future and they have to meet that plan. Lenny they have to come back to planning? Anna they do have to come back to planning on a phase basis, so everything has to be consistent in design and it is a common scheme of development and it also gives them the flexibility to ask for changes to what is presently allowed in dimensional standards Jeff the common development plan the planning board won t be granting them approval to actually development the property it s just to approve how it will be developed Lenny Do you still need a letter from us? Pointing out that we have capacity to serve it? Jared The letter I would be asking for is for the subdivision, and basically the stuff you already pointed out we are already serving it and the question of who owns what. So I would want you to put that in a letter but for this say whatever you want. Lenny I don t want to be in apposition were 3 years from now another homes get put in there and we were required today to submit a letter of capacity when probably 3 years from now we may not have it. Jeff the common development plan is not a plan to physically develop the property it is how athstetics. How it is going to be developed. Once they get to the point of actually developing the property they will come back and go through the whole planning board process and that is when we will be asking for the letter. Lenny I am all set. John I am all set. Anna Come back to me. Jeff I have one thing, is the Common Development Plan for the entire lot of 12.

25 Curt just the highlighted lots Jeff... that s what it is saying, what I would recommend doing once the subdivision is adopted and approved chances are lot 2 will not be lot 2 it will be the next available lot number in the assessor s office. So what I would recommend doing is getting together with Kathy now and finding out what those lot numbers will be and then in the cover letter describe which list the common development plan applies to because right now lot 12 is the entire lot. Curt...I did describe it on the CDP in the corner I describe which one it applies to. Jeff.like we have done in the past when we have a subdivision we have you work with Kathy to determine what the map and lot numbers will be. Curt I will ask the question if she can give me that answer before I go to the planning board. Jeff It s not that difficult she just goes to the next available lot number on that map Curt I don t know if she will do 12 a b c d or or Jeff I think what she did on project landing is next available lot number nit a b c d Anna I think it s the post office not wanting a b c d and in Botany Place it is numbers Jeff it would certainly make it clearer Curt????? Jeff when you read this here it is lot 12 Anna Coverage I am not weighing in on coverage until we see what the actual is for the rest of the development Chris...what is coverage? Anna.the impervious coverage, so we are trying to maintain the same style the same type of development and development factors, and dimensional requirements and let s see what that comes out to. Chris Are you saying, to calculate on the impervious is on ones that are occupied? Anna remember when I talked about the table, the impervious coverage is one of the dimensions we need. Curt she is saying that if they all come in a 30% why do we need 55 Anna Right. Take a look at the affordable housing section of the ordinance. Because that would give you additional density for a certain percentage. I am not saying the entire development there are 3 different levels of affordability and there are density bonus and there are a reduction of fees and the rec fees will be per unit of new construction Chris how much are those?

26 Anna...it depends on the number of bedrooms? Chris 2 and 3 bedrooms Anna.2 or 3 bedroom. If they are all attached 1 bedroom is $760 per unit and 3 or more is Chris and those are reduced by a percentage? Anna the are a reduced by a percentage, it depends on the level of affordability. If you do a percentage like 25% of the units you would get an increase in density and a decrease in fees. It should be in chapter 3. Chris...so for a given parcel, take lot 8 it is acres and you did 10% affordable is affordable defined Anna I am going to it. Chris if you did 10% affordable and you have 100 units and 10 of them are affordable does that density bonuses take you from 8 to 9 or to 10 Anna that s what you would have to calculate out Lenny At some point we are going to take over the sewer system for MRRA possibly by the end of this year, once we do that out entrance charge applies to all new construction each residential unit is currently $1178 each residential unit, you will have to factor that in. Jeff doesn t that apply currently Lenny no because we don t own the system in the landing and when MRRA took it over we allowed them to piggy back with any agreements or permits with the navy and with the navy we develop what s called a benchmark and we look at the flow for each year and we looked at the average daily flow and as long as that number didn t exceed gallons a day, no new construction at the landing wouldn t need an entrance charge. Jeff ok Lenny they are only averaging a day Jeff for any other subdivision in town that is on town sewer the 1178 applies there as well so this isn t something new. They don t own the system and they have an agreement with the navy and MRRA. Anna if you look at or jot this down it starts on page 4-15 affordable housing developments and it is section 4.2 and there are definitions of affordable housing and it is dependent on if its owner occupied renter occupied very low income low income moderate income that s in here as to what the extent of the discounted fees are as well as bonus densities. Let s just say you decide on affordable to moderate it is a 50% reduction in fees for building permit fees recreation fees, and impact fees. That would greatly reduce Curt is that per unit that falls within that

27 Anna that is just for the affordable, if you go this route you can request modifications of dimensional standards to make the project work. Other than density because the density is you are already getting a bonus. Take a look at that that may be easier than the CDP if you want to go that direction. We are hearing more and more in town that affordability is an issue. If we can start getting so set asides that would be something that would have to be maintained, there is maintenance provisions in there. You cannot say that the first owner or renter has to maintain affordability it has to be maintained for a certain number of years in order to get those bonuses. For bonus densities for affordable to moderate it is per affordable housing unit it is a half unit so you can make up a few. Curt If you put in 10 you get 5 more do the 5 more have to be affordable? Anna yes Curt but the reduction in fees apply to all 15 Anna the reduction of fees is for the affordable units affordable to moderate is 80 to 120% of median Chris of household income Anna that definition is in here and the language is current with.at the federal Jared.two things for follow Tom Farrell would like you to follow up with him, for existing residential dwelling they don t ask for fees but he wants a legal opinion on that. Then for new units there is a new way to calculate fees so you will want to talk to him about that. Historically we haven t dinged anyone for existing residential units. I wanted to get his feedback of possibly removal of a playground Curt we are not removing it we are moving it Jared you are going to move it? Anna you can count that Jared recreation is Curt.that s not what we are doing today Jared that s for future stuff the first comment is for the first subdivision Anna appendix d goes through the methodology of the rec impact fees Curt it s definitely a lot cleaner than it was, it used to be on market value of a piece of land, I don t know where this would fall out but it would be a bunch of money so it s a bonus real quick my understanding is full size plans for the board looking at reducing the size of the right of way and looking at the new loops and roads as roads there will be sidewalks and there will be lighting information and talk to Tom Farrell Anna and look at the affordable housing Curt but we don t have to do that right now?...

28 Anna.no

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47 TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, MAINE INCORPORATED 1739 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 85 UNION STREET BRUNSWICK, ME ANNA BREINICH, FAICP PHONE: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FAX: MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning Board FROM: Jared Woolston, Planner DATE: September 29, 2017 RE: Sketch Plan Review of Cooks Corner Self Storage PROJECT SUMMARY Staff has reviewed the Sketch Plan application and determined that it is complete. Motion 1. That the Board deems the Sketch Plan to be complete. The proposed Sketch Plan Major Development Review application was submitted by authorized representatives from Sitelines, PA for Earle P. MacGillivray III, for a Sketch Plan of a selfstorage facility on Old Bath Road (Map 45, Lot 1A). The proposed development is located within the GM4 Zoning District. The project includes eight (8) self-storage buildings on 2.97 acres of impervious area. The proposed impervious area encompasses less than 50% of the parcel which is below the maximum lot coverage allowed in the GM4 Zoning District. The proposed self-storage buildings also include 373-square feet of related office space. The largest building will be 10,800 square feet which is below the maximum building footprint per structure of 20,000 square feet in GM4. The proposed use is allowed within GM4. The applicant identified wetlands that were delineated on-site. The wetlands are not proposed to be directly impacted by development activities. The existing site is primarily field with some forested land at the edge of property boundaries. As proposed, the forested land at the property boundary would remain along Bath Road but some would be removed up to the property boundaries along Route 1. The proposed development will require a Stormwater Management Law permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. A private subsurface wastewater disposal system will be provided at a location to be determined.

48 The applicant will request waivers from Cooks Corner Design standards except for the one (1), 250-foot by 25-foot building that faces Old Bath Road. The Staff Review Committee (SRC) reviewed the Sketch Plan application on September 20, A copy of the SRC notes are enclosed. A Sketch Plan of the proposed development was prepared by Sitelines, PA and is referenced as Sheet C3, entitled Site Layout & Utility Plan, and dated August 15, DRAFT MOTIONS SKETCH PLAN MAJOR REVIEW COOKS CORNER SELF STORAGE Case # Motion 1. Motion 2. Completeness (above). That the Board approves the Sketch Plan.

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56 ' R/W 50' R/W ' R/W R/W Coastline Ct Front St 183 Old Bath Road Starlight Way Shea St Maplewood Ave Karen Ln ' R/W Long St R/W 20' R/W A D B Town pace Classification f Drive 5 Storer Road ey Road A 17B April Dr 7 7A Bath Road 32 cdonalds 17A Gu Grover Lane A B A F 1A CC2 State of Maine 38 Tibbetts Drive Old Bath Road Growling Bear Drive Farley Road 45 CC2 2 Thomas Point Road Lindbergh Crossing A A 5B Town of BRUNSWICK Maine Ac A E B B A Short St Maplewood Manor Bath Road A C B.H.A. Project Pond Dr Young Ave James St CC2 13 Deerfield Drive Town 100' Easement Central Maine Power 16 U.S. Route Dodge Olds Inc. 41 Ash Street C Ac Legend Other Road Hydrography Line ROW Property Access Town Boundary Other Lot Boundary Parcels_Lines Public Road Private Road ROW Water B Medical Center Drive Teak Lane Deerfield Drive Common Land A State of Maine C Ac A Ac 55 3A A ' R/W A Evergreen Drive Rita Way Race Track Road Heritage Place 48 Central Maine Power Co. 45 No Permit B 38B B A Bath Iron Works ' R/W Bath Road Disclaimer: The information is provided as a reasonably accurate point of reference, but is not guaranteed and is not to be used for conveyances. The Town of Brunswick shall not be held responsible for the accuracy or misuse of this data. Copyright Town of Brunswick Ac A Evergreen Drive Bridle Road 42 Thompson Pond Medical Center Drive B Sandy Ridge Road 3 Bridle Road Ac Central Maine Power Co ± Bath Iron Works 42B Bath Iron Works Town A 50' R/W Hale Street Harding Cemetery Bridle Road Mallett Park Road C C Mid Coast Hospital Easement Thomas Point Road Cranberry Drive 49A 48C Ad ams Ro ad 18 Town Conservation and Re A State of Maine A Varney Lane Adams Road Private Road Bath Road B 4 17A inch = 300 feet Revised To: April 1, Maps Prepared by: Town of Brunswick MAP C

57 SITE

58

59 Soil Map Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine ' 28'' W ' 4'' W 43 54' 56'' N 43 54' 56'' N ' 44'' N ' 28'' W 69 54' 4'' W 43 54' 44'' N Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. N Map Scale: 1:2,470 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/3/2017 Page 1 of 3

60 Soil Map Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine Map Unit Legend Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine (ME005) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Au Au Gres loamy sand % WmB Windsor loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes % Totals for Area of Interest % Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/3/2017 Page 3 of 3

61

62

63

64

65

66

67 STOP X:\LAND PROJECTS\3408 MACGILLIVRAY OLD BATH RD\DWG\3408-SITE.DWG, SITE, 9/27/2017 1:11:19 PM, JOE SITELINES, PA ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 8 CUMBERLAND STREET, BRUNSWICK, ME

68 PLANNING BOARD Major Development Review DRAFT Findings of Fact Review Date: October 3, 2017 Project Name: Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision Project Location: Brunswick Landing Tax Map: Map 40, Lots 12 and 34 Zoning District: GR1 (Lot 12) and GM7 (Lot 34) Case Number: Applicant: Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC 74 Neptune Drive Brunswick, ME Authorized Representative: Sitelines PA c/o Curt Neufeld, PE, 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME Staff reviewed the application and has determined it is complete. DRAFT Motion 1: That the Final Subdivision Plan is deemed complete. PROJECT SUMMARY Staff review is based on the Major Development Review application for the, Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision as revised most recently on September 12, The Town of Brunswick s Staff Review Committee (SRC) reviewed the development proposal on September 20, The SRC meeting notes are included in the Planning Board packet. The proposed activity involves the creation of 12 new residential lots for one (1) and two (2) family multitenant housing. The proposed development includes all existing housing and does not propose any new units or construction activity. The applicant requests the following waiver in accordance with Section 410 of the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance: 1. Class A Soil Survey The applicant states the project is located on suitable soils for the proposed use, and a Class B soil survey is included. The site contains existing development and no further development is proposed at this time. Staff note that Class A soil surveys are a discretionary requirement by the review entity. Based on these supporting facts, the staff recommends approving the requested waiver. 1

69 2. Profile, cross section dimensions and curve radii of existing streets The application states that no changes are proposed to existing streets. Based on this supporting fact, the staff recommends approving the requested waiver. 3. Location of trees >10 The application indicates no development is proposed that may impact existing trees. Based on this supporting fact, the staff recommends approving the requested. Review Standards from Section 4.2 of the Town of Brunswick Zoning Ordinance 4.1 Applicability of Property Development Standards The subject property is located primarily within the GR1 and partially within the GM7 Zoning District. The applicant provided a table for the GR1 Zoning District but not the GM7 Zoning District. The proposed subdivision plan must depict the GM7 Zoning District standards. The applicant proposes to divide an existing lot containing two (2) existing residences within the GM7 Zoning District for residential use. Dwellings are not permitted within GM7; however, since the dwellings on Lot 34 exist the proposed two (2) lot division does not create further non-compliance with Brunswick s Zoning Ordinance. The parcel contains the mapped Shoreland Protection Overlay Stream Protection Subdistrict (SPO-SP). The proposed subdivision plan does not depict the location of the SPO-SP and must therefore be corrected. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.1 are satisfied conditional upon revising the site plan to depict the location of the Shoreland Protection Overlay Stream Protection Subdistrict; and the GM7 Zoning District standards. 4.2 Dimensional and Density Standards As noted in Section 4.1., the proposed subdivision contains the SPO-SP and its supplemental standards apply. Where no additional development is proposed, the applicant must only provide that the minimum lot size, shore frontage, and lot coverage (unvegeated land) for any proposed lot. The applicant provided a table on the subdivision plan for GR1 Zoning District which indicates the required density limit of eight (8) dwelling units per acre will be met. Based on the land area shown within existing Lot 34 (5.08 acres), the proposed two (2) lot division will meet the GM7 density standard of 24 units per acre. The applicant proposes to calculate net site area for each parcel as submissions are made. The applicant must provide net site area calculations for each parcel prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. As conditionally approved by the Maine DEP on September 29, 2017, Brunswick s Zoning Ordinance must require each proposed lot to be limited to less than 20% unvegetated lot coverage within the SPO. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.2 are satisfied conditional that each proposed lot contains minimum lot size, shore frontage, and unvegetated lot coverage within the SPO-SP in accordance with Brunswick s SPO standards (Table F.(1) and no more than 20% unvegetated lot area within the SPO as conditioned by the Maine DEP. The applicant must provide net site area calculations for each parcel prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. The applicant may return to the Director of Planning and 2

70 Development to request a minor modification if the approved lot dimensions require adjustment to meet the minimum standards. At the discretion of the Director, changes in lot layout may be required to return for further review by the Planning Board. 4.3 Natural and Historic Areas The applicant found no features important to the natural, scenic, and historic character of the Town or that add to the visual quality of a development. A wetland delineation report was provided in the application but the wetland delineation is not shown on the plans. The applicant must provide wetland delineation maps at the time of subdivision review for any new development. As noted above, the SPO-SP is mapped on the subject parcel in the Town of Brunswick s Official Zoning map. Any wetland maps must also depict the location of the SPO. The proposed development does not result in new construction and therefore will not result in undue water or air pollution; significant plant and animal habitat; steep slopes; erosion and sedimentation; groundwater; surface waters, wetlands, and marine resources; and historic and archaeological resources, in accordance with Section , respectively. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.3 are satisfied conditionally that wetland delineation maps are provide at the time of review for any new development. 4.4 Flood Hazard Areas The proposed development is not located in a Flood Protection Overlay (FPO) District or Flood Hazard Area. The Board finds the risk of flooding for the proposed development is sufficiently minimized. 4.5 Basic Municipal Services The SRC reviewed the proposal and found the existing level of municipal service will remain the same. The applicant was encouraged to meet with the Sewer District, Water District, and the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority to determine ownership and responsibilities for sewage disposal, and water supply (and quality). No changes are proposed or anticipated to Solid Waste Disposal, Stormwater Management in accordance with Section and 4.5.4, respectively. The CDP anticipates additional development at the subject parcel. Staff note redeveloped impervious area (re: additional parking or vehicle traffic circulation) and disturbed area may require stormwater treatment at the time of review. The Board finds that the provisions of Section are satisfied. 4.7 Residential Recreation Requirements The proposed development is not required to pay recreational impact fees for existing residential development. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.6 is not applicable. 3

71 4.8 Circulation and Access No changes are proposed to circulation and access. The SRC reviewed the existing layout and found no cause for additional review. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.8 are satisfied. 4.9 Parking and Loading No changes are proposed to parking area; and loading is not applicable. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.9 are satisfied Lighting The proposed development contains existing street lighting. The staff recommend any lighting approved in the CDP for new development be used for replacement activities within the subdivision. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.10 are satisfied Architectural Compatibility No new development is proposed. Therefore, architectural compatability standards are not applicable. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.11 are not applicable Neighborhood Protection Standards No new development is proposed. Therefore, neighborhood protection standards are not applicable. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.12 are not applicable Signs No signs are proposed at this time. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.13 are not applicable Performance Standards The proposed development is existing residential dwellings and no exceedance in 4.14 standards is anticipated. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.14 are satisfied Site Feature Maintenance The proposed development contains existing site features such as landscaping and outdoor lighting. The staff recommend all site features are maintained in their existing state or updated in accordance with the CDP. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.15 are satisfied Financial and Technical Capacity The applicant owns the subject parcel and no further development is proposed as a result of the subdivision. The applicant sufficiently demonstrates adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the standards of the proposed development. The Board finds that the provisions of Section are satisfied. 4

72 4.17 Administrative Adjustments / Alternative Equivalent Compliance No administrative adjustment is proposed by the applicant at this time. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 4.17 are not applicable. DRAFT MOTIONS CASE # Motion 2: Motion 3: That the requested waiver for profiles and curve radii of existing streets, and for locating trees over 10 inches is approved. That the Final Plan is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification shall require a review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. 2. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Subdivision Plan shall be revised to show the Shoreland Protection Overlay (SPO) and comply with Brunswick s SPO standards listed in Table F.(1), and the 20% unvegetated lot area limit within the SPO as conditioned by the Maine DEP. 3. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide net site area calculations for each parcel. 5

73 FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION BRUNSWICK LANDING VENTURE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP 40, LOT 12 & 34 BRUNSWICK LANDING BRUNSWICK, MAINE Prepared For BRUNSWICK LANDING VENTURE, LLC 74 Neptune Drive Brunswick, Maine Prepared By SITELINES P.A. 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, Maine September 12, 2017

74 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Table of Contents Cover Letter Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Application Form & Checklists Right, Title, and Interest Abutting Property Owners Photographs Supporting Documents Supporting Graphics Wetlands Subdivision Plan

75 September 12, Jared Woolston, Town Planner Town of Brunswick 85 Union Street Brunswick, Maine Re: Major Development Review Final Plan Application BRUNSWICK LANDING VENTURE SUBDIVISION BRUNSWICK, MAINE Tax Map 40, Lot 12 & 34 Dear Jared: On behalf of Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC, Sitelines, PA is pleased to submit the enclosed Sketch and Final Subdivision Application and supporting materials for the development of a residential subdivision located in Brunswick Landing. The project was previously presented to the Planning Board as a Workshop in August This application is intended to establish new parcel boundaries only, there is no new construction proposed. Concurrent with this application is a submission for a Common Development Plan, which is submitted under separate cover. PROPERTY Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC owns a parcel of land (Tax Map 40, Lot 12 & 34) that encompasses most of the housing located at Brunswick Landing. The parcels contain a total of acres and are currently developed and comprised of 1- or 2-family and multitenant housing units. The property is in the Growth Residential 1 (GR1) Zoning district, in which residential dwellings, 1- or 2-family and multifamily are Permitted Uses and has a maximum density of 8 units per acre. SUBDIVISION LAYOUT The proposed subdivision consists of eleven (12) residential lots for 1- or 2-family and multitenant housing. Seven (8) of the proposed lots contain existing single and multi-family housing. The proposed lots will have access from the existing road system. See table at end of this letter. The lots are served by private water distribution and wastewater disposal systems owned and operated by Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA). These private water and wastewater systems are served by the Brunswick-Topsham Water District and the Brunswick Sewer District, respectively. The current application does not propose any new construction and no changes in the demand to either utility district is anticipated. SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine

76 Final Subdivision Application Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision 09/12/2017 Page 2 Wetlands and watercourses were identified and mapped by Tim Forrester of Atlantic Environmental, LLC in August Based on the specifics of the project, the Applicant will request waivers for the following application items: Class A Soil Survey. The project is located on soils suitable for the proposed use. There have been extensive test pits for the private subsurface disposal systems and a soils survey is not necessary. As part of the previously proposed subdivision, a Class B Soil Survey was performed and that analysis is included within this submission. Profile, cross-section dimensions, curve radii of existing streets. No changes are proposed to existing streets. Location of Existing Trees. There is no development propose that any of the lots at this time. It would be impractical and burdensome to locate all tress greater than 10. Clearing of the individual lots will be subject to planning board review at such time as projects identified. Review Standards The applicant does not propose any construction activity concurrent with this application. To facilitate your review of our proposal, the following issues are summarized in accordance with CHAPTER 4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the Ordinance. 4.1 APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The proposed development is in compliance with the standards set forth in Chapter 4 Property Development Standards 4.2 DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY STANDARDS The proposed development is in the Growth Residential 1 (GR1) Zoning district and complies with the Dimensional and Density Standards for Growth Area Zoning Districts. The Rural Area Dimensional and Density Standards to not apply. The parcels being established have unique encumbrances with regard to easements and/or wetlands. Net Site Area will be determined for each parcel as submissions are made. The project is neither an Open Space Development nor an Affordable Housing Development; bonus development density does not apply. The development is not in the Shoreland Protection Overlay District. 4.3 NATURAL AND HISTORIC AREAS There are no existing features on the site that would be considered of natural, scenic, or historic character to the Town. The subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution. No clearing or removal of vegetation is proposed with this application. There are no known areas for significant plant or animal habitat. There are no steep slopes or embankments greater than 25%, as defined by the ordinance, located on the property. The project will be serviced by public sewer and water. The SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine

77 Final Subdivision Application Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision 09/12/2017 Page 3 site is not located within an Aquifer Protection Zone. There are no adverse impacts to groundwater anticipated from this development. There are no structures that are identified by the Village Review Zone as Contributing Resources. The subdivision will have no undue adverse effect on any historic or archeological resource. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures will be included with future projects that will be reviewed by the Planning Department staff and by the Planning Board. Wetlands have been delineated for determination of net area calculations. No development is proposed and no wetland impacts will occur. 4.4 FLOOD HAZARD AREAS The development is not in the Flood Protection Overlay (FPO) District. The project area is in Zone C (Areas of Minimal Flooding) of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Cumberland County, Maine. The project area is located on Panel 15 of 35 (Community Panel B, Effective June 3, 1986). An excerpt of the applicable FIRM is enclosed. 4.5 BASIC AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES The proposed subdivision will be serviced by water and sewer systems owned and operated by MRRA. The water system includes fire hydrants for fire suppression. Sewage is ultimately treated by the Brunswick Sewer District, which will issue a letter certifying its ability to accept additional sewage as future projects identified. The Brunswick Topsham Water District supplies water to the entire Brunswick Landing area, and will issue a letter certifying its ability to accept additional demand as projects are identified. Solid Waste Disposal and impact fees will be calculated as future housing is planned and permitted. There are no changes planned to the stormwater management system in-place for the existing housing. As new housing is submitted for approval, a stormwater management plan will be prepared for review and approval. 4.6 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The existing housing areas have landscaping for each unit. There are playgrounds and open areas with mature trees in the existing housing areas. Wooded areas separate the current housing areas from each other and adjacent developments. Landscape maintenance will be managed by Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC, which has already assumed the responsibility from Affordable Mid-Coast Housing. 4.7 RESIDENTIAL RECREATION REQUIREMENTS There are playgrounds and trails available to residents of the existing housing, including close proximity to the Brunswick recreational facilities. Recreational requirements for future housing will be assessed when project are submitted for review. 4.8 CIRCULATION AND ACCESS There are no new roads proposed with this application. The existing housing is adequately accessed by the private roads constructed with the housing. The developable lots will be accessed from existing roads. If improvements to the roads are needed/warranted to accommodate new SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine

78 Final Subdivision Application Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision 09/12/2017 Page 4 development, those requirements will be identified and addressed in future submissions. There is no shoreline within the project area. Pedestrian access is ample with sidewalks throughout the housing area. Bicycle access is available from nearby public roads, and within the development is safe due to the low volumes of traffic. 4.9 PARKING AND LOADING Parking for the existing and future housing is provided by attached garages, driveways, and occasional on-street parking. Future houses are anticipated to have 2-car garages and driveways that will continue to provide adequate parking. Other standards in this section are applicable to commercial projects LIGHTING The private roads have street lights in place and many of the units have individual lights. No new lighting is proposed at this time ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY There are no new buildings being proposed NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION STANDARDS There are no new buildings being proposed SIGNS There are no signs proposed PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The intended use for the developable lots is multi-family housing, which does not generate level of noise, smoke and particulate matter, dust, fumes, odors, or vibrations that warrant corrective measures. As a residential subdivision, parking of unlicensed vehicles and watercraft are managed by the home owners. It is the intent of Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC to establish home owners documents for the housing areas to regulate the parking and storage of vehicles SITE MAINTENANCE Site maintenance will be managed by Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC, which has already assumed responsibility from Affordable Mid-Coast Housing FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL CAPACITY Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC, owns the parcels and building located thereon. There is no construction proposed that would necessitate a performance guarantee ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS / ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE The subdivision has been designed in accordance with the Town of Brunswick Zoning Ordinance to the greatest extend possible. No Administrative Adjustments are requested. SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine

79 Final Subdivision Application Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision 09/12/2017 Page 5 We look forward to meeting with you and the Planning Board at their October 3, 2017 meeting to review the project and gain their approval. We appreciate your assistance with this project. Should you have any questions, please call or contact me via cneufeld@sitelinespa.com. Very truly yours, Curtis Y. Neufeld, P.E. Vice President Enclosures cc: Chris Rhoades, Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC Jim Howard, Priority Real Estate Group, LLC SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine

80 Final Subdivision Application Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision 09/12/2017 Page 6 Summary of Lots Lot # Name Abbr. Use Area (s.f.) (acres) 1 Developable Lot 1 DL 1 Undeveloped Mariner Landing ML Dwellings, multifamily Brunswick Gardens 1 BG 1 Dwellings, multifamily Brunswick Gardens 2 BG 2 Dwellings, multifamily Developable Lot 2 DL 2 Undeveloped Midway Terrace MT Dwellings, multifamily Castine Drive CD Dwellings, 1 or 2 family Developable Lot 3 DL 3 Undeveloped Developable Lot 4 DL 4 Undeveloped Woodland Village WV Dwellings, multifamily Station Quarters 1 SQ 1 Dwellings, 1 or 2 family Station Quarters 2 SQ 2 Dwellings, 1 or 2 family Site Area SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine

81 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment A Application Form & Checklists A completed copy of the Major Development Review Final Application Form is enclosed.

82 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1. Development Review application type (refer to Appendix D): Minor Development Review Major Development Review: Sketch Plan Major Development Review: Final Plan Major Development Review: Streamlined Final Plan Brunswick Landing Venture Subdivision 2. Project Name: 3. Project Applicant Name: Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC Address: 74 Neptune Drive Brunswick, ME Phone Number: Chris Rhoades 4. Project Owner (if different than applicant) Name: Same Address: Phone Number: 5. Authorized Representative Name: Sitelines PA Attn: Curtis Neufeld, PE Address: 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME Phone Number: cneufeld@sitelinespa.com 6. List of Design Consultants. Indicate the registration number, address and phone number, for any additional project engineers, surveyors, architects, landscape architects or planners: Sitelines PA Physical location of property: Between Admiral Fitch Ave. & Gurnet Road 8. Lot Size: 12: ac 34: 5.08 ac 9. Zoning District: Growth Residential 1 (GR1)

83

84 REQUIREMENTS FOR SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan General Survey, Topography, & Existing Conditions Proposed Development Plan Application form and fee Name of development Existing zoning district and overlay designations Location map Location of features, natural and artificial, such as water bodies, wetlands, streams, important habitats, vegetation, railroads, ditches and buildings Documentation of Right, Title and Interest Draft performance guarantee or conditional agreement Scale, date, north point, and area Existing easements associated with the development Existing locations of sidewalks Approximate locations of dedicated public open space, areas protected by conservation easements and recreation areas When applicable, a table indicating the maximum number of lots permitted based upon the applicable dimensional requirements, the number of lots proposed, and the number of lots permitted to be further subdivided. Building envelopes showing acceptable locations for principal and accessory structures, setbacks and impervious coverage Number of lots if a subdivision

85 REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN, STREAMLINED REVIEW & MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Final Plan Streamlined Minor General Survey, Topography, & Existing Conditions Survey, Topography, & Existing Conditions Application form and fee Name of development Existing zoning district and overlay designations Location map Names of current owner(s) of subject parcel and abutting parcels Names of engineer and surveyor; and professional registration numbers of those who prepared the plan Location of features, natural and artificial, such as water bodies, wetlands, streams, important habitats, vegetation, railroads, ditches and buildings Documentation of Right, Title and Interest Drafts of legal documents appropriate to the application, including: deeds, easements, conservation easements, deed restrictions or covenants, home/property owners association declarations and by laws, and such other agreements or documents as are necessary to show the manner in which common areas will be owned, maintained, and protected Draft performance guarantee or conditional agreement Scale, date, north point, and area A survey submitted (stamped for final plan submittal) by a professional surveyor with a current license by the State of Maine Board of Licensure for Professional Surveyors Boundaries of all lots and tracts with accurate distances and bearings, locations of all permanent monuments property identified as existing or proposed Existing easements associated with the development Location of existing utilities; water, sewer, electrical lines, and profiles of underground facilities Existing location, size, profile and cross section of sanitary sewers; description, plan and location of other means of sewage disposal with evidence of soil suitability Topography with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet A Medium Intensity Soil Survey, available from the Cumberland County Soil and water Conservation District,. The Planning Board may require a Class A (high intensity) Soil Survey, prepared in accordance with the standards of the Maine Association of Professional Soil Scientists, if issues of water quality, wetlands or other natural constraints are noted. Existing locations of sidewalks A delineation of wetlands, floodplains, important habitats, and other environmentally sensitive areas Approximate locations of dedicated public open space, areas protected by conservation easements and recreation areas

86 REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN, STREAMLINED REVIEW & MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Final Plan Streamlined Minor Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Proposed Proposed Development Plan Name, location, width of paving and rights of way, profile, cross section dimensions, curve radii of existing and proposed streets; profiles of center lines of proposed streets, at a horizontal scale of one (1) inch = 50 feet and vertical scale of one (1) = five (5) feet, with all evaluations referred to in U.S.G.S. datum Proposed easements associated with the development Kind, location, profile and cross section of all proposed drainage facilities, both within and connections to the proposed development, and a storm water management plan in accordance with Section Location of proposed utilities; water, sewer, electrical lines, and profiles of underground facilities. Tentative locations of private wells. Proposed location, size, profile and cross section of sanitary sewers; description, plan and location of other means of sewage disposal with evidence of soil suitability Proposed locations, widths and profiles of sidewalks Locations and dimensions of proposed vehicular and bicycle parking areas, including proposed shared parking arrangement if applicable. Grading, erosion control, and landscaping plan; proposed finished grades, slopes, swells, and ground cover or other means of stabilization Storm water management plan for the proposed project prepared by a professional engineer The size and proposed location of water supply and sewage disposal systems Where a septic system is to be used, evidence of soil suitability A statement from the General Manager of the Brunswick Sewer District as to conditions under which the Sewer District will provide public sewer and approval of the proposed sanitary sewer infrastructure A statement from the Fire Chief recommending the number, size and location of hydrants, available pressure levels, road layout and street and project name, and any other fire protection measures to be taken A statement from the General Manager of the Brunswick and Topsham Water District as to conditions under which public water will be provided and approval of the proposed water distribution infrastructure Lighting plan showing details of all proposed lighting and the location of that lighting in relation to the site Reference to special conditions stipulated by the Review Authority Proposed ownership and approximate location and dimensions of open spaces for conservation and recreation. Dedicated public open specs, areas protected by conservation easements, and existing and proposed open spaces or recreation areas and potential connectivity to adjoining open space. When applicable, a table indicating the maximum number of lots permitted based upon the applicable dimensional requirements, the number of lots proposed, and the number of lots permitted to be further subdivided. Building envelopes showing acceptable locations for principal and accessory structures, setbacks and impervious coverage

87 REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN, STREAMLINED REVIEW & MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Final Plan Streamlined Minor Proposed Development Plan Disclosure of any required permits or, if a permit has already been granted, a copy of that permit A statement from the General Manager of the Brunswick and Topsham Water District regarding the proposed development if located within an Aquifer Protection Zone A plan of all new construction, expansion and/or redevelopment of existing facilities, including type, size, footprint, floor layout, setback, elevation of first floor slab, storage and loading areas An elevation view of all sides of each building proposed indicating height, color, bulk, surface treatment, signage and other features as may be required by specific design standards A circulation plan describing all pedestrian and vehicle traffic flow on surrounding road systems A site landscaping plan indicating grade change, vegetation to be preserved, new plantings used to stabilize areas of cut and fill, screening, the size, locations and purpose and type of vegetation Number of lots if a subdivision A plan showing all ten (10) inch caliper trees to be removed as a result of the development proposal All applicable materials necessary for the Review Authority to review the proposal in accordance with the criteria of Chapter 5. Any additional studies required by the Review Authority

88 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment B Right, Title, and Interest A copy of the current deed is included with this attachment.

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment C Abutting Property Owners A list of abutting property owners is included in this attachment for reference.

119 126 September 12, 2017 ABUTTERS MAP Brunswick, ME 1 inch = 1000 Feet A 6A 6B 6C 9A 11 12A A B A A A A Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT 27P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, 80 NGCC, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community A Other Road ROW Property Access Private Road Public Road ROW Property Access Parcels_Lines ROW Water Parcels_Lines Hydrography Line Water Private Road Other Road Public Road Buildings ROW Data shown on this map is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this map.

120 200 foot Abutters List Report Brunswick, ME September 12, 2017 Subject Properties: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ANTIETAM ST Mailing Address:, Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: MARINERS LANDING Mailing Address:, Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME /12/ Data shown on this report is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this report. Page 1 of 5 Abutters List Report - Brunswick, ME

121 200 foot Abutters List Report Brunswick, ME September 12, 2017 Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: INTREPID CIR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: BRUNSWICK GARDENS Mailing Address:, Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CASTINE DR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CASTINE DR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CASTINE DR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME /12/ Data shown on this report is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this report. Page 2 of 5 Abutters List Report - Brunswick, ME

122 200 foot Abutters List Report Brunswick, ME September 12, 2017 Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: NEPTUNE DR Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ANTIETAM ST Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CAPTAINS WAY Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CAPTAINS WAY Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME Abutters: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ADMIRAL FITCH AVE ADMIRAL FITCH AVE ADMIRAL FITCH AVE ALLAGASH DR GURNET RD Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: MIDCOAST REG REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 15 TERMINAL RD SUITE 200 BRUNSWICK, ME MIDCOAST REG REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 15 TERMINAL RD SUITE 200 BRUNSWICK, ME PRIORITY ONE CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC 2 MAIN ST TOPSHAM, ME MIDCOAST REG REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 15 TERMINAL RD SUITE 200 BRUNSWICK, ME BRUNSWICK, TOWN OF 85 UNION ST BRUNSWICK, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ADMIRAL FITCH AVE Mailing Address: PRIORITY HOUSING LLC 2 MAIN ST TOPSHAM, ME /12/ Data shown on this report is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this report. Page 3 of 5 Abutters List Report - Brunswick, ME

123 200 foot Abutters List Report Brunswick, ME September 12, 2017 Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ADMIRAL FITCH AVE Mailing Address: PINE TREE LAND HOLDING CO LLC 71 THIRD AVE BURLINGTON, MA Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ADMIRAL FITCH AVE Mailing Address: PRIORITY REAL ESTATE GROUP LLC 2 MAIN ST TOPSHAM, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: LEAVITT DR Mailing Address: CARDENTE, DOUGLAS T & LINDA A JT 322 FORE ST 3RD FLOOR PORTLAND, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: ANCHOR DR ADMIRAL FITCH AVE ADMIRAL FITCH AVE FORRESTAL DR FORRESTAL DR NEPTUNE DR Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: MIDCOAST REG REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 15 TERMINAL RD SUITE 200 BRUNSWICK, ME MIDCOAST REG REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 15 TERMINAL RD SUITE 200 BRUNSWICK, ME MIDCOAST REG REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 15 TERMINAL RD SUITE 200 BRUNSWICK, ME AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME NEPTUNE DRIVE LLC 11 BANK ST BRUNSWICK, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: NEPTUNE DR ANCHOR DR ADMIRAL FITCH AVE Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME AFFORDABLE MIDCOAST HOUSING LLC PO BOX 9340 AUBURN, ME AVITA BRUNSWICK LLC 71 THIRD AVE BURLINGTON, MA /12/ Data shown on this report is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this report. Page 4 of 5 Abutters List Report - Brunswick, ME

124 200 foot Abutters List Report Brunswick, ME September 12, 2017 Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: MEADOW RD Mailing Address: DODGE, WILLIAM S TRUSTEE 9011 MIDNIGHT PASS RD APT 231 SARASOTA, FL Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: GURNET RD Mailing Address: GIRI BRUNSWICK LLC 71 GURNET RD BRUNSWICK, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: GURNET RD Mailing Address: MAINE GRAVEL SERVICES INC 11 HARPSWELL ISLANDS RD HARPSWELL, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: GURNET RD Mailing Address: GAGNE, LEONCE A PO BOX 217 TOPSHAM, ME Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: GURNET RD Mailing Address: THREE-C SAC SELF STORAGE LP 1250 EAST MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX, AZ Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: GURNET RD Mailing Address: NO NE TELEPHONE OPERATIONS LLC ATTN: ROY DRUKKER 770 ELM ST MANCHESTER, NH Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CC1-31 CC GURNET RD Mailing Address: BRUNSWICK MZL LLC 80 HAYDEN AVENUE LEXINGTON, MA Parcel Number: CAMA Number: Property Address: CC1-41 CC GURNET RD Mailing Address: W G LLC PO BX 1534 WATERVILLE, ME /12/ Data shown on this report is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this report. Page 5 of 5 Abutters List Report - Brunswick, ME

125 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment D Photographs Photographs of the existing conditions of the project site are enclosed.

126 Brunswick Landing Ventures Subdivision Current Conditions Photographs Page 1 of 5 Photograph 1: Looking South on Neptune Drive Photograph 2: Looking North at Neptune Drive / Forrestal Avenue Photograph 3" Looking East on Forrestal from Neptune Drive Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

127 Brunswick Landing Ventures Subdivision Current Conditions Photographs Page 2 of 5 Photograph 4: Single-Family House at Neptune & Forrestal Photograph 5: Open space and playground off Neptune looking toward Starflower (Woodland Village) Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

128 Brunswick Landing Ventures Subdivision Current Conditions Photographs Page 3 of 5 Photograph 6: Typical housing in Mariner Landing (Forrestal Drive) Photograph 7: Looking West on Forrestal Drive (Mariner Landing) Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

129 Brunswick Landing Ventures Subdivision Current Conditions Photographs Page 4 of 5 Photograph 8: Intersection of Hornet St. and Forrestal Drive (Mariner Landing) Photograph 9: Woodland Village Housing Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

130 Brunswick Landing Ventures Subdivision Current Conditions Photographs Page 5 of 5 Photograph 10: Woodland Village Housing Photograph 11: Brunswick Gardens Housing at end of Intrepid. Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

131 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment E Supporting Documents Copies of relevant correspondence and documents pertaining to the project are enclosed.

132

133 State of Maine Department of the Secretary of State I, the Secretary of State of Maine, certify that according to the provisions of the Constitution and Laws of the State of Maine, the Department of the Secretary of State is the legal custodian of the Great Seal of the State of Maine which is hereunto affixed and that the paper to which this is attached is a true copy from the records of this Department. In testimony whereof, I have caused the Great Seal of the State of Maine to be hereunto affixed. Given under my hand at Augusta, Maine, this sixteenth day of August Additional Addresses Legal Name Title Name Charter # Status BRUNSWICK LANDING VENTURE, LLC Registered Agent FC GOOD STANDING Home Office Address (of foreign entity ) Other Mailing Address 3100 MCKINNON STREET SUITE 250 DALLAS, TX Authentication: Wed Aug :13:19

134 Curtis Neufeld From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Daniels, Stephen Tuesday, September 12, :26 AM Curtis Neufeld; 'Chris Rhoades' 'Andrew Preston'; Thompson, Gregory J.; RE: Brunswick Landing Ventures/ CMP meeting CDP Concept-CMP.PDF Chris & Curtis Our preliminary engineering review shows that we do presently have the capacity to service your proposed housing units marked on the attached as your highest priority and those shown along the former Navy camping area. This capacity is based on the typical loads associated with the present housing served in this area. Actual loads will be needs for a final determination of capacity availability. Thanks for the opportunity to serve you and please keep us informed as you proceed with your project. Steve Stephen G. Daniels, CEM Manager, Sales 205 Center Road, Fairfield, ME Office Cell Fax stephen.daniels@cmpco.com In the interest of the environment, please print only if necessary and recycle. From: Curtis Neufeld [mailto:cneufeld@sitelinespa.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, :41 PM To: Daniels, Stephen; 'Chris Rhoades' Cc: 'Andrew Preston'; Thompson, Gregory J.; stevel@mrra.us; tomb@mrra.us; Ripley, Marshall L Subject: RE: Brunswick Landing Ventures/ CMP meeting 1

135 Hello, Attached is a plan per our discussion. Curtis Y. Neufeld Vice President Sitelines PA 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME (fax) (207) (207) x18 From: Daniels, Stephen [mailto:stephen.daniels@cmpco.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, :26 PM To: Chris Rhoades <crhoades@heliossvcs.com> Cc: Curtis Neufeld <cneufeld@sitelinespa.com>; Andrew Preston <apreston@heliossvcs.com>; Thompson, Gregory J. <gregory.thompson@avangrid.com>; stevel@mrra.us; tomb@mrra.us; Ripley, Marshall L <Marshall.Ripley@cmpco.com> Subject: RE: Brunswick Landing Ventures/ CMP meeting Hi Chris, Thanks for meeting with us and providing an overview of your plans. I need to point out that there would be a substantial financial investment required on your part to update the existing housing units served by MRRA before CMP could provide service to these units. This would include but not be limited to installing individual meter enclosures (the metal box the meter goes into) for each unit that does not presently have one. CMP would provide the meter itself but you would need to provide all the materials and work to install the enclosures. Additionally any other electrical infrastructure (poles, wires, etc.) that does not meet present CMP standards would need to be changed at your expense. As I said at our meeting, the Navy built things to meet their requirements but those are different than CMPs. I ve spoken to our Distribution Engineer, given him the diagrams you provided (he would also like them electronically) and briefed him on your proposal. He will take a look at what would be needed to serve the various priorities you listed if our doing so is approved by MRRA. This is their service area and we can t provide any service into their area without their written permission. Thanks again and we look forward to working with you on this project. Steve 2

136 Stephen G. Daniels, CEM Manager, Sales 205 Center Road, Fairfield, ME Office Cell Fax In the interest of the environment, please print only if necessary and recycle. From: Chris Rhoades Sent: Friday, July 28, :43 AM To: Daniels, Stephen Cc: Curtis Neufeld; Andrew Preston; Thompson, Gregory J.; Subject: Re: Brunswick Landing Ventures/ CMP meeting Steve, Thank you for the meeting today with Central Maine Power (CMP). As we discussed, currently we receive services in Brunswick from CMP at our Mariners Landing (126 units) and Brunswick Gardens (44 units) neighborhoods. MRRA services our Woodland Villages (94 units), Midway Terrace (62 units) and Station Quarters (8 units) neighborhoods. When we met with Steve Levesque and Tom Brusker of MRRA a couple of weeks ago, they suggested that we talk to you about CMP taking over all of our units, and taking on the new development units. You said that you need MRRA s approval before analyzing if this is something that you would consider. Steve and Tom are copied, so they can provide that approval to you via an reply. As discussed today, our interest is in you taking over the units that MRRA services, instilling individual meters to each unit, and letting us know if there is enough capacity to take on the new development units that we plan on building. Our goal is to achieve this service at no cost to us. I have attached a concept plan for the planned new units (concept plan only), and our first priority would be to develop two and four unit townhouse on Intrepid Street, and then later it develop Neptune Drive and Anchor Drive. Later, we may get to the other areas on the below map that are in Green. We believe we can build approximately units on Intrepid and Anchor. You said that you are confident that you have sufficient capacity to service the new units, but we wanted to make sure. You said that you cannot overlap with MRRA, so we understand that you would have to take over their infrastructure in order to service the units that MRRA is servicing. As a note, we are not unhappy with MRRA, they are a great partner. We simply wish to consolidate our electric utilities with one partner, and your installation of individual meters is also a benefit. Please keep us informed of this outcome. We also discussed our planned development in Topsham where you currently service our 73 units, and where we intend to develop another 100 units. Again, you felt that you have sufficient capacity to service that proposed development, but we wanted to confirm that as well. 3

137 I have copied our engineer, Curt Neufeld, who attended the meeting with us today. He may have follow up questions. Thank you again for meeting us today, and we look forward to this partnership (see below map). Chris Rhoades > On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Daniels, Stephen wrote: > > Thanks Chris, I'm looking forward to meeting you all and discussing the project. > See you next Friday 7/28 at 10 am at CMP's office at 280 Bath Road in Brunswick. > > Steve > > > Stephen G. Daniels, CEM > Manager, Sales > 205 Center Road, Fairfield, ME > Office > Cell > Fax > > > > > In the interest of the environment, > please print only if necessary and recycle. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Rhoades > Sent: Thursday, July 20, :50 PM > To: Daniels, Stephen > Cc: Curtis Neufeld; Andrew Preston > Subject: Brunswick Landing Ventures/ CMP meeting > > Hi Steve, > This is to confirm our meeting for next Friday, July 28 at 10am at your office at 280 Bath Road. We would like to discuss two topics: > 1) Taking over the electricity service from MRRA for the neighborhoods that we own consisting of: Brunswick Gardens (44 units), Midway Terrace (62 units), Station Quarters (8 units) and Woodland Village (94 units) > 2) Discuss our development plans for Brunswick and Topsham > > We will have our engineer, Curt Neufeld, from Sitelines. Look forward to seeing you then, 4

138 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment F Supporting Graphics This attachment includes supporting materials and graphics for the application. This includes an excerpt of the FEMA flood rate insurance map (FIRM) and reduced size copies of the zoning map and tax maps. An excerpt of the applicable USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map is provided for reference.

139 SITELINES ENGINEERS SURVEYORS

140

141 69 55' 20'' W Soil Map Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine (Brunswick Landing Housing Soils) 69 54' 32'' W ' 19'' N 43 54' 19'' N 43 53' 33'' N Soil Map may not be valid at this scale ' 33'' N ' 20'' W N Map Scale: 1:6,880 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS ' 32'' W Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/4/2017 Page 1 of 3

142 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Soil Map Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine (Brunswick Landing Housing Soils) Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 15, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009 Oct 13, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/4/2017 Page 2 of 3

143 Soil Map Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine Brunswick Landing Housing Soils Map Unit Legend Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine (ME005) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Au Au Gres loamy sand % DeB Deerfield loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes % Wa Walpole fine sandy loam % WmB Windsor loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes % Totals for Area of Interest % Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/4/2017 Page 3 of 3

144 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment G Wetlands A copy of the wetlands report for the parcel from Stantec has been enclosed for your reference.

145 135 River Road Woolwich, ME August 31, 2017 Ms. Melissa Archbell, PE Sitelines, PA 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME Re: Project Number # Wetland Delineation, Brunswick Landing, Map 40, Portion of Lot 12 in Brunswick, Maine. Dear Ms. Archbell, At your request, Atlantic Environmental, LLC. (AE) completed a Wetland Delineation of a identified as DL-2 on the plan sheet titled, Schematic Subdivision Plan Brunswick Landing Housing. The wetland delineation was performed on August 8, 2017 with a follow-up visit on August 25, 2017 and August 29, 2017 and was done in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Regions (Version 2.0). All wetlands were flagged with pink, numbered flagging and located with GPS (Global Positioning System) by AE staff on the dates of the delineation. Three wetland areas were identified and are labeled as Wetland One (W1), Wetland Two (W2), and Wetland Three (W3). Site Description The project area is located along Neptune Drive and to the rear of the Brunswick Garden subdivision in the Town of Brunswick, Maine. The project area is primarily undeveloped; there is a drainage ditch that extends from a culvert off Neptune Drive and extends within a portion of the project area. The on-site topography is a relatively flat area that contains wooded uplands and forested wetlands. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Cumberland County and Part of Oxford County, Maine, there is one (1) soil type mapped within the project area - Windsor Loamy Sand (WmB), an excessively drained soil type. Description of Wetlands Wetland One (W1) The canopy layer of W1 is dominated by Red Maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer is dominated by the same species in addition to Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and Narrowleaf Cattails (Typha angustifolia). The herbaceous layer includes Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Sedges (Carex spp.). The adjacent uplands are dominated by White pine (Pinus strobus), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and Raspberry (Rubus idaeus). Soils within the wetland were identified as hydric within the upper ten (10) Environmental Consultants Wetland Scientists Specializing in Federal, State, and Local Permitting Expert Witness

146 inches of the soil profile with a value or three (3) or less and a chroma of two (2) or less. The primary hydrology indicators include water stained leaves (B9) and saturation (A3). Wetland Two (W2) The canopy layer of W2 is dominated by Red Maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer is dominated by the same species in addition to Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). The herbaceous layer includes Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Sedges (Carex spp.). The adjacent uplands are dominated by White pine (Pinus strobus), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Soils within the wetland were identified as hydric within the upper ten (10) inch soil profile with a value or three (3) or less and a chroma of two (2) or less. The primary hydrology indicators include water stained leaves (B9) and saturation (A3). Wetland Three (W3) The canopy layer of W3 is dominated by Red Maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer is dominated by the same species in addition to Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). The herbaceous layer includes Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Sedges (Carex spp.). The adjacent uplands are dominated by White pine (Pinus strobus), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Soils within the wetland were identified as hydric within the upper ten (10) inch soil profile with a value or three (3) or less and a chroma of two (2) or less. The primary hydrology indicators include water stained leaves (B9) and saturation (A3). STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY REVIEW- All wetlands are regulated by Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Programmatic General Permit (PGP). The DEP also defines specific types of wetlands as Wetlands of Special Significance (WOSS) if they meet the specific criteria of Section 4 of Chapter 310 of the NRPA. Based on AE s assessment of the wetlands, the wetlands do not meet the definition of a WOSS. Under the NRPA, Section 480-Q, wetland impacts less than 4,300 sq. ft. do not require a permit from the DEP. If the proposed project alters more than this amount, AE suggests that impacts to these wetlands and/or the associated buffers should be reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection before any soil disturbance onsite. TOWN OF BRUNSWICK- The Town of Brunswick regulates Freshwater Wetlands as, a freshwater swamp, marsh, bog, or similar area other than a forested wetland which is: A. Of ten or more contiguous acres; or of less than ten contiguous acres and adjacent to a surface water body, excluding any river or stream, such that in a natural state, the combined surface area is in excess of ten acres; and B. Inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and for a duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of wetland vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Freshwater wetlands may contain small stream channels or inclusions of land that do not conform to the criteria of this definition. All three wetlands are forested wetlands less the 10 acres in size and therefore do not meet the Town s definition as a freshwater wetlands; however, AE suggests you contact the Town of Brunswick Planning Department prior to any soil disturbance onsite.

147 Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at or via at Sincerely, Atlantic Environmental LLC. Timothy A. Forrester, Owner PWS #1933 Photograph One. View of drainage ditch that begins at culvert under Neptune Drive. Photographer: Lisa Vickers Atlantic Environmental, LLC. Date: August 8, 2017.

148 Photograph Two. Additional view of drainage ditch that begins at culvert under Neptune Drive. Photographer: Lisa Vickers Atlantic Environmental, LLC. Date: August 8, Photograph Three. View of W1 and dominant vegetation. Photographer: Lisa Vickers Atlantic Environmental, LLC. Date: August 8, 2017.

149 Photograph Four. View of W1 and dominant vegetation. Photographer: Lisa Vickers Atlantic Environmental, LLC. Date: August 8, Photograph Five. View of W2 and dominant vegetation. Photographer: Lisa Vickers Atlantic Environmental, LLC. Date: August 29, 2017.

150 Brunswick Venture Landing Subdivision Major Development Review Application 9/12/2017 Attachment H Subdivision Plan The Subdivision Plan is included in reduced format for review, and full size copies have been provided as a separate plan sets of as required.

151 D) OA UT RO 4 E2 A (AK R ET RN GU SITE AN TA TIE M KA 4 (A R GU TR NE ST RE ET D) OA E2 UT RO LOCATION MAP AN T IET VE AM DR I D) ROA RP RI SE GENERAL NOTES: EN DE NC E DE NC IN DE P ANTIETAM IND EPE N STREET L NA CA AL GU AD CORAL SEA STREET HORNET STREET FORRESTAL DRIVE HORNET STREET E DR IVE DR IV E ST R EE T A (AK EET EN TE 4 TE 2 ROU NET GUR PLAN REFERENCE: STR GUADALCANAL STREET APPROVAL TOWN OF BRUNSWICK PLANNING BOARD T ID FORRESTAL DRIVE AY DW MI EP TR IN E RE ST LE RC CI Y LE AL C INTREPID STREET CHIC BE KADE ER AV E CIR CLE D OA R ND PO OAD FORRESTAL DRIVE CASTINE DRIVE NEPTUNE DRIVE R POND ROAD VE NE A BE DR IV E PT UN E OR DR AN CH IV E ER LOW CIR CLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS: E LAN SUBDIVISION PLAN BRUNSWICK LANDING HOUSING WA Y LUPINE RF STA AI NS CHIPMUN K COURT CIR CL E CA PT E IN SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: CH OR DR IV E P LU AN X:\LAND PROJECTS\3230 HELIOS TOPSHAM DESIGN\DWG\BRUNSWICK - DESIGN\ SUBDIV & CDP.DWG, SUBDIVISION, ----, MELISSA ARCHBELL BEA DR PON VER SITELINES, PA ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PROGRESS PRINT 8 CUMBERLAND STREET, BRUNSWICK, ME FIELD WK: SCALE: 1" = 150' DRN BY: JOB #: CH'D BY: MAP/LOT: 40/12 & 34 DATE: FILE: SUBDIV SHEET: 1 OF 1

152 Project Name: Address: DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT Major Development Review Final Common Development Plan Meeting Date: October 3, 2017 Common Development Plan: Brunswick Venture, LLC NA Case Number: Tax Map: Assessor s Map 40, Lots 12 Zoning: Applicant: Authorized Representative: GR1 Brunswick Venture, LLC c/o Chris Rhoades 74 Neptune Drive Brunswick, ME Curt Neufeld, PE Sitelines, PA 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME Staff reviewed the application and has made a determination of completeness. DRAFT Motion 1: That the Common Development Plan application is deemed complete. PROJECT SUMMARY Staff review is based on the application dated September 12, 2017 and revised on September 19, In accordance with Section H of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has submitted a Common Development Plan (CDP) application for lots at Brunswick Landing. A project narrative and site plans are included with the packet. Several references to Brunswick s 1997 Zoning Ordinance are cited in the application; however, the Findings of Fact are based on the CDP standards applicable to Brunswick s newly adopted Zoning Ordinance effective September 6, The Staff Review Committee reviewed the CDP submission on September 20, The SRC meeting notes have been included in the packet. The following waivers from the Table D.1 Summary of Application Requirements have been requested by the applicant: 1

153 1. Scale 1 = 50 The applicant indicates the scale is not appropriate to show the entire area of the CDP. The applicant provided a plan at 1 = 150 which staff find acceptable. 2. Showing locations of signs The applicant does not propose any signs. The staff finds the requested waiver acceptable. 3. Site plan of lighting treatment The applicant provided lighting specifications for new street lights but prefers to have lighting reviewed at the time of individual project review. The staff finds the requested waiver acceptable. Review Standards from the Town of Brunswick Zoning Ordinance H. Criteria for Designation as a Common Development Plan In reviewing a proposal for a project to be designated as a common development plan, the Planning Board shall find that all of the following criteria will be met: a. The proposed development shall be located within the Town s designated growth area as defined by the Brunswick 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The proposed development is located within the Town s designated growth area as defined by the Brunswick 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that the provisions of Section H.1.a. are satisfied. b. All buildings and structures shall be part of, and consistent with, a common pattern of development. The relationship of the buildings to public and private streets and to parking areas shall result in a unified pattern. As shown on the site plan, the proposed buildings and roads will be part of, and consistent with, a common pattern of development. The site plan depicts parking areas along new streets on the extensions of Neptune Drive that result in a unified pattern. The Board finds that the provisions of Section H.1.b. are satisfied. c. The development shall incorporate private or public amenities that enhance the development s pedestrian friendly environment. During the SRC meeting, the applicant indicated that sidewalks would be provided to extend the existing pedestrian friendly streets. The Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BBPAC) will be consulted for advice at the time of subdivision plan approval for new units and associated roads. The Board finds that the provisions of Section H.1.c. are satisfied. d. There shall be common vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems that create a pedestrian friendly environment for the entire development and that integrate the individual buildings into an overall pattern. As noted above, the applicant indicated that sidewalks would be provided to extend the existing pedestrian friendly streets. The Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BBPAC) will be consulted for advice at the time of subdivision plan approval for new units and associated roads. The Board finds that the provisions of Section H.1.d. are satisfied. 2

154 e. There shall be an overall design theme or treatment of site improvements including lighting, signs, paving, site furniture, and landscaping. The applicant provided a landscaping plan that depicts the general layout and types of plants that would be used around new buildings and within the corridor of new streets. Additionally, the applicant provided specifications for street lights to demonstrate the lighting theme that will be proposed at the time of Final Subdivision Plan approval. Other elements including signs, paving design, and site furniture are not proposed for review at this time. The Board finds that the provisions of Section H.1.e. are satisfied. Designation Approval Process: Dimensional Standards for the Land Use District The established zoning dimensional standards shall comply with Section 4.12 (Neighborhood Protection) and shall not deviate from the applicable zoning district dimensional standards by more than 20 percent. The zoning dimensional standards established for the Common Development Plan designated area shall supersede the dimensional standards for the underlying zoning district. The applicant proposes the to supersede the dimensional standards for the underlying zoning district as depicted on Plan Sheet 1 of 1 prepared by Sitelines, PA entitled Common Development Plan Brunswick Landing Housing and dated September 12, The requested dimensional requirement change results in reducing the GR1 height requirements from two (2) stories or 24 feet to an average of one (1) story or 24 feet to allow some structures below the 24 foot height requirement; and an increase in maximum impervious coverage by 10%. The proposed change results in an increase from 45% coverage to 55% coverage. The SRC reviewed the requested deviation from height limits and lot coverage and found the proposed changes acceptable; however, the site plan must refer to the effecting zoning ordinance rather than the 1997 Zoning Ordinance. The Board finds that the zoning dimensional standards satisfy the provisions of Section H.2 provided the site plan is updated to reference the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards effective September 6, DRAFT MOTIONS COMMON DEVELOPMENT PLAN BRUNSWICK VENTURE, LLC CASE NUMBER: Motion 1: Motion 2: Motion 3: Completeness (above Project Summary ) That the Board waives the following requirements: Scale 1 = 50, locations of signs, and site plan of lighting. That the Major Development Review Final Common Development Plan is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, its representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and 3

155 Development as a minor modification shall require a review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. 2. Prior to Planning Board signature, the site plan shall be revised to reference the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards effective September 6, * Please note that Common Development Plan approvals by the Planning Board shall expire at the end of two years after the date of final approval unless all construction has been completed by that date (Section B of the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance). 4

156 September 12, 2017 Revised September 19, 2017 Mr. Jared Woolston, Town Planner Town of Brunswick 85 Union Street Brunswick, Maine Re: Common Development Plan BRUNSWICK LANDING HOUSING Tax Map 40, Lot 12 Dear Jared: On behalf of Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC, Sitelines, PA is pleased to submit this request for designation of a Common Development Plan (CDP) for undeveloped lots at Brunswick Landing as defined in the applicant s proposed subdivision. To add new housing at Brunswick Landing in an appealing and consistent manner, the applicants are proposing a Common Development Plan as permitted in Section 413 of the Land Use Ordinance. This letter summarizes the plan to facilitate the review process. Description of Development The development will encompass lots within Brunswick Landing are within the Growth Residential (GR1) Zone. The area includes multi-family housing built when Naval Air Station Brunswick was active. These housing areas are identified as Mariner Landing, Brunswick Gardens, Midway Terrace, and Woodland Village. Within these housing areas is undeveloped land that has the potential for in-fill development of similar housing. It is envisioned that primarily 4-unit buildings would be added, with some duplex style units depending on the final layout. Based on discussions with brokers and developers it is evident that single-level housing is in high-demand. With this in mind, a small number of ranch-style units may be included in the mix of housing. The CDP seeks to revise the minimum elevation to state the average height of structures on a parcel be 2-stories or 24- feet, which would allow some flexibility in building styles. The current uses proposed within the CDP area are multi-family residential. Proposed buildings will be oriented to the existing roads, with parking located in garages or driveways in front of the buildings. Building setbacks will be a minimum of 25-feet from the roads to accommodate parking in driveways. Although no maximum setback is proposed along the road frontage, landscape features are planned along the streetscape. SITELINES PA CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 Cumberland Street, Brunswick, Maine www. sitelinespa.com

157 Common Development Plan Application Brunswick Landing Housing September 12, 2017 Revised September 19, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Architecture Buildings will be one to two stories with pitched rooflines having gabled ends and/or dormers. Building siding materials will include traditional New England style construction, including: horizontal clapboards; stone or brick veneer accents; masonry block; and shingle/shakes. These materials may be natural or proprietary such as vinyl or fiber cement. Photographs of the newer housing units in Mariner Landing and Woodland Village are included as examples of the appearance of future units since the intent is to maintain consistency with established neighborhoods. Landscaping Landscaping will focus on the streetscape. This will include street trees along Intrepid and Forrestal Avenue. Selected varietals will focus on low maintenance shade and flowering trees. Shade trees could include ash, linden and maple. Street Trees will be planted between and on either side of driveway, and at intervals between units or along street frontages without units. A schematic plan is enclosed for reference. Ornamental trees could include flowering crab, flowering pear, Japanese tree lilac, tree cranberry, chokecherry Amelanchier varieties and river/heritage birch. Since the location of the trees will be dependent on driveways and building orientation, the final plan will be prepared as projects come forward. Typical location for ornamental trees would be off the corners of buildings or between buildings where a larger canopy tree would not fit well. Evergreen trees will be used at select locations to provide year-round screening between units to provide privacy. Evergreen varieties include Balsam fir, hemlock, red spruce and arborvitae. As the individual dwelling units will be sold as condominiums, the foundation and other accent plants are intended to be left to the home owners selection. If staff feels it is necessary, a list of allowed plants could be prepared for home owners to choose from. Signage There are no signs anticipated for the new housing units. Lighting Street lighting exists on the private roads and no new lighting is proposed. Should the need for supplemental lighting be determined, the fixtures will be LED fixtures with full cut-off design and house shields installed as needed. Proposed fixtures are the Large Viper luminaire by Hubbell Lighting, Inc. or the lighting will match fixtures selected by the Town of Brunswick for the proposed connector road form Admiral Fitch Avenue to Gurnet Road. Any new lighting poles and fixtures are intended to be bronze or black to minimize their appearance. The selected fixtures would also be used to replace any existing lighting, as needed.

158 Common Development Plan Application Brunswick Landing Housing September 12, 2017 Revised September 19, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Common Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities Internally the sites will provide pedestrian connections between buildings and outdoor focal points. Such focal points will include the existing playground areas and adjacent streets. Sidewalks are in place through the area and will be extended to serve new units as they are designed. Requested Waivers to the Zoning Standards The following waivers are requested from the standards of Section 413 and Appendix III: Sec (A) Waiver requested to the maximum scale of 1 =50, as the scale is not appropriate to show the entire area of the Common Development Plan (CDP). Additionally, the proposed CDP standards listed above are general in nature and not site specific. Allowable building envelopes will be shown on parcels that do not include a specific building and development concept. Sec (D) Waiver requested to showing locations of all signs, as no signs are anticipated. Sec (E.2 & 4) Waiver requested to showing site plan of lighting treatment and the mounting height of fixtures, as this can be more appropriately addressed at the time of individual project review. SUMMARY We trust that this information satisfactorily addresses the requirements for the review of the Application of the Brunswick Landing Venture Common Development Plan and we look forward to meeting with you and the Planning Board at their October 26, 2017 meeting to gain their approval. We appreciate your assistance with this project. Should you have any questions, please call or contact me via cneufeld@sitelinespa.com. Very truly yours, Curtis Y. Neufeld, P.E. View President Enclosures cc: Chris Rhoades, Brunswick Landing Venture, LLC Steve Levesque, MRRA

159 Brunswick Landing Ventures Common Development Plan Photographs of existing housing and landscaping that will be emulated for future projects Page 1 of 2 Photograph 1: Sample architecture and street trees at Woodland Village Photograph 2: Sample housing in Mariner Landing (Forrestal Drive) Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

160 Brunswick Landing Ventures Common Development Plan Photographs of existing housing and landscaping that will be emulated for future projects Page 2 of 2 Photograph 3: Sample Housing style and landscaping in Mariner Landing Photograph 4: Sample housing and landscaping at Woodland Village Photographs taken by Sitelines PA, September 2017

161 VIPER L OPTICS LARGE VIPER LUMINAIRE Cat.# Job Type design. performance. technology Approvals SPECIFICATIONS Intended Use: The Beacon Viper luminaire is available in two sizes with a wide choice of different LED wattage configurations and optical distributions designed to replace HID lighting up to 1000W MH or HPS. Luminaires are suitable for wet locations. Construction: Manufactured with die cast aluminum. Coated with a polyester finish that meets ASTM B117 corrosion test requirements and ASTM D522 cracking and loss of adhesion test requirements. External hardware is corrosion resistant. One piece optical cartridge system consisting of an LED engine, LED lamps, optics, gasket and stainless steel bezel. Cartridge is held together with internal brass standoffs soldered to the board so that it can be field replaced as a one piece optical system. Two-piece silicone and microcellular polyurethane foam gasket ensures a weather-proof seal around each individual optic. Electrical: Luminaire accepts 100V through 277V, 50 Hz to 60 Hz (UNV), 347V, or 480V input. Power factor is.90 at full load. Dimming drivers are standard, but must contact factory to request wiring leads for purpose of external dimming controls. Component-to-component wiring within the luminaire may carry no more than 80% of rated load and is certified by UL for use at 600VAC at 90 C or higher. Plug disconnects are certified by UL for use at 600 VAC, 13A or higher. 13A rating applies to primary (AC) side only. Fixture electrical compartment shall contain all LED driver components and shall be provided with a push-button terminal block for AC power connections. Optional 7-pin ANSI C twist-lock photo control receptacle available. Compatible with ANSI C external wireless control devices. Ambient operating temperature -40 C to 40 C Surge protection - 20kA. Lifeshield Circuit - protects luminaire from excessive temperature. The device shall activate at a specific, factory-preset temperature, and progressively reduce power over a finite temperature range. Operation shall be smooth and undetectable to the eye. Thermal circuit is designed to fail on, allowing the luminaire to revert to full power in the event of an interruption of its power supply, or faulty wiring connection to the drivers. The device shall be able to co-exist with other 0-10V control devices (occupancy sensors, external dimmers, etc.). Controls/Options: Available with an optional passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor capable of detecting motion 360 around the luminaire. When no motion is detected for the specified time, the motion response system reduces the wattage to factory preset level, reducing the light level accordingly. When motion is detected by the PIR sensor, the luminaire returns to full wattage and full light output. Please contact Beacon Products if project requirements vary from standard configuration. Available with Energeni for optional set dimming, timed dimming with simple delay, or timed dimming based on time of night (see In addition, Viper can be specified with SiteSync wireless control system for reduction in energy and maintenance costs while optimizing light quality 24/7. For more details, see ordering information or visit: Installation: Mounting options for horizontal arm, vertical tenon or traditional arm mounting available. Mounting hardware included. Finish: IFS polyester powder-coat electrostatically applied and thermocured. IFS finish consists of a five stage pretreatment regimen with a polymer primer sealer and top coated with a thermoset super TGIC polyester powder coat finish. The finish meets the AAMA 2604 performance specification which includes passing a 3000 hour salt spray test for corrosion resistance and resists cracking or loss of adhesion per ASTM D522 and resists surface impacts of up to 160 inch-pounds. Certifications/Ratings: DesignLights Consortium (DLC) qualified, consult DLC website for more details: Certified to UL 1598, UL 8750, and CSA C22.2 3G rated for ANSI C high vibration applications with MAF mounting IDA approved This product is approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Separate spec available at: Warranty: Five year limited warranty for more information visit: PRODUCT IMAGE(S) DIMENSIONS C B MOUNTING OPTIONS Side View /8 Adjustable Knuckle (K) limit to 45 O tilt A A B (741 mm) (614 mm) Side View C (362 mm) D 4.13 (105 mm) Rectangular Arm (A) Accepts 2 3/8 OD tenon, min 4 long. 2-3/8 OD Slip Fitter (MAF) Wall Bracket (WB) D Weight: 25.0 lbs (11.3 kg) Front EPA 1.2 ft 2 Back View Back View x AD Decorative Arm CERTIFICATIONS/LISTINGS *3000K and warmer CCTs only 0.56 design. performance. technology Beacon Products th Avenue Circle East Bradenton, FL Phone: Due to our continued efforts to improve our products, product specifications are subject to change without notice BEACON PRODUCTS, All Rights Reserved For more information visit our website: Printed in USA September 15, :58 AM

162 ORDERING INFORMATION ORDERING EXAMPLE: VPL/96L-280/4K7/4W/UNV/A/DBT/7PR-TL/GENI-04/BC VPL SERIES VPL Viper LED ENGINE 64L W LED array 80L W LED array 80L W LED array 96L W LED array 96L W LED array 96L W LED array 96L W LED array CCT/CRI 7 3K7 3000K, 70 CRI 4K7 4000K, 70 CRI 5K7 5000K, 70 CRI HOUSE SIDE SHIELD ACCESSORIES HSS/EVP-L/90-FB/XXX 90 shield front or back HSS/EVP-L/90-LR/XXX 90 shield left or right HSS/EVP-L/270-FB/XXX 270 shield front or back HSS/EVP-L/270-LR/XXX 270 shield left or right HSS/EVP-L/360/XXX Full shield (Replace XXX with notation for desired finish color) (Refer to page 5 for shield images) DISTRIBUTION FR Type 1/Front Row 2 Type 2 3 Type 3 4 Type 4 4W Type 4 Wide 5QM Type 5QM 5QN Type 5QN 5R Type 5R (rectangular) 5W Type 5W (round wide) MOUNTING ACCESSORIES VPL-AD-RPA Round Pole Adapter for AD arm VPL-AD-RPA Round Pole Adapter for AD arm VPL-AD-RPA Round Pole Adapter for AD arm VPL-AD-RPA Round Pole Adapter for AD arm PRECOMMISSIONED SITESYNC ORDERING INFORMATION: When ordering a fixture with the SiteSync lighting control option, additional information will be required to complete the order. The SiteSync Commissioning Form or alternate schedule information must be completed. This form includes Project location, Group information, and Operating schedules. For more detailed information please visit or contact Hubbell Lighting tech support at (800) SiteSync fixtures with Motion control (SWPM) require the mounting height of the fixture for selection of the lens. L 5 R 5 ROTATION Leave blank for no rotation Optic rotation left Optic rotation right VOLTAGE UNV V V V V V V V MOUNTING A Rectangular Arm (formerly RA) for square or round pole MAF Mast Arm Fitter (formerly SF2) for 2-3/8 OD horizontal arm K Knuckle (formerly PK2) limit to 45 O tilt or 2-3/8 OD horizontal arm or vertical tenon WB Wall Bracket AD Universal Arm for square pole AD3 Universal Arm for round pole AD4 Universal Arm for round pole AD5 Universal Arm for round pole AD6 Universal Arm for round pole Catalog Number SWUSB* SWTAB* SWBRG + SCP-REMOTE COLOR DBT Dark Bronze Textured BMT Black Matte Textured PS Platinum Silver Smooth WHT White Textured CC Custom Color (RAL#) LEFT ROTATED OPTIC CONTROL OPTIONS 7PR 7-Pin Receptacle only (shorting cap, photo control, or wireless control provided by others) 7PR-SC 7-Pin Receptacle w/shorting Cap 7PR-TL 7-Pin Receptacle w/twist Lock photo control SCP/_F 1,2,6 Programmable Occupancy Sensor w/ daylight control ( volts only) WSP/_F 1,2 WASP Occupancy Sensor w/ daylight control (347 or 480 volts only) GENI-XX 3 ENERGENI SWP 1,4 SWPM 1,2,4 Accessories and Services (Ordered Separately) Description SiteSync Pre-Commission SiteSync Pre-Commission w/ Sensor SiteSync loaded on USB flash drive (Windows based only) SiteSync Windows Tablet SiteSync Wireless Bridge Node OPTIONS F Fusing BSP Bird Spikes BC Backlight control (limited to Type 4W only) Remote Control for SCP/_F option. Order at least one per project to program and control * When ordering with SiteSync, one of the interface options must be chosen and ordered separately. Each option contains the SiteSync License, GUI and Bridge Node. + If needed, an additional Bridge Node can be ordered. RIGHT ROTATED OPTIC Examples: VP-L/80L-235/4K7/3/UNV/A/DBT/SWP/ VP-L/80L-235/4K7/3/UNV/A/DBT/SWPM-40F/ SiteSync only SiteSync with Motion Control 1 Not available with other wireless control or sensor options 2 Specify mounting height; 8 = 8 or less, 40 = 9 to 40 3 Specify routine setting code (example GENI-04). See ENERGENI brochure and instructions for setting table and options. Not available with sensor or SiteSync options. 4 Specify group and zone at time of order. See for further details. Order at least one SiteSync interface accessory SWUSB or SWTAB. Each option contains SiteSync License, GUI, and Bridge Node 5 Only available with 1A, 2, 3, 4, 4W and 5R distributions 6 Order at least one SCP-REMOTE per project location to program and control 7 This product is approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Separate spec available at: SiteSync Lighting Control is available from our most popular brands in a broad range of award-winning product families. Hubbell Control Solutions - Accessories (sold separately) Catalog Number Description HCS System NXOFM-1R1D-UNV WIR-RME-L On-fixture Module (7-pin), On / Off / Dim, Daylight Sensor with HubbNET Radio and Bluetooth Radio, VAC On-fixture Module (7-pin or 5-pin), On / Off / Dim, Daylight Sensor with wiscape Radio, VAC NX Distributed Intelligence wiscape Lighting Control For additional information related to these accessories please visit Options provided for use with integrated sensor, please view specification sheet ordering information table for details. design. performance. technology Beacon Products th Avenue Circle East Bradenton, FL Phone: Due to our continued efforts to improve our products, product specifications are subject to change without notice BEACON PRODUCTS, All Rights Reserved For more information visit our website: Printed in USA September 15, :58 AM